Atheism:believe in no God or disbelieve in God

Enmos said:
I think she meant that our personality is conveyed by electrons. From mind to keyboard, from keyboard via soft- and hardware of your computer to the internet, from the internet to you screen, from your screen to your mind... lol
Click to expand...

Then...do they (the electrons) possess the personality, or do they rotate and shift in patterns that determine the personality? Is it within the electron, or to be found within the configuration of the electrons?
 
S.A.M. said:
That the power in all things is an illusion we create for ourselves. Like money, time, life etc.
Click to expand...

This makes me wonder? I see lots of illusions, my eyes see things that I question are real or not. Because of this I have been wondering for a long while now if it is possible that these illusions are in some way real, after all, I really see them and they appear at times when additional significant value can easily be attributed to their appearance, and they are really affecting how I view the Universe. Can illusions do that?

Also, as I see them more, they seem more real then what we say is real, as if reality is an Illusion and the Illusions are closer to the Real Essence.
 
S.A.M. said:
Believing there is a reason for everything is related in either case.
Click to expand...

The two are very different. One requires some sort of conscious intent, the other doesn't.

I realize we might be talking over each other though. Right now I'm assuming when you say a "reason for everything", you're saying it in the context of a conscious intelligent being (God) who intended to create us for purpose xyz. Is that correct and, if not, can you explain what you mean by "reason for everything"?
 
Pete said:
Sure... but that doesn't make them simple enough to need no further explanation, right?
Click to expand...

Thats a quality of the human mind. Nothing is ever enough. :)

ashura said:
The two are very different. One requires some sort of conscious intent, the other doesn't.

I realize we might be talking over each other though. Right now I'm assuming when you say a "reason for everything", you're saying it in the context of a conscious intelligent being (God) who intended to create us for purpose xyz. Is that correct and, if not, can you explain what you mean by "reason for everything"?
Click to expand...

Hmm since I've never articulated it, I'm finding words to be inadequate to explain my meaning. :p I guess in a way I'm saying everything to me is connected and all part of a whole. Does that make sense?
 
S.A.M. said:
Hmm since I've never articulated it, I'm finding words to be inadequate to explain my meaning. :p I guess in a way I'm saying everything to me is connected and all part of a whole. Does that make sense?
Click to expand...

You know, one could believe that and still not be a theist, or still believe it's all one big coincidence. That belief doesn't require intent behind creation.
 
ashura said:
You know, one could believe that and still not be a theist, or still believe it's all one big coincidence. That belief doesn't require intent behind creation.
Click to expand...

Agreed. It's simply systemic thinking that does not necessarily posit a Creator.
 
Greenberg

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Water may rest on a lotus leaf but it doesn't soak it (it beads on it like a marble) - similarly there are acts of transcendence (with the senses) that are distinguishable from acts of sense gratification
”
Interestingly, it was just earlier this week that I first learned about this property of lotus leaves.
Click to expand...
you can also use lotus leaves as plates - in India the production of lotus leaf plates is an industry (unfortunately the plastic plate industry is also burgeoning)
“
soul basically just means the essence of your personality - just as you deck your body out with a clothes, similarly your soul is covered by a material body and mind
”
What is the soul like, what characteristics does it have?
Click to expand...
thinking, willing and feeling in the medium of eternity

BG 2.20 For the soul there is neither birth nor death at any time. He has not come into being, does not come into being, and will not come into being. He is unborn, eternal, ever-existing and primeval. He is not slain when the body is slain.

Or alternatively sat (eternity) cit (knowledge) ananda (bliss)
“
it seems that you are saying that all your ideas of self are material - given the nature of this world, this is not unusual. Sometimes there is the analogy of a house that is being overly taxed by the government - it might seem easier to burn it down and exist without it. If however one receives knowledge how to properly maintain a house, it becomes a valuable asset.
”
Obviously. The body is the vehicle to Liberation.
Click to expand...
If one is pursuing the notion of ceasing to exist as the goal of liberation, issues arise

“
Basically the whole business of properly discerning the self as distinct from matter is a practice (and generally it takes a lifetime)
”
I think so too.
But many Christians simply do not agree with this and it has caused me a lot of grief. According to many of them, one can simply "know one's true self" -as in "sit down on an evening and have a long and hard thinking about oneself"- and -ta!- one can properly believe in God.
Why I keep mentioning Christians - I am not sure, perhaps Christians are right about God and you are not.
Click to expand...
whoever may be right, I think the answer lies in philosophical analysis - needless to say "sitting down and having a good think" doesn't seem helpful in surmounting one's conditioned nature, since the root of conditioned nature is the (conditioned) mind


“
SB 10.14.26 The conception of material bondage and the conception of liberation are both manifestations of ignorance. Being outside the scope of true knowledge, they cease to exist when one correctly understands that the pure spirit soul is distinct from matter and always fully conscious. At that time bondage and liberation no longer have any significance, just as day and night have no significance from the perspective of the sun.
”
Popular Zen makes many points to this effect, e.g. "The only thing standing between you and Enlightenment is your desire to be enlightened".
Although I think I see the point of this, I don't think it is at all useful for everyday life - because adopting such views too soon makes one complacent, lazy, irresponsible, without actually having developed any qualities of concentration, to say the least.
Click to expand...
the point is that for the soul, there are no activities of renunciation in regards to matter since it bears no connection to matter (even though such issues may be important initially) - it kind of helps distinguish perfectional from practical spiritual life .... meaning to say that spiritual life is eternal does not entail issues of eternal renunciation

“
Similarly conceiving of the self in connection or abnegation of this world remains a material conception
”
Of course, but it is an abnegation with a specific purpose, direction goal.
The path of purification is still a fabrication, but it is the sort of fabrication that leads to the end of fabrication.
Click to expand...
yes




“
- I can say that the self is essentially a servant of god and you can accept it (or reject it) as a mental concept
”
The thing is that I can do neither - nor accept it nor reject it. This gives rise to a special kind of tension that can be paralyzing.
Because either accepting it or rejecting it could be done by compromising my integrity in one way or another.
Accepting it would be accepting something on hearsay and speculation - and accepting something on hearsay and speculation is a compromising of my integrity.
Rejecting it would be rejecting something on hearsay and speculation - and rejecting something on hearsay and speculation is a compromising of my integrity.
So in this case, neither acceptance nor rejection help me.
Click to expand...
even agnostically , it can remain a mental concept

“
but there is an aspect of realizing it that is deeper and arises from practice - kind of like if a hungry person is eating food, their sense of increased energy, happiness and satisfaction is more than just a mental concept (they don't need to run off to someone to get some sort of authorized certificate that they have increased vigor - it is their direct realization)
”
Apparently, I lack such direct realization, and am also aware of this lack.
There is a kind of confidence that comes from that, though - knowing where my lacks are.
Click to expand...
my point is that the realization arises from practice, and that is precisely what is lacking in a person on the mental platform (ie immersed thoroughly in the notion of ideas only)
 
Pete said:
What about God? Why do people think that God needs no further explanation?
Click to expand...

From the idea that God is the universal constant, I suppose. As a source of the energy that makes up the universe, he does not need to change or come into being. Sort of like being the basis of the immaterial rather than the material. A cosmic spirit.
 
Last edited:
so, in the spirit of keeping things simple, why does this energy source have to have any additional baggage, such as intelligence?
 
Pete said:
so, in the spirit of keeping things simple, why does this energy source have to have any additional baggage, such as intelligence?
Click to expand...

To account for the organisation of both the material and spiritual system that the universe is made up of.
 
S.A.M. said:
From the idea that God is the universal constant, I suppose. As a source of the energy that makes up the universe, he does not need to change or come into being. Sort of like being the basis of the immaterial rather than the material. A cosmic spirit.
Click to expand...
Or then ... if we think about it, it makes so much more sense that Xenu the intergalactic Space OverLord blah blah blah...

considering that there is EQUAL evidence for:
- God
- God as a universal constant
- God as a source of energy
- God that makes up the universe
- God that does not need to change
- God that does not need to come into being
- God being the bases of the "immaterial" (whatever that is)
- God being a cosmic spirit

- God with a hot body and big breasts like Athena
- God that likes "His" eggs over easy.

... as there is evidence for Xenu.

Why bother making the postulate at all?

Because it all comes back to he does not need to change or come into being. and there you have it. Why not "She" SAM? Or if not She then say It? But "It" and "She" don't feel right do they SAM? No No No .. not when we need a sky-daddy. A big fat alpha male ape in the sky.


The simple fact is we only have evidence of the existence of our universe.
That's all.
Not one shred of evidence of the existence of Xenu. Or Allah. They are both equally as plausible. So why believe in one over the other? Because you were taught to believe in one over the other. If you were a scientologist you're be rattling off attributes of Xenu.

- Xenu the invisible.
- Xenu the overloard.
- Xenu the cosmic egg-head


And it'd make just as much sense.

Which is to say ZERO.

Funny how Theists easily accept their non-observable sky-daddy always existed but can't make the logical leap to the fact that reality always existed without God. How easy they accept some half-baked story about an angel whispering into some cons brain?



You want to know why atheism MUST be defined as "lacking a beleif "? its to TRY and somehow pull some sort of semblance of a logical debate out of mumbo jumbo like "Xenu the cosmic universal egg-head and His Prophet camel-toe Joe"

THAT'S why.

Michael
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top