A message for Atheists

I took this whole segment from the book "The book of secrets" from Osho. And I want to know what atheists think of this. What is their opinion about this.
Sure, glad to help...

"A girl once asked me: “Tell me, Is there really a God?” she was ready to argue that there is no God. I looked her in the face, to her eyes. She was tense, full of arguments; she wanted to fight for that idea. In reality, deep inside she wanted for God to not exist, because if God exists, you have problems. If God exists, then you cannot continue being who you are; then there is a challenge. God is a challenge...
I think it’s interesting that religious people so often seem to think that deep down inside atheists don’t want god to exist. It really gives you a window into the religious way of deciding what to believe. Apparently they want God/eternal life/etc. to be real, so they decide that it’s real. Since they based their beliefs on what they want (rather than what reason or evidence tells them) they naturally make the mistake of assuming that atheists determine their beliefs in the same way. Based on my personal experience, Christians always ask non-believers things like “Don’t you want eternal life?” or “Don’t you want to know what will happen to you after you die?” As if what we wanted had any bearing on reality…
I told her: “If there is no God, ¿How can you not believe in Him?
This is hilarious. If there are no flying pink unicorns, how can I not believe in them?
Why do you worry? If there is no God, why have you traveled so much and why have you come to me to argue about something that doesn’t exist? Forget about Him, and forgive Him. Go to your home, do not waste time. If He doesn’t exist, why are you so worried? Why this effort to prove He doesn’t exist?
Who knows...maybe she's worried because the religious people in her country are trying to enact laws that force everyone to follow their religion? Maybe people in her country are making bad decisions that are damaging her country or her fellow citizens because of religious beliefs? Maybe her community is restricting her personal freedom and is using religious reasons to justify it? Maybe she’s scheduled to be burned at the stake tomorrow for not believing? It’s not as if other people’s religious beliefs don’t have an effect on non-believers.
God is not an object on which we can adopt an opinion in favor or against. God is a possibility within you. Is not something that is outside; it is a possibility inside you.
If you go towards this possibility, it becomes real. If you don’t head towards this spot, then is not real.
At this point it becomes clear that the author is talking about something very different from the traditional western "God is an omnipotent being that controls reality" definition that people usually mean when they talk about "God". Clearly God will either exist or not, regardless of my belief in him. Unless anyone cares to propose that I can cause a magical being that controls reality to come into existence by believing in it?
 
Could you please cite the post # where M*W said she only studied "Roman Christianity?" I've read many of her posts that commented on other religious cults as well, but I don't recall her stating that she studied exclusively the RCC.

No she never said "Roman Christianity", but that is in fact, the "New Testament", it is only "Roman Christianity", it is a branch of Christianity that Romans took for themselves for political reasons.

The real Christianity has been lost in time, we can find hints of reality in the New Testament, and more importantly in the apocryphae.

The thing is, she things she can dismiss the existance of Jesus, because of her study on the texts we currently have, and mostly on the New Testament. She is using this scriptures to discredit Jesus, but this source is not accurate, that is all I´m saying.

It is like trying to study Politics from a book that has been translated about 10 times from people that have hidden agendas on politics.
 
At this point it becomes clear that the author is talking about something very different from the traditional western "God is an omnipotent being that controls reality" definition that people usually mean when they talk about "God". Clearly God will either exist or not, regardless of my belief in him. Unless anyone cares to propose that I can cause a magical being that controls reality to come into existence by believing in it?

YES man, this is the whole point, people that don´t believe in God, have an opinion about what God is, so this opinion is the thing that doesn´t exist, so I actually agree with atheists that say that God doesn´t exist, because the God they are talking about, it is a fake.

God is not an object, is an inner-experience as Osho said, you can call it whatever you want, because God is not really descriptive of this experience. God is a word that men created to describe something that can hardly be put into words. So there are a lot of fake concepts of God.

This is about faith and perspective.
 
Last edited:
And, after 4 or 5 posts/replies, your criticism still amounts to a bit of ad hominem attempt to "lower the importance of what has been said" rather than deal with "what has been said."

Interesting.
 
And, after 4 or 5 posts/replies, your criticism still amounts to a bit of ad hominem attempt to "lower the importance of what has been said" rather than deal with "what has been said."

Interesting.

well man, we have a right to lower the importance of "what has been said", if the person stating it, does not have a knowledge in the matter of "what has been said".

It is like an unhappy person trying to explain hapiness, you can discredit his interpretation of hapiness because that person really don´t know what he is talking about.
 
I've no problem with that. I've completely lowered the importance of what you've said, noting that you've incomplete knowledge of the facts at hand. I just wanted to be clear on the point of referring to this as ad hominem as you have in at least one other thread. You can't have it both ways.

Moreover, you asked for opinions on the apparently pseudo-intellectual passage you quoted (I'm lowering the importance of it). She offered one. If she lacks the knowledge to criticize it, wouldn't such a deficit become obvious in the natural discourse of the discussion?
 
I've no problem with that. I've completely lowered the importance of what you've said, noting that you've incomplete knowledge of the facts at hand. I just wanted to be clear on the point of referring to this as ad hominem as you have in at least one other thread. You can't have it both ways.

Moreover, you asked for opinions on the apparently pseudo-intellectual passage you quoted (I'm lowering the importance of it). She offered one. If she lacks the knowledge to criticize it, wouldn't such a deficit become obvious in the natural discourse of the discussion?

It is good that you lower the importance of what I have said, it really doesn´t make a difference to me. But is shows you have your own individual personalilty, so it is good.
One should not talk about things you don´t know, or if you are going to do that, at least have the courage to accept it. I never said I have all the answers, but I don´t talk about things that make no sense to me.
 
Discussions beget knowledge. And you still haven't demonstrated that M*W doesn't "know" enough about the topic to form a valid opinion.

But I've been known to comment on the intellectual coward fallacy in other threads. This fallacy is typically used by adherents of one religion or another that criticize non-believers as being unqualified to comment on theology since by not believing they are unqualified to have an opinion or rationally examine the topic. They argue that their god(s) only reveals to those that accept blindly and willingly without any evidence.

Your argument isn't exactly the same, but it certainly smacks of it, which is probably why I'm critical of it.

I return to the assertion that if she truly isn't qualified to comment, it will be self-evident in her posts as she responds to your own. There's no need to point out her disqualification in ad hominem style.
 
YES man, this is the whole point, people that don´t believe in God, have an opinion about what God is, so this opinion is the thing that doesn´t exist, so I actually agree with atheists that say that God doesn´t exist, because the God they are talking about, it is a fake.

God is not an object, is an inner-experience as Osho said, you can call it whatever you want, because God is not really descriptive of this experience. God is a word that men created to describe something that can hardly be put into words. So there are a lot of fake concepts of God.

This is about faith and perspective.

Many religions, particularly Christianity, believe that God is a supernatural being that created the universe and controls reality. When people say that they are an atheist, they are usually saying that they don’t believe in such a being. If you want to define God as “an inner experience” rather than a supernatural entity, that’s fine – but now you’re talking about something that’s pretty radically different from what most people in the west (ie, Christians) mean when they talk about God.
 
Many religions, particularly Christianity, believe that God is a supernatural being that created the universe and controls reality. When people say that they are an atheist, they are usually saying that they don’t believe in such a being. If you want to define God as “an inner experience” rather than a supernatural entity, that’s fine – but now you’re talking about something that’s pretty radically different from what most people in the west (ie, Christians) mean when they talk about God.

Yes man, you described it well, I am talking about such a thing.
 
I’m sure virtually any atheist would agree that it’s possible for people have a wide range of “inner experiences,” so if you want to define God as nothing more than an inner experience then even the atheists here will agree with you that God exists, at least in so far as people are actually perceiving a particular “inner experience.” Of course, if you want to claim that the inner experience is in any way supernatural (rather than simply a product of the person’s own mind that has no bearing on the natural world outside the head of the person experiencing it) then the atheists here will want some evidence from you to back up your claims.

Maybe this would fit better in the Eastern Religion section?
 
Discussions beget knowledge. And you still haven't demonstrated that M*W doesn't "know" enough about the topic to form a valid opinion.

But I've been known to comment on the intellectual coward fallacy in other threads. This fallacy is typically used by adherents of one religion or another that criticize non-believers as being unqualified to comment on theology since by not believing they are unqualified to have an opinion or rationally examine the topic. They argue that their god(s) only reveals to those that accept blindly and willingly without any evidence.

Your argument isn't exactly the same, but it certainly smacks of it, which is probably why I'm critical of it.

I return to the assertion that if she truly isn't qualified to comment, it will be self-evident in her posts as she responds to your own. There's no need to point out her disqualification in ad hominem style.

I am not of one religion, I believe religions are not good for one´s self.

Let me elaborate further, cause it seems you missed my point, it is easy to miss my point, even I miss my point sometimes...

The thing is, here we are, talking about the existence and non-existence of God, and M*W only writes about the concept of God that christians talk about. In fact, she talks about the non-existence of God, with the argument that Christianity is a fake, and Jesus never existed. So I ask her, what about Buddha? She says she is not interested in Buddha. So can you justify the non-existence of God by saying that a religion is a fake? NO you cannot justify it like that. All religions have a percentage of "fakeness".
She says she study religions, but it is only Christianity, not religions. There is a difference.

The main thing here is, her argument is about how christians are hypocrit, and Jesus was never here. What the hell does that has to do with God? Absolutely nothing. Zip. Nada.

And what I´m discrediting about what she is saying? it is the claim of this whole "Jesus is a myth" thing. On what basis is she saying this? I tell you what basis, the incoherence of the New Testament. Does that demonstrates that Jesus is a fake? NOT at all, the New Testament is NOT a credible source, and it is the ONLY source of her whole argument.

So what God is she saying doesn´t exist? The God she is talking about, in fact, is non-existent, because there is no such thing.
 
I’m sure virtually any atheist would agree that it’s possible for people have a wide range of “inner experiences,” so if you want to define God as nothing more than an inner experience then even the atheists here will agree with you that God exists, at least in so far as people are actually perceiving a particular “inner experience.” Of course, if you want to claim that the inner experience is in any way supernatural (rather than simply a product of the person’s own mind that has no bearing on the natural world outside the head of the person experiencing it) then the atheists here will want some evidence from you to back up your claims.

Maybe this would fit better in the Eastern Religion section?

Maybe, but I´m not talking about an eastern religion either. Were does the category "God" fit in? Not in an religion, people need to start separating those two very different concepts, religion vs God.
But religion is another misinterpreted concept, if I say I have a religion (my link with God) but it is not a religion that has a name, were does that fit in?

You say supernatural, but there is nothing more natural than God.
 
Maybe, but I´m not talking about an eastern religion either. Were does the category "God" fit in? Not in an religion, people need to start separating those two very different concepts, religion vs God.
But religion is another misinterpreted concept, if I say I have a religion (my link with God) but it is not a religion that has a name, were does that fit in?
Maybe you should give your own specific definition of "god," since you don't seem to be using the same definition as everyone else here. Do you believe that god is an entity? Merely an experience? What, exactly? It's hard to discuss with you when you don't assign uncommon meanings to words.
 
*************
M*W: Religion doesn't play a "part" in my life. Religion is something I study. That's like saying cancer doesn't play a part in my life, but I study about cancer. I don't need to have cancer to study about it.



*************
M*W: Other people can believe what they want to believe. I don't care if they have faith or not. I've already said a million times, atheism is not something that can be forced on another. Atheism takes years to understand.



*************
M*W: No one can stop anyone else from having faith. That is a personal decision.

I have a feeling that both you and Wisdom Seeker don't have a good command of the English language. Neither of you seem to understand the posts on this forum.



why does atheism take years to understand? you sound like a rabbi telling me that i cant join judaism because i need to study it for a lifetime.

no god = atheism, wait a min while i try to grasp that concept, it might take a few decades.


and if you spend alot of time dedicated to something that you study, then its a part of your life. i study martial arts and have done since i was 4 years old, and its a big part of my life,

you study religion and its a big part of your life.


me no speaky english.

peace.
 
Maybe you should give your own specific definition of "god," since you don't seem to be using the same definition as everyone else here. Do you believe that god is an entity? Merely an experience? What, exactly? It's hard to discuss with you when you don't assign uncommon meanings to words.

