Why I Don't Believe In God

On the contrary, it would serve every use.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by usman.khawar

Eye is not always reliable. If you put ur right hand in cold water and left in hot for a while and then put both hands together in normal water what you feel ?

...

About God declared Quran his data I wrote a lot if u guys are serious to understand what I wanted to say kindly read than discuss. Lord blames Jews, Christians etc that they change the words of lord (Budha never said that his writing were from Lord). You can find some moral laws in those but besides those there are lot of contradictions/versions. No book is telling you about any scientific facts with logics. Everybody knows that. If someone due to prejudice is sticky to say that crow is always white then I m not ready to talk with him. I said if anyone find single mistake/error/contradiction from Quran than Quran proved wrong. And God with full confidence said in Quran that He will protect its each word, no one can find a single contradiction from it.


.....



Quran is absolutely different book from other jew’s and Christians one’s which were also from the Lord.

---

How about, instead of putting one hand in hot water, and one hand in cold water, why don't we take one person from one area and immerse his thoughts in the Koran, and another guy from another region, and immerse his thoughts in some different Holy Book, and then have both of them experience the real world. What do we typically see happen then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by usman.khawar

I said if anyone find single mistake/error/contradiction from Quran than Quran proved wrong. And God with full confidence said in Quran that He will protect its each word, no one can find a single contradiction from it.

---

There are contradictions in everything. A simple search of 'contradictions in the Quran' suffices.

Of course, you can probably write ten pages defending one sentence, saying how that sentence does not mean what it says but something else, and so much in this one sentence is beyond the capabilities of my unholy senses. People will believe what they want to regardless. But I think scriptures were written for people, not gods.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by usman.khawar

Orphan, athiest and all ! I would like to read the evidence that how u can see air.

---

What does seeing have to do with it?

If I hold my breath, I find myself struggling to force myself to breathe. When I start to breathe again, I feel fine.

When I went outside before, it was really windy. I could feel the force of the air moving, but I couldn't see it.

I'm pretty comfortable with the idea that air exists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cl154576

There are contradictions in everything. A simple search of 'contradictions in the Quran' suffices.

---

Hmm, but to be fair, if you read any of those pages you'll find that it seems to be harder to find crazy nonsense in the Quran than it is in the contradictory new testament or the unbelievably nonsensical old testament. Maybe Islam IS the better written mythology (religion does seem to depreciate with age and Islam is the newest of the three). I guess maybe I'll give the Quran a perusal.

The Bible was revised many more times than the Quran (not that the Quran wasn't messed with, it was just messed with less often). It wouldn't be too much of a stretch to imagine that the stories would be more consistant if leaders didn't repeatedly hack the Christian bible to pieces. It's not age that makes the Bible repetative and strange (stories that lead nowhere, stories with jumbled events happening several times in different chronological order within the same tale, actions with seemingly no cause whatsoever, ect.). Ovid is just as old and Homer is older and their stories are still structurally sound. It is possible that the Muslim mythology doesn't suck.

I love mythology, and I don't automatically dislike religious texts. I've never met a hardcore religious person who didn't come off as a small minded creep and who I couldn't easily imagine as a serial killer, but that doesn't automatically make their mythology as ugly as they are. The idea of books which are so effective that they've collected followers is intriguing, and maybe I'd find such a book beautiful or particularly insightful/useful. I gave the Bible a shot (I hated it, but I still gave it a shot).

Still, it's hard to get over associating "religious" works with that bad taste that the followers leave in my mouth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by usman.khawar

But I like to say one fact for your consideration. Besides that we just can feel air only and we can see bacteria through fine machines so I have to say that to see God, who is creator of all universes and all living and non living beings, we need refined senses. We cannot see him through these body’s senses which are not reliable as you guys must hear the word illusion. Eye is not always reliable. If you put ur right hand in cold water and left in hot for a while and then put both hands together in normal water what you feel ? this is very simple that to see God we need more refine senses.

