It is difficult to come to terms with the idea of nothingness...

[MarkBastable]

In fact; earthquakes and such universal phenomena are signs and indications of God's Majesty, it is a reminder for us that no matter the scientific level we reached, we are still within His power and omnipotence.

So he terrorises people just because he can, and he wants to make sure we know it.

If a ten-year-old acted like that, you'd send him to bed with no dinner.

[mercy_mankind]

However, that does not make it any less true, in my opinion.

How so? I believe if it was unfair concept from the beginning, then it is not true.

This is a sad question. Humans are not animals; our minds have developed enough that we can differentiate between right or wrong.

Agreed!

But who would set the rules of the right and the wrong? What was believed wrong and shameful yesterday, is considered great and correct today. And the question is why? Perhaps because human interests play great role in determining the right, and the wrong thing!

We can be aware that our actions have results that can hurt other people, and we can choose not to do them because we care for others....

Exactly, that's why I said that people would feel free to do what they desire to the limits that others would let them to do. Due to that thing, there should be a fixable guide for everyone.

So he terrorises people just because he can, and he wants to make sure we know it.

If a ten-year-old acted like that, you'd send him to bed with no dinner.

Don't you think that humans need both fear and love in almost everything? Search in your life, and you will find a balanced amount of fear and love in everything we do. So why do you want it different in our relationship with our creator?!

[MarkBastable]

Don't you think that humans need both fear and love in almost everything?

No, I don't.

[mercy_mankind]

No, I don't.

Why? for example, we work hard because we want to achieve success to a certain degree, and also because we fear failure, and the consequences of it. Correct?!
Also the relationship between a child and his parents is based on love and fear, so can you deny that a chid sometimes fear his parents if he did something wrong?

[MarkBastable]

...the relationship between a child and his parents is based on love and fear, so can you deny that a chid sometimes fear his parents if he did something wrong?

I think I'd be concerned for the welfare of any child who was afraid of his parents.

Anyway - whichever way you cut it - you say that God kills and maims a few thousand people every so often just to frighten the survivors. And I say that if you're right, and if such a God exists, I will have nothing to do with him.

[mercy_mankind]

I think I'd be concerned for the welfare of any child who was afraid of his parents.

It would be more accurate to say that fear is required in some situations, not the base of the relationship. Anyway what you said doesn't answer my question!

Anyway - whichever way you cut it - you say that God kills and maims a few thousand people every so often just to frighten the survivors. And I say that if you're right, and if such a God exists, I will have nothing to do with him.

Can you refer to the post where I said that thing?! I said earthquakes, and such disasters are tests for us, in fact the whole life is a test!

[MarkBastable]

Anyway - whichever way you cut it - you say that God kills and maims a few thousand people every so often just to frighten the survivors. And I say that if you're right, and if such a God exists, I will have nothing to do with him.

Can you refer to the post where I said that thing?

Yes, I can. You said,

earthquakes and such universal phenomena are signs and indications of God's Majesty, it is a reminder for us that no matter the scientific level we reached, we are still within His power and omnipotence

And when I said that it was a bit much of God to bully people in that way, you replied,

Don't you think that humans need both fear and love in almost everything?

I'm assuming you don't feel the earthquakes are intended to inspire love - so they must be intended to inspire fear.

But we'll agree to differ on this - you think that God is entitled to remind us of His Majesty by flattening cities, and I think that even God can't come up with an excuse for that.

I'm much more interested in soliciting responses to the point I made in an earlier post - to wit:

What I really don't understand in these debates, though, is the a priori assumption that a universe with a God necessarily gives meaning to human existence, and that a universe without a God is necessarily incapable of giving meaning to human existence.

Why should that be so? What is it about God that gives life meaning? He might give life rules, and he might even reward those who stick to them, but why is that meaning? And why is it the only meaning that means anything? The theist argument seems to be that if life is a short game, it's pointless, but if it's an eternal game, it's valid.

Actually, I'd tend to say the opposite was true.

[Paulclem]

As I understand it - mystic terminology aside - the Buddhist concept is more an explanation of the cycle of energy and matter than a suggestion of immortality. If your personal consciousness is dissipated then 'you' are in fact dead. You're no more alive than a cow that's been turned into burgers and distributed amongst the fast-food diners of Chicago. So, for me at least, the highest level of Buddhism is personal extinction.

What I really don't understand in these debates, though, is the a priori assumption that a universe with a God necessarily gives meaning to human existence, and that a universe without a God is necessarily incapable of giving meaning to human existence.

Why should that be so? What is it about God that gives life meaning? He might give life rules, and he might even reward those who stick to them, but why is that meaning? And why is it the only meaning that means anything? The theist argument seems to be that if life is a short game, it's pointless, but if it's an eternal game, it's valid.

Actually, I'd tend to say the opposite was true.

You're right about the cycle of energy, but not about extinction, which is specifically denied in the teachings. The energy - positive and negative propels the person into the next life. Personality is regarded as insubstantial, and this can be seen in the experience of feelig the same, but actually, over time, changing attitudes, habits, opinions etc.Though we might feel a continuity of individuality, we change all the time.

The point of the teachings is to effect a positive outcome for rebirth and ultimately Enlightenment. Otherwise if it's about dissipation then what would be the point?

LOL, you are talking as if the only bad thing that a human can do is murder…There are many awful crimes, and I was referring to every shameful act you can think of not only killing and it is not attached to certain sect.



No, I never said that. And I agree that either theist or non theist would do such horrible acts due to the sickness in their minds. But tell me if there was no worldly punishment for any crime, who would not still commit crimes? The believer in afterlife, or someone who doesn't believe in it?!

And please don't tell me human compassion and so on....As we all can see the horrible wars all over the world, and we see no compassion or anything like that. In fact one self is more important than that compassion (in case that person didn't reinforce that passion through Divine Justice).



My point is that belief in afterlife would give those oppressed the strength to accept their fate in this limited life, and try to do their best to live honorable life in the next life. That belief is not a "wishful-thinking" it is a certainty: Belief in God + Good deeds=Paradise.


First of all, I want to express my deep sorrow and sympathy with the Haitians. In fact; earthquakes and such universal phenomena are signs and indications of God's Majesty, it is a reminder for us that no matter the scientific level we reached, we are still within His power and omnipotence. They are also tests of faith, helpfulness, brotherhood, sincerity and so on of humans. They are not simply a sort of punishment, but rather a test.



I didn't know that…But would you please elaborate on the Platonic Justice?



And because we are humans, we should adhere to justice in all cases. We have to believe in a just life after a life full of hypocrisy and oppression, with a slight ray of justice.



Well, we should first define "ethical egoism" to know whether what I'm saying is modified or not.

"Ethical egoism (also called simply egoism)[1] is the normative ethical position that moral agents ought to do what is in their own self-interest." Ethical egoism

Why is it modified? Because a believer is doing something against his own interest in this life (ethical altruism)…But due to Divine Justice, his good deeds will not go with the wind. Instead, he would be rewarded for that (modified ethical egoism).
I think it is quite clear that the two concepts are kinda different.



Sorry, it is not intentional; I didn't see your question, really

They key word in your question is "Believer" that's the difference. A believer would do that and waiting the reward in the afterlife, while a non-believer would be waiting it in this life. And both of them would get what they wanted (The Divine Justice)!

There is no doubt that religous ethics and law are he basis of laws modern laws, but in modern secular societies the legal sytems have encompassed and superceded religious laws which are inadequate in dealing with modern problems.

These are the laws that dissuade the poential transgressor from committing all manner of crimes, but the fact remains that these people are in the minority. As such I don't see why there needs to b the idea of supreme judgmental God. In fact a lot of atheists must be thoroughly decent people.

I cannot reconcile the idea of a loving creator God with the vengeful tester of faith such a in Haiti. Like Mark, I could not respect a God that inflicted suffering to make a point, and you on't need to delve very far to see awful sufering all around, let alone in earthquake zones.

[MarkBastable]

You're right about the cycle of energy, but not about extinction, which is specifically denied in the teachings. The energy - positive and negative propels the person into the next life. Personality is regarded as insubstantial, and this can be seen in the experience of feelig the same, but actually, over time, changing attitudes, habits, opinions etc.Though we might feel a continuity of individuality, we change all the time.

I'd say the continuum is memory - the ability to track ourselves by our experience. My contention is that if we lose that contiguous experience of ourselves, we're dead. In previous lives, me and Buddha used to argue this one out late in to the night. Oh, how we laughed.

[Paulclem]

I'd say the continuum is memory - the ability to track ourselves by our experience. My contention is that if we lose that contiguous experience of ourselves, we're dead. In previous lives, me and Buddha used to argue this one out late in to the night. Oh, how we laughed.

There are meditaton practices that whereby the practitioner can track back through their former memories, though I don't know how useful that is.

You've been to some great parties I see.

[Michael T]

In previous lives, me and Buddha used to argue this one out late in to the night. Oh, how we laughed.

[MarkBastable]

You've been to some great parties I see.

Speaking of which, if there were an afterlife, this is how it ought to work.

[NikolaiI]

I would like to ask you, do you agree with the statement that "Everything has a source"? To me the this is the most simple... it seems people may have overlooked it.

Everything does have a source. It's a law of the universe.

Just like the source of all life on Earth is the Sun.

The nature of everything is light... all forms are but forms of light.

Duality is an illusion. In the highest stage one realizes, one is not separate from the source. How can we be separate from our source? In that state, one realizes that all is of the same source...

Realization of non-duality is what the mystics have sought after... interestingly from different cultures and times they came to the same conclusion: Laoze, Black Elk (from North America..), Alan Watts, Swami Vivekananda... all had a similar experience of oneness with the universe. Black Elk said, "Only when men know that they are one with the universe shall they know peace in their souls"...

And why? Well - if duality is a false idea, and non-duality is the truth; then everything which exists coming from the source mind which is under the illusion of duality; that is also an illusion. To realize you are one with the universe therefore means to wake up from a dream. You realize that everything else you thought had been nothing. You were, that is, never bound, not really.

Mystics all over have said a similar thing; they saw that the source of existence was truth; or God; it was infinite joy, peace, knowledge...

Enlightenment is higher consciousness, it is divine consciousness. It is meaning. What is the meaning of being? Any being in the universe, and all beings; are of one continuous wave with the universe. The depth of the being of an ant is no less than the depth of being of the earth or the stars. Within every being is the Source of Being, the "I Am."

[Paulclem]

Speaking of which, if there were an afterlife, this is how it ought to work.

Superb

[JuniperWoolf]

The scientific perspective on where we get our morality is simple... sweet, sweet evolution. Humans don't have claws, or sharp teeth, or fur... while other species can use conflict to obtain the resources that they need, we have to rely on cooperation to survive. Rules of right and wrong ensure that our species continues to exist. Behaviour which is beneficial to the group is sustained, and that which harms the group is selected against (we kill the offender, or put them somewhere where they won't be able to reproduce, like prison). Behaviour which we now consider "bad" is that which harms the group, and that which harms the group tends to debilitate either ourselves or our offspring in the long run. That's why the majority of people don't go around stealing, raping and murdering. That's where morality comes from. We don't need the idea of a god to instruct us, it‘s just common sense.

Don't get me wrong, people still do bad things; however, some system of laws and morality has existed in every culture, and arose because of the group's need to cooperate.

Besides, religious people do bad things ALL THE TIME. Spanish inquisition, anyone? And, Hitler thought that he was doing God's work. Yeah, religious people are always sweethearts.