Religion And God

[lightgigantic]

Student,

LOL. Nonsense. Sounds like condescending arrogance. Umm, no I'm wrong, it is condescending arrogance.

Lol - Something we can agree on Chris

Actually Vivekananda was more of a political figure than a saintly person - even academics in the field of indian religion will declare that he has no knowledge of scriptures - some even say that he did more damage to the spiritual fabric of india than 1000 years of muslim and british rulership

 

[lightgigantic]

God doesn't want or need anything because he already has all he wants, he is complete, he is what he is, he is not a male or female, he is not separated from oneness.

Everything is special, so nothing is special. Everyone but humans follow God. See animals. They follow all laws of nature/God..

Everything is special so nothing is special? Do you lock your car when you park it? If nothing is special what is so special about God?

He cares because he's impersonal. .

Excuse me!?! Impersonal care - is that something like sinful purity or miserable happiness?

Things aren't less important just because they are primitive. Humans aren't primitive, but God sees everything from a universal viewpoint. He doesn't favor anyone or anything. That's why some people die in natural disasters.

God doesn't interfere with our business. He lets us be free. We should try to be like God, .

How can we be like god if he is impersonal?

and let other people have their free will and personal beliefs.

 

[lightgigantic]

This is almost incomprehensible to me. You are saying that the success or failure of an investigation into god is based on his whim as to whether or not he reveals himself to you.

Essentially yes - There are other ways - like for example you could examine the nature of ferraris and follow the proceedure of their construction by examining the nature of the cars and build a general picture of the ferrari manufacturer as an entity that must logically exist - in the same way you can examine the phenomenal world and arrive at the conclusion it seems to indicate a designer - but if you want to actually meet them in person, god or the ferrari manufacturer, it depends on the whim of the person.

I, as an atheist, need god to reveal himself far more than other, less heathenist, people, wouldn't you say?

But just like you cannot place demands on the ferrari manager or george bush or anyone superior to you you cannot place demands on them, particularly if its just to prove that you exist - I mean suppose you wanted to get george bush to see you just to prove he exists to you? Do you think george bush would bother? Important people generally only associat e with people who are convinced of their existence, and because they are important, whether you believe in them or not doesn't affect their activities.

I sense an underlying thread in your approach. You seem to be basing your arguments on the idea that only those "trained" in a praticular field can benefit from the "proofs" or "perceptions" made in that field.

yes

This is a faulty position. It ignores the fact that once the detailed work is done in a field, the chain of logic and evidence can almost always be followed by educated and interested laymen, and either accepted or rejected on it's merits.

Well actually no
There was an incident where einstein had just discovered something in outer space that seemed to confirm his theory of relativity - the british astronomy association released to the media that this was the greatest discovery of the century and that all the books would have to be re-written etc etc - So naturally the media was very eager to understand what he had actually discovered and the significance of it - the spokesman told the press reporters however that there was no way to explain it to someone who was not qualified in the field. The reporters insisted for at least a hint but the spokesman was adamant that there was no way to explain it to the joe on the street. And the newsreporters accepted that - In other words they perceived the credibility and authority of science as a means for belief as opposed to logic and empirical evidence gathered by their own endeavour.

To apply logic and evidence to an established field of knowledge depends on being qualified (the more complex the field of knowledge the more requirement there is for qualification)

 

[lightgigantic]

LG,

What is the difference between "mundane" as you are using it, and "godness"?

Provide me with an incident where I used it and I will tell you

 

[superluminal]

Provide me with an incident where I used it and I will tell you

Any of your last haf-dozen or so posts. Pick one. I don't mind which.

 

[superluminal]

So, light, cutting through all the claptrap, why do you insist on a god with no evidence? You use an awful lot of words to dance around a pretty simple idea.

 

[lightgigantic]

So, light, cutting through all the claptrap, why do you insist on a god with no evidence? You use an awful lot of words to dance around a pretty simple idea.

lol - I could ask you the same question in regard to your stance on atheism

 

[superluminal]

lol - I could ask you the same question in regard to your stance on atheism

No, you can't. I have mountains of evidence for a non-supernatural cosmos. You have none for a supernatural cosmos (god).

 

[superluminal]

lol - I could ask you the same question in regard to your stance on atheism

I also must note that you are extremely frustrating to deal with. You don't address anything directly. That makes one not trust your motives.

 

[lightgigantic]

You have indications of how the material phenomena works thats all - if science had such a tight grasp on universal affairs by dint of their knowledge there would be no drought, no sickness, etc etc.

I don't doubt that there are a multitude of ways to extract results from this world but I doubt whether the evidences that go behind that extracting indicate the absence of god.

 

[c7ityi_]

If that's the case why do you submit to the "illusion" of buying a woolen jumper and not a ball of wool in the winter - you could save yourself $100

Yes, but there is still illusional difference, and the things we see are real as long as we live in the illusion.

Everything is special so nothing is special?

Always remember, you are unique, just like everyone else.

Do you lock your car when you park it?

I would, if I had a car.

If nothing is special what is so special about God?

God is nothing.

Excuse me!?! Impersonal care - is that something like sinful purity or miserable happiness?

I'm not sure if I quite understand, but it's non-being (absolute being/existence).

How can we be like god if he is impersonal?