---

Assuming "God" is sensible in some way, by what criteria are we able to tell illusion from non-illusion?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by usman.khawar

If we can’t see a thing this is not the proof that thing doesn’t exist.

---

You've also implicated that sensation is not a proof of existence. It appears you've committed yourself to a fairly hard skepticism ... which, to avoid, brings us back to the question of criteria.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by usman.khawar

Lord blames Jews, Christians etc that they change the words of lord (Budha never said that his writing were from Lord). You can find some moral laws in those but besides those there are lot of contradictions/versions. No book is telling you about any scientific facts with logics. Everybody knows that. If someone due to prejudice is sticky to say that crow is always white then I m not ready to talk with him. I said if anyone find single mistake/error/contradiction from Quran than Quran proved wrong.

---

Contradiction is, to a large degree, a matter of interpretation. Moreover, there are two forms of contradiction; formal/ostensible/logical (Hilbertian, I call it) and material (Fregian). The first is simply an assessment of the immediate logical form, while the second requires an analysis of the objects in question, in order to make sure that they don't imply a tacit contradiction. This is where interpretation comes into play. Though, in any case, if something is formally immaculate it won't be by necessity true. An argument in which every inference is valid would not necessarily be sound, nor give true conclusions, if the premises themselves are untrue. In a similar vein, unsound arguments with false premises can render true conclusions through invalid inference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by usman.khawar

There are so many scientific, anthropologist, biologist, cosmologist, etc facts which are proved in this era. How can u justify that fourteen hundred years ago a man with no laboroties/ equipments giving statements with absolute accuracy. Just for example “We made this universe from a big accident (big bang) and we are expanding this universe, everything is moving in its orbit” in single verse God is giving 100% accurate statements/facts with full confidence.

---

I think it depends on standards of proof. But the best (and probably first) test of validity and truth we have -- the principle of sufficient reason -- is one of utility. In short, the reason we think the big bang happened is because the assumptions that lead us to believe it happened are very useful to us. That said, in these fields we don't and cannot have 100% confidence in a strictly theoretical setting -- there never can be when it comes to induction --; for a science will and must change its assumptions in the light of new and good evidence, where religion may not. That science shouldn't/doesn't pretend absolute certainty is perhaps one of the more important defining characteristics that sets it apart from a vast majority of religion today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

Such a "God" is of no use whatsoever then.

---

On the contrary, if we had no way of accepting the absurdity, everything itself would appear absurd and purposeless. To this extent, my God is of every form of "use" possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf

The Bible was revised many more times than the Quran (not that the Quran wasn't messed with, it was just messed with less often). It wouldn't be too much of a stretch to imagine that the stories would be more consistant if leaders didn't repeatedly hack the Christian bible to pieces. It's not age that makes the Bible repetative and strange (stories that lead nowhere, stories with jumbled events happening several times in different chronological order within the same tale, actions with seemingly no cause whatsoever, ect.). Ovid is just as old and Homer is older and their stories are still structurally sound. It is possible that the Muslim mythology doesn't suck.

---

I think the stories in the Bible are fairly consistent. The contradictions tend to be greatly exaggerated, although granted there are some. But it's not really all that hard to follow the Bible as a straight-forward narrative for the most part.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf

Hmm, but to be fair, if you read any of those pages you'll find that it seems to be harder to find crazy nonsense in the Quran than it is in the contradictory new testament or the unbelievably nonsensical old testament. Maybe Islam IS the better written mythology (religion does seem to depreciate with age and Islam is the newest of the three). I guess maybe I'll give the Quran a perusal.

The Bible was revised many more times than the Quran (not that the Quran wasn't messed with, it was just messed with less often). It wouldn't be too much of a stretch to imagine that the stories would be more consistant if leaders didn't repeatedly hack the Christian bible to pieces. It's not age that makes the Bible repetative and strange (stories that lead nowhere, stories with jumbled events happening several times in different chronological order within the same tale, actions with seemingly no cause whatsoever, ect.). Ovid is just as old and Homer is older and their stories are still structurally sound. It is possible that the Muslim mythology doesn't suck.

I love mythology, and I don't automatically dislike religious texts. I've never met a hardcore religious person who didn't come off as a small minded creep and who I couldn't easily imagine as a serial killer, but that doesn't automatically make their mythology as ugly as they are. The idea of books which are so effective that they've collected followers is intriguing, and maybe I'd find such a book beautiful or particularly insightful/useful. I gave the Bible a shot (I hated it, but I still gave it a shot).

Still, it's hard to get over associating "religious" works with that bad taste that the followers leave in my mouth.

---

What I like about Islam is that they did not turn their prophet into a God, vis a vis Christianity. There is however a passage in the Quran which explicitly orders the devout to "beat" their wives should they show disobedience. For this reason I have difficulty taking the book all that seriously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cunninglinguist

Assuming "God" is sensible in some way, by what criteria are we able to tell illusion from non-illusion?

Knowledge! Mind! . inner eyes! can write a lot coz indeed its a very good question. so will write another free time .


You've also implicated that sensation is not a proof of existence. It appears you've committed yourself to a fairly hard skepticism ... which, to avoid, brings us back to the question of criteria.

You are not getting in which context I wrote this argument. Look again. I said “If we can’t see a thing this is not the proof that thing doesn’t exist” I gave the example of air. We can just feel it. I gave the example of anti protons etc. I said bacteria and got the reply that he has seen it through a sophisticated machine. Which enhance his sense of watching. As a whole I said if we cant see God with our body’s eyes then its not the proof that there is no God. There is not a little skepticism rather a hard one my dear in my statement. if You enhance your senses than you can also b witness for sure that there is a God 

Contradiction is, to a large degree, a matter of interpretation. Moreover, there are two forms of contradiction; formal/ostensible/logical (Hilbertian, I call it) and material (Fregian). The first is simply an assessment of the immediate logical form, while the second requires an analysis of the objects in question, in order to make sure that they don't imply a tacit contradiction. This is where interpretation comes into play. Though, in any case, if something is formally immaculate it won't be by necessity true. An argument in which every inference is valid would not necessarily be sound, nor give true conclusions, if the premises themselves are untrue. In a similar vein, unsound arguments with false premises can render true conclusions through invalid inference.

i think you should read ist then comments on Quran. its not the discussion of contradiction's defenitions not interpretation. in reply which i stated below there is an example. ?

I think it depends on standards of proof. But the best (and probably first) test of validity and truth we have -- the principle of sufficient reason -- is one of utility. In short, the reason we think the big bang happened is because the assumptions that lead us to believe it happened are very useful to us. That said, in these fields we don't and cannot have 100% confidence in a strictly theoretical setting -- there never can be when it comes to induction --; for a science will and must change its assumptions in the light of new and good evidence, where religion may not. That science shouldn't/doesn't pretend absolute certainty is perhaps one of the more important defining characteristics that sets it apart from a vast majority of religion today.

Assumptions of big bang have been converted into a solid law for now after lot of experiences and mathematical laws. In round about 1635 it was believed that earth is static and sun is evolving around it. By the invention of Mr. Galileo the law changed and and thinking process move ahead and cosmologists said No, sun is static and earth is evolving around it after observations. By Eien Stien E=mc(square) when cosmologist found to measure the distances through light it is found that the distances is increasing. Logic is maintained that if everything is expanding then there must be a start when everything was one. After big bang this one huge particle converted into highly unimaginable particles in which our earth is one. Science started it journey and ends up what Lord has said in quran already. I have quoted so many verses like this you can read those in my other posts.

On the contrary, if we had no way of accepting the absurdity, everything itself would appear absurd and purposeless. To this extent, my God is of every form of "use" possible.

---

your God is not different then mine :) We all are the creations of one Lord my dear!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

What I like about Islam is that they did not turn their prophet into a God, vis a vis Christianity. There is however a passage in the Quran which explicitly orders the devout to "beat" their wives should they show disobedience. For this reason I have difficulty taking the book all that seriously.

