Why I Don't Believe In God

[osho]

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.

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

[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

[MarkBastable]

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?

[osho]

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.

[Vonny]

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

This is terrific osho!

[MarkBastable]

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.

[cafolini]

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.

[Sancho]

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.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

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.

[cl154576]

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

[cafolini]

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.

[osho]

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.

[osho]

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.

[MarkBastable]

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?

[osho]

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