All religions teach us to love other people which means to be impersonal (selfless). Personal means egoistic. Buddha said that the person is an illusion, it does not exist, and it's the cause of misery. A person is a mask, it's not me, it's my creation. I have no personality because I have them all, I create all of them. Right personality in the right place and time is divine.

 

[Godless]

God is nothing.

BINGO!!!

You've hit the nail on the freaking head. God is nothing, therefore NONEXISTENT!!.

 

[superluminal]

You have indications of how the material phenomena works thats all - if science had such a tight grasp on universal affairs by dint of their knowledge there would be no drought, no sickness, etc etc.

This is naieve.

I don't doubt that there are are a multitude of ways to extract results from this world but I doubt whether the evidences that go behind that extracting indicate the absence of god.

No one claims they do.

 

[lightgigantic]

BINGO!!!

You've hit the nail on the freaking head. God is nothing, therefore NONEXISTENT!!.

LOL - c7ityi_ you had that coming - actually the philosophy you advocate is not theism but veiled atheism

 

[lightgigantic]

I also must note that you are extremely frustrating to deal with. You don't address anything directly. That makes one not trust your motives.

Well I just adressed what religion is how one can know religion - and how one who does not know religion and passing an opinion is like any other person passing a comment in a field of knowledge they are not familiar with - you don't get more direct than that!!

As for defining godliness and mundane you will have to provide an example becasue, like your question was suggesting, sometimes the terms can be diametrically opposed or sometimes it can be used in the sense of mundane godliness or a mundane sense of godly

“ I don't doubt that there are are a multitude of ways to extract results from this world but I doubt whether the evidences that go behind that extracting indicate the absence of god. ”


to which you replied "No one claims they do."

Then why did you post "No, you can't. I have mountains of evidence for a non-supernatural cosmos. You have none for a supernatural cosmos (god)."

What happened to the mountains?

 

[superluminal]

Well I just adressed what religion is how one can know religion - and how one who does not know religion and passing an opinion is like any other person passing a comment in a field of knowledge they are not familiar with - you don't get more direct than that!!

As for defining godliness and mundane you will have to provide an example becasue, like your question was suggesting, sometimes the terms can be diametrically opposed or sometimes it can be used in the sense of mundane godliness or a mundane sense of godly

“ I don't doubt that there are are a multitude of ways to extract results from this world but I doubt whether the evidences that go behind that extracting indicate the absence of god. ”


to which you replied "No one claims they do."

Then why did you post "No, you can't. I have mountains of evidence for a non-supernatural cosmos. You have none for a supernatural cosmos (god)."

What happened to the mountains?

Please read the statement. No one claims to have evidence of the absence of god. We just have no evidence that indicates the presence of a god.

 

[lightgigantic]

Please read the statement. No one claims to have evidence of the absence of god. We just have no evidence that indicates the presence of a god.

then why did you state you were an atheist

Originally Posted by superluminal
I, as an atheist, need god to reveal himself far more than other, less heathenist, people, wouldn't you say? ”

An atheist believes god doesn't exist. A theist believes god exists. An agnostic believes he doesn't know whether god exists or not.

If you are an atheist where is your proof?

 

[superluminal]

then why did you state you were an atheist

Originally Posted by superluminal
I, as an atheist, need god to reveal himself far more than other, less heathenist, people, wouldn't you say? ”

An atheist believes god doesn't exist. A theist believes god exists. An agnostic believes he doesn't know whether god exists or not.

If you are an atheist where is your proof?

No, you're wrong. There are conflicting definitions of 'atheist' that include either a positive assertion that there is no god, or simple lack of any reason to postulate one. I have a strong sense that there is no god. But proof? Of course not. You are twisting and turning words in a completely disingenuous way to suit your own needs.

 

[lightgigantic]

No, you're wrong. There are conflicting definitions of 'atheist' that include either a positive assertion that there is no god, or simple lack of any reason to postulate one. I have a strong sense that there is no god. But proof? Of course not. You are twisting and turning words in a completely disingenuous way to suit your own needs.

LOL - So in otherwords you are saying that you believe you are an agnostic atheist -

What's the difference between that and a run of the mill agnostic? Or is that also an article of contention?

 

[pavlosmarcos]

then why did you state you were an atheist



If you are an atheist where is your proof?

what a complete and utter moron you are.

an atheist has a lack of belief in a god, this does not say that there could not be one, that would be infantile in the extreme, as we have not checked under every nook and crannie, in the universe, to see if it's hiding somewhere.
however we have no evidence for a god, so we can be 99.999999999999999% recuring that there is'nt one.
the burden of proof must always remain with the asserter, namely you.

Proving Existence or Non-Existence.

The existence of a thing can be conclusively proved by producing one single instance of the thing.

To put that another way: -
When the existence of a thing is denied, This can be proven wrong by producing one single instance of the thing said not to exist

The non-existence of a thing can never be conclusively proved because there is always the theoretical assumption that the thing exists but has not been seen yet or it exists in a place that can not be visited. Unless all places in the universe have been visited and are being constantly observed, we can not be absolutely certain.

From this we can say that there are only two possible statements we can make about the existence of a thing:


The thing exists.

It is unknown if the thing exists or not.

It is not possible to prove that a thing "does not exist" without further qualifying criteria.

If a thing does NOT exist it can not leave any evidence of it's non-existence. Only things that DO exist can leave evidence. From this we can derive that conclusive proof can only come from the person that claims that a thing exists. It is nonsensical to demand proof of non-existence.