---

you are right coz there is a very strong concept in islamic'philosphy about the oneness of God.
let me solve your difficulty about the verse you have read in about wives.:)
if you read in full context and full verse about it its like " teach her ist , then seperate her from your sleeping place, then beat her"
before considering on it, you should consider another fact. from the time when human started to live in societies we see as physically women was weak and man was strong. so it was decided by nature, that woman will care inside of home and man will care of outside. islam gave equal rights to both but Lord said that one man is a one or 2 degree up from woman coz he earns and spent on her etc. Lord said in quran man has same rights upon woman as woman has upon man. but For the better living you see there should b a leader. so Lord think that man should be the leader of house.
Well come to the above mentioned verse. about beating someone ask to Muhammad how should we beat the woman if she dont understand? He replied with cloth! its not beating my dear! in islam there is a concept of full love care and affection. Good bye kises were common as well at that time. .. many extremist think that by this verse they got the license to beat. which is absolutly wrong.
i think if i see west that they are developoing and progressing in material life but deterioating their moral ethics. divorce ratio is too high so now they live together without marriage mostly. woman are doing great efforts they are doing jobs and taking care of household as well! there is a lot of about man and woman a lot of/. you can read it in chapter nisa your self. one more thing to clear about quran. that one cannot understand fully quran without reading hadiths. like i explain above about beating. hadiths is what Muhammad said, did and explained.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billl

How about, instead of putting one hand in hot water, and one hand in cold water, why don't we take one person from one area and immerse his thoughts in the Koran, and another guy from another region, and immerse his thoughts in some different Holy Book, and then have both of them experience the real world. What do we typically see happen then?

---

besides that i have given this example of hands to prove non reliable senses. you took it another way but i like to give you reply that that person who has been immerse himself in the koran when experience the real world will live in ease and peace of mind n heart. as in koran each n every thing is for real world , there are practical and logical suggestions ,guidlines to live in real world . and other will ends up in fear and frustration.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by usman.khawar

[B]
but i like to give you reply that that person who has been immerse himself in the koran when experience the real world will live in ease and peace of mind n heart. as in koran each n every thing is for real world , there are practical and logical suggestions ,guidlines to live in real world . and other will ends up in fear and frustration.

---

You are very scary.

Your belief and disbelief in God has little to do with the existence or non existence, my friend. You are a dust swirling in the vortex of this infinity and your voice will be silenced by the thunder of the universe and before this cosmic existence you are almost nonexistent. Your hubris or sense of illustriousness will be submerged into infinite void.
There must be greater truths and your scientific discoveries and inventions cannot outreach them nor your experimental science and knowledge can outsmart or obscure some deeper realities.

Do not make a conclusion my friend; for we can never conclude. We have to go a long way and yet will be doing round and round in this great labyrinth and the mirage we call truth is not the truth in actuality, that is just a mirage or a shadow of the truth. The shadow is not the real.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by osho

the mirage we call truth is not the truth in actuality, that is just a mirage or a shadow of the truth.

---

How do you know that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

How do you know that?

---

'Cause we have yet to know the truth. The moment you feel you have arrived at the truth, the search ceases.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by osho

'Cause we have yet to know the truth. The moment you feel you have arrived at the truth, the search ceases.

---

How do you know I, or someone else, hasn't arrived at the truth?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi

How do you know I, or someone else, hasn't arrived at the truth?

---

Very simply because you do not believe in God.

Right. Because you, being a believer in God (particularly the Christian one, if I'm not mistaken), discard all other possibilities of truth. If it isn't a Christian, it doesn't count. The very idea that belief in God somehow leads to some sort of truth is irrational in the first place, as there is no real truth in the idea, or belief, of God, only faith, and faith is belief in the unprovable.

Anyways, I said, "I, or someone else." That someone else might believe in God, though how that increases his chances of having arrived at truth (whatever that even means in the first place) I have no idea. Maybe you could explain to me why it does.

I know of no god. But assuming I ever did, what difference would it make?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi

At least, a benevolent one. . . .

Aids
Starving children
Children who develop cancer
War
Hate
Katy Perry

---

Shocking!

Blasphemy!

Katy Perry is a cutie-pie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by osho

......the mirage we call truth is not the truth in actuality, that is just a mirage or a shadow of the truth.

---

How do you know that?

Quote:

---

'Cause we have yet to know the truth. The moment you feel you have arrived at the truth, the search ceases.

---

That argument comes down to 'because I don't feel I know the truth, there must be a truth I don't know'.


Which isn't a rational corollary at all.

But, as Mutatis says, if any of us were to feel that we had arrived at the truth, you'd be in a position either of agreeing with them that they'd found it, or telling them that what they'd found wasn't really the truth.

And if you were to say it wasn't the truth that you were talking about, I'd have to ask again: "How do you know that? How do you know that my truth isn't The Truth?" You'd have to give a reason for the truth you're talking about being the right one.

Im not saying, you'll notice, that this ...

......the mirage we call truth is not the truth in actuality, that is just a mirage or a shadow of the truth....

..is wrong. I'm just asking for evidence that it's right.

Paul Dirac: I cannot understand why we idle discussing religion. If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality. The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination. It is quite understandable why primitive people, who were so much more exposed to the overpowering forces of nature than we are today, should have personified these forces in fear and trembling. But nowadays, when we understand so many natural processes, we have no need for such solutions. I can't for the life of me see how the postulate of an Almighty God helps us in any way. What I do see is that this assumption leads to such unproductive questions as why God allows so much misery and injustice, the exploitation of the poor by the rich and all the other horrors He might have prevented. If religion is still being taught, it is by no means because its ideas still convince us, but simply because some of us want to keep the lower classes quiet. Quiet people are much easier to govern than clamorous and dissatisfied ones. They are also much easier to exploit. Religion is a kind of opium that allows a nation to lull itself into wishful dreams and so forget the injustices that are being perpetrated against the people. Hence the close alliance between those two great political forces, the State and the Church. Both need the illusion that a kindly God rewards—in heaven if not on earth—all those who have not risen up against injustice, who have done their duty quietly and uncomplainingly. That is precisely why the honest assertion that God is a mere product of the human imagination is branded as the worst of all mortal sins.

This is exactly how I feel about it. It was created to explain the inexplicable thousands of years ago. It seems as though people only debate the existence of God because it has been defended so vigorously for such a long time. The constant debate has given it undue credence because it suggests that there is something deeper to it than, say, Santa Claus. To me, it's simply an elaborate and established belief that holds no more truth than a belief in alien conspiracy theories - it fills holes in knowledge and existence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi

How do you know I, or someone else, hasn't arrived at the truth?

---

This is a logical fallacy and if you keep on arguing you will have to do it endlessly. Maybe somebody has arrived or has not. I cannot conclude this and all I say or can say is out of my own understanding. You may have a different understanding or experience. As far as my understanding goes based on what I have read, meditated, or learned through discussions or books or from other learned men, I can say truth is yet to be arrived at. I am just inquiring and this is my personal inquiry and even if I say you it is not necessarily you or any other persons.

As such if you have arrived or not at truth you can say and prove or if others have, they will. That is not my business; my business is to say what I know. Here no more argument is necessary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

How do you know that?



That argument comes down to 'because I don't feel I know the truth, there must be a truth I don't know'.


Which isn't a rational corollary at all.

But, as Mutatis says, if any of us were to feel that we had arrived at the truth, you'd be in a position either of agreeing with them that they'd found it, or telling them that what they'd found wasn't really the truth.

And if you were to say it wasn't the truth that you were talking about, I'd have to ask again: "How do you know that? How do you know that my truth isn't The Truth?" You'd have to give a reason for the truth you're talking about being the right one.

Im not saying, you'll notice, that this ...

......the mirage we call truth is not the truth in actuality, that is just a mirage or a shadow of the truth....

..is wrong. I'm just asking for evidence that it's right.

---

This is logical trash and your logic will lead you nowhere and will come to a labyrinth of tunnels and ultimately you will find yourself in a messy situation.
Truth is something different than your rational claptrap. We are thru our words try to define truth, whereas truth cannot be cramped in your dry verbosities. I do not want to prescribe any method or ways to arrive at truth. I do not claim I have arrived. My exclusive objective is to inquire into it. I do not know I will arrive at this by this way. all the same I am elated to discuss it and my method is not like yours to chase after rationality and logical fallacy

Osho you are confusing me. You through your writing skills and use of different logic are simply misleading the general reader like me. I cannot understand your intricate philosophical proposition. You sound interesting and will be more if you make your message clearer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by osho

This is logical trash and your logic will lead you nowhere and will come to a labyrinth of tunnels and ultimately you will find yourself in a messy situation.
Truth is something different than your rational claptrap. We are thru our words try to define truth, whereas truth cannot be cramped in your dry verbosities. I do not want to prescribe any method or ways to arrive at truth. I do not claim I have arrived. My exclusive objective is to inquire into it. I do not know I will arrive at this by this way. all the same I am elated to discuss it and my method is not like yours to chase after rationality and logical fallacy

---

But when you say this...

......the mirage we call truth is not the truth in actuality, that is just a mirage or a shadow of the truth...

...you say it for a reason. You didn't just start thinking it one day, out of the blue. You arrived at it. So all I'm asking is, how did you arrive at it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

But when you say this...

......the mirage we call truth is not the truth in actuality, that is just a mirage or a shadow of the truth...

...you say it for a reason. You didn't just start thinking it one day, out of the blue. You arrived at it. So all I'm asking is, how did you arrive at it?

---

I arrived at fragments of truth. The truth I claim may not necessarily convince you and I never expected you to be convinced of what I have said. The mirage I referred to is seen through my lens. Never confuse yourself with what I said. Never agree and once you agree or negate you will cripple yourself intellectually. carve out your own without supporting or opposing my ideas. That will not get you anywhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by osho

carve out your own without supporting or opposing my ideas. That will not get you anywhere.

---

This is terrific osho!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by osho

I arrived at fragments of truth. The truth I claim may not necessarily convince you and I never expected you to be convinced of what I have said. The mirage I referred to is seen through my lens. Never confuse yourself with what I said. Never agree and once you agree or negate you will cripple yourself intellectually. carve out your own without supporting or opposing my ideas. That will not get you anywhere.

---

Okay. So all this applies to you personally and, perhaps, only you personally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leobloom

Paul Dirac: I cannot understand why we idle discussing religion. If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality. The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination. It is quite understandable why primitive people, who were so much more exposed to the overpowering forces of nature than we are today, should have personified these forces in fear and trembling. But nowadays, when we understand so many natural processes, we have no need for such solutions. I can't for the life of me see how the postulate of an Almighty God helps us in any way. What I do see is that this assumption leads to such unproductive questions as why God allows so much misery and injustice, the exploitation of the poor by the rich and all the other horrors He might have prevented. If religion is still being taught, it is by no means because its ideas still convince us, but simply because some of us want to keep the lower classes quiet. Quiet people are much easier to govern than clamorous and dissatisfied ones. They are also much easier to exploit. Religion is a kind of opium that allows a nation to lull itself into wishful dreams and so forget the injustices that are being perpetrated against the people. Hence the close alliance between those two great political forces, the State and the Church. Both need the illusion that a kindly God rewards—in heaven if not on earth—all those who have not risen up against injustice, who have done their duty quietly and uncomplainingly. That is precisely why the honest assertion that God is a mere product of the human imagination is branded as the worst of all mortal sins.

This is exactly how I feel about it. It was created to explain the inexplicable thousands of years ago. It seems as though people only debate the existence of God because it has been defended so vigorously for such a long time. The constant debate has given it undue credence because it suggests that there is something deeper to it than, say, Santa Claus. To me, it's simply an elaborate and established belief that holds no more truth than a belief in alien conspiracy theories - it fills holes in knowledge and existence.

---

A relatrively succint view which might lead to atheism if we get entangled with the prikcsters (abundant in the museum) that will challenge this cleverly. For nothing but cleverness they have left to sustain the irrelevancies they postulate in the face of knowledge and progress. This having been said, the whole subject becomes irrelevant where today's action is.
Yet, there are lots of credulous vestiges in the dynamic museum of history waiting for piggybacking out on a weekend pass on the back of some agnostic or atheistic stooge. The three stooges of history being the theist, the atheist and the agnostic.
Have fun. Science has left them behind and they are not coming back to a position of power, so to speak, regardless of the noise. We can't close the windows of the museum. They must await recycling with good ventilation. So the screams come out, and we have to listen.

I suppose I rejected the idea of God with a capital G around about the age of 8. You know which god I’m talking about – the one true God, a providential god, an omniscient god, an anthropomorphic god, Elohim, Yahweh, Allah, whoever – the guy with the flowing white beard, floating around in the ether, keeping watch over little-ole me, making sure I’m honoring my father and my mother and all that jazz. At a relatively early age, that idea struck me as sort of kooky.

The idea of a god with a lower-case g is something entirely different. This idea has been with humans since humans have been human. Indeed, it may be one of the things that makes us human. It’s a broader and more abstract definition of god. I think it can be best described as one’s overarching world-view. It would include ideas like Mother Nature, Gaia, pure reason, philosophy, evolution, the scientific method, and Adam Smith’s laissez-faire god of the markets -The Invisible Hand. Whatever it is that guides you through your life becomes your god (or gods) – with a little g. It has very little to do with organized religion.

But concerning religion, we may be misinterpreting what Karl Marx meant when he said, “Religion is the opiate of the masses.” In Marx’s time, opium was thought of as a pain killer not a hallucinogenic drug. And there was a lot of pain for a lot of people in his time. Religion offered some comfort for many people and, I think, made their lives less painful. I don’t disagree that religion has been used by despots as a crowd-control measure, but that’s a miniscule part of it. Also I predict that some of the “facts” that we enlightened folk know now will be looked at as crazy-superstitious in the future. At any rate, I try not to get too uppity when looking at other people’s belief systems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by osho

carve out your own without supporting or opposing my ideas. That will not get you anywhere.

---

Odd, since you state your ideas as if they are concrete facts that one must agree with. I guess our illogical thinking gets tripped up by that.

Why does there have to be some sort of higher truth?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cl154576

Why does there have to be some sort of higher truth?

---

That's a funny question. I'm sure they'll give you thousands of whys. They are specialists in the museum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

Okay. So all this applies to you personally and, perhaps, only you personally.

---

Everyone has to find his own way and if you follow another's path that will not get you there. Maybe we can discuss here since discussing truth is a luxury and playing with words is stirring. But truth is something we have to individually.

With that said I claim we can get closer to truth through discussions and without preoccupation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi

Odd, since you state your ideas as if they are concrete facts that one must agree with. I guess our illogical thinking gets tripped up by that.

---

I never claim what I said is concrete and I just expected your comments, and sometimes constructive ones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by osho

Everyone has to find his own way....

...we can get closer to truth through discussions and without preoccupation...

I never claim what I said is concrete and I just expected your comments, and sometimes constructive ones.

---

If this is your own way, and if you present it for discussion, I think it is constructive - in every sense of that word - to comment on the internal rationale for it, and to test the way it's constructed.

When I did that, you said that my comments were 'trash' and 'claptrap'. How would you have reacted had I said that about your way of thinking?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

If this is your own way, and if you present it for discussion, I think it is constructive - in every sense of that word - to comment on the internal rationale for it, and to test the way it's constructed.

When I did that, you said that my comments were 'trash' and 'claptrap'. How would you have reacted had I said that about your way of thinking?

---

I might have said so in a particular context not in every context. Maybe your comment could be constructive in a specific context thought I might have liked it at that particular moment. If I said your comments were trash and claptrap in that particular context I do not mean you have always been so.

We have differences and that is the nature of being two individuals and independent thinkers. Your programming might have been different from mine.

However there are certain truths or points at which we may agree. Disagreement fueled the discussion and I never want anyone to agree on what I say and if they do the argument ends and that will be the death of discussion.

What I said is not conclusive and this is a topic that demands arguments and discussion and inquiry and such independent arguments I believe lead us closer to truth

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vonny

This is terrific osho!

---

Vonny, is there anything to terrify you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blazeofglory

Osho you are confusing me. You through your writing skills and use of different logic are simply misleading the general reader like me. I cannot understand your intricate philosophical proposition. You sound interesting and will be more if you make your message clearer

---

There is nothing to make clear and this is an intricate subject and you cannot find clarity on such difficult topics. God, truth, afterlife, the secret of being alive or dead are some of the zones that have always mysterious. Of course some scriptures, and discourses of some saints or prophets seem to have demystified this but we always find such topics mysterious.

I cannot make this topic clear since I myself am not clear about it. I just communicate through my posts and create something for discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by osho

Vonny, is there anything to terrify you?

---

Osho, language thing here - "terrific" is a good thing, somewhat similar to "great," or "wonderful" or "fantastic" although not exactly the same as those words. Its resemblance to "terrify" is superficial and the words have entirely different meanings. English is definitely strange like that and there are innumerable examples; words that have the same root but have evolved to mean quite different things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by osho

Vonny, is there anything to terrify you?

---

As Nikolai said, I wasn't saying terrify.

That statement caught my attention because maybe the important thing is that we figure out what we personally think, rather than focusing on continually challenging one another so much. It was just an idea that occurred to me. Of course, through challenging we clarify.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikolaiI

Osho, language thing here - "terrific" is a good thing, somewhat similar to "great," or "wonderful" or "fantastic" although not exactly the same as those words. Its resemblance to "terrify" is superficial and the words have entirely different meanings. English is definitely strange like that and there are innumerable examples; words that have the same root but have evolved to mean quite different things.

---

That is the beauty of English and I like that stuff. That is why we are far from being good at it if we do not come from an English speaking community. You enjoy that privilege as a native writer over me and I will have to work tremendously to be closer to you. Thank you for your illumination.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vonny

As Nikolai said, I wasn't saying terrify.

That statement caught my attention because maybe the important thing is that we figure out what we personally think, rather than focusing on continually challenging one another so much. It was just an idea that occurred to me. Of course, through challenging we clarify.

---

Vonny I apologize for my poor comment. I am from a non English community and I have to go a long way to understand the spirit of English. I believe you will forgive me for my nonsensical comment. Anyway Nikolai enlightened me on this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by osho

That is the beauty of English and I like that stuff. That is why we are far from being good at it if we do not come from an English speaking community. You enjoy that privilege as a native writer over me and I will have to work tremendously to be closer to you. Thank you for your illumination.

---

Yes, English will endlessly confuse you, because there are endless exceptions. In fact, I had to look it of endless curiosity and found "terrific" actually can mean what you took it to mean. But in 9 times out of 10 in conversational English, or probably at least 19 times out of 20, its closest synonyms will be words like "fantastic," "great," and "wonderful," although again, the exact texture and meaning of the word is not identical to any of those.

Glad you have a desire to learn English to precision. It's a goal that will take some time, just because of how different the language is. But if you read a good number of good books, you can eventually know it as perfectly as any average natural speaker. Your spelling is exceptionally good for a non-native speaker, so grammar is where you should work on; but you're getting it well! :)

One fun thing about English is all the funny words, like Gobbledygook.