When you see the rose flowers blossoming, have you ever thought that all this color, all this softness, all this beauty was hidden somewhere in the seed? But the seed alone was not enough to become a rose, it needed the support of existence -- the soil, the water, the sun. Then the seed disappeared into the soil and the rosebush started growing. Now it needs air, it needs water, it needs the earth, it needs the sun, it needs the moon. All these together transform the seed which was almost like a dead piece of stone. Suddenly a transformation, a metamorphosis. These roses, these colors, this beauty, this fragrance, cannot come from it unless existence has it already. It all may be hidden, it may be covered in the seed. But anything that happens means it was there already -- maybe as a potential. You have intelligence....

You are the seed, thinking you are the rose; like Nietzsche...

Existence according to the so-called existentialists, who are all following Friedrich Nietzsche, the founder, is absolutely unintelligent. They have taken away God, so they think -- according to logic it seems apparently true -- if there is no God, existence also becomes dead, with no intelligence, with no life. God used to be the life, God used to be the consciousness. God used to be the very meaning, the very salt of our being. With God no longer there, this whole existence becomes soulless, life becomes just a by-product of matter. So when you die, everything will die, nothing will remain.
And there is no question of being good or bad. Existence is absolutely indifferent, it does not care about you. God used to care about you. Once God is removed, a great strangeness starts happening between you and existence. There is no relationship, existence does not care, cannot care because it is not conscious anymore. It is no longer an intelligent universe, it is simply dead matter, just as you are. And the life that you know is only a by-product.
A by-product disappears immediately when the elements that were creating it separate….

So Nietzsche, without existence in him, became mentally ill...

And a man who knows his relation, his deep relation with existence, cannot commit anything against existence, against life. It is simply impossible. He can only pour as much blissfulness, as much benediction, as much grace as you are ready to receive. But his sources are inexhaustible. When you have found your inexhaustible sources of life and its ecstasy, then it does not matter whether you have a God or not. It does not matter whether there is a hell or a heaven. It does not matter at all….

Tao Te Ching:

Look at it you can not see it!
It's Name is Formless!
Listen to it you can not hear it!
It's name is soundless.
Grasp it but you cannot get it!
It's name is Incorporeal.

These three attributes are unfathomable,
Therefore they fuse into one.

It's upperside is not bright:
It's underside not dim.
Continually the unnameable moves on,
Until it returns beyond the realm of things.

We call it the formless Form, the imageless Image.
We call it the indefinable and unimaginable.

Confront it and you do not see it's face!
Follow it and you do not see it's back!
Yet equipped with this timeless Tao,
You can harness present realities.

To know the origins is initiation into the Tao.

- by Lao Tzu

I cannot define God to you my friend, there are simply no words for it, not even the ones that have experienced Him... I say: we are God, things are God, the Ocean, all matter, the Earth, the Universe and God is everything into One...
 
Wisdom_Seeker, I am rapidly coming to suspect that you don't have anything useful to say and are only interested spouting meaningless, mystical-sounding bullshit.
 
Wisdom_Seeker, I am rapidly coming to suspect that you don't have anything useful to say and are only interested spouting meaningless, mystical-sounding bullshit.

Hehe, sorry if it annoyes you man, I have no intend to do that. But thanks for the constructive criticism (=.
 
Rajeneesh has intentionally confused the subject

"A person that is afraid of challenge, risks, the danger of inner change, of mutation, will always deny the existence of God. Denial is his mind; denial is manifesting something about him, not about God.
I told her that God is not something that can be demonstrated or argued against. God is not an object on which we can adopt an opinion in favor or against. God is a possibility within you. Is not something that is outside; it is a possibility inside you".


1. The argument of Rajaneesh suggests that the girl is confused and talking to herself, which is not ture. She is saying this to the people who are blindly following an illogical path to correct them (to help them) which everybody does and is very well a human nature. All relogions does this without a logic and she did the same with logic. So no need to say that she is afraid of a challenge, risks etc. If nobody says 'God exists', she would not have come up with this argument.

2. If at all, Rajaneesh was correct, then every beleiver should follow all religions as well as Cults including the ones followed by tribes in africa, the cults which promoted mass suisides (let alone Hindism, Islam, Christianity) as questions asked to this girl can also be asked while some one says that their religion is correct and others are illogical.

Thanks
 
Back
Top