Unnecessary Confrontations

[Big Chiller]

Actually the overwhelming majority of atheists are a dead-on six while the overwhelming majority of theists are a full-blown one. Sevens and twos seem to be very rare.

In a theist's perspective at least really believing in God takes a great deal of inner strength so on that scale the majority of theists would not fall in one but two. A few would fall in one however people who simply love to indulge in following do not count as proper one-theists imo.

 

[arfa brane]

A big part of the ongoing confrontations is that everyone thinks they know what the subject of God means.

But most theists and atheists will talk about religion. Religions are not God, as such.
I am not religious, and I don't believe a lot of things religions have to say about the subject.

I can experience something which doesn't need to be labelled as this or that, it is what it is. But then, Arioch is sure that this experience is "false data". He also knows that there is no test available to confirm this, so there you have it, he can't be sure at all. That's science.
Atheism of the kind Arioch is attached to does depend on belief in ideas, rather than experience. Attachment to ideas, or to material possessions isn't really a very useful strategy, it tends to make your mind closed to the reality that you are more than a mind with ideas in it.

He's managed to "debunk" my claims, in his mind. That's nice for him, but it hasn't changed anything.

 

[SciWriter]

Arioch,

Your post is just way too much hot air to wade through.

An obvious deflection. Jan cannot respond.

 

[wynn]

A big part of the ongoing confrontations is that everyone thinks they know what the subject of God means.

But most theists and atheists will talk about religion. Religions are not God, as such.
I am not religious, and I don't believe a lot of things religions have to say about the subject.

I can experience something which doesn't need to be labelled as this or that, it is what it is. But then, Arioch is sure that this experience is "false data". He also knows that there is no test available to confirm this, so there you have it, he can't be sure at all. That's science.
Atheism of the kind Arioch is attached to does depend on belief in ideas, rather than experience. Attachment to ideas, or to material possessions isn't really a very useful strategy, it tends to make your mind closed to the reality that you are more than a mind with ideas in it.

He's managed to "debunk" my claims, in his mind. That's nice for him, but it hasn't changed anything.

And yet were it not for religion, in some form or another, you would not be able to talk about your experiences of God.
Without religion, you would not even have the words to put your experiences into.

 

[SciWriter]

The proof of God is in the pudding and there is none to be shown, so there is no substance to speak of. We could then go one to speak of what people have made up or wish for, but what sense does that make? Unless and until there is some meat, there is no entity for discussion.

Now if believers go and cause trouble in the world, then must come the unavoidable confrontation on them, as real people doing something harmful.

 

[Rav]

And yet were it not for religion, in some form or another, you would not be able to talk about your experiences of God.
Without religion, you would not even have the words to put your experiences into.

If we work with the dictionary definition of religion, then the only difference I can see between religion and a set of personal beliefs regarding the nature and purpose of existence is that the former has been formalized and agreed upon (at least for the most part) by a group of people, and usually includes some sort of system of devotional practice.

To me, then, if you have "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies", but don't identify as embracing anything already established and formalized, then you still fit most of the definition of a religious person, but are simply something of a 'free agent' in that regard. Furthermore, as Signal has alluded to, such 'freestyle' beliefs almost always derive from established religious beliefs anyway.

All in all I don't see much practical use for a distinction in discussions that are clearly about one's spiritual beliefs rather than whatever rituals they may or may not practice.

 

[Jan Ardena]

An obvious deflection. Jan cannot respond.

Just saying so doesn't turn it into truth, so why don't
you break with tradition and give an explanation or reason.


jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

And yet were it not for religion, in some form or another, you would not be able to talk about your experiences of God.
Without religion, you would not even have the words to put your experiences into.

This implies religious institutes are the cause of religion, which makes
no sense.

jan.

 

[wynn]

This implies religious institutes are the cause of religion, which makes no sense.

It makes perfect sense if we go with the idea that God gave religion to mankind.

In Christianity, Jesus gave Peter the keys to the Church, thus starting the disciplic succession.


In a school of Hinduism, the disciplic succession is said to start thus:

BG 4.1: The Personality of Godhead, Lord Śrī Krishna, said: I instructed this imperishable science of yoga to the sun-god, Vivasvān, and Vivasvān instructed it to Manu, the father of mankind, and Manu in turn instructed it to Ikshvāku.

BG 4.2: This supreme science was thus received through the chain of disciplic succession, and the saintly kings understood it in that way. But in course of time the succession was broken, and therefore the science as it is appears to be lost.

BG 4.3: That very ancient science of the relationship with the Supreme is today told by Me to you because you are My devotee as well as My friend and can therefore understand the transcendental mystery of this science.

or, in another rendition:

Evam paramparā-prāptam imam rājarshayo viduh (Bhagavad-gītā 4.2). This Bhagavad-gītā As It Is is received through this disciplic succession:

1. Krishna
2. Brahmā
3. Nārada
4. Vyāsa
5. Madhva
6. Padmanābha
7. Nrihari
8. Mādhava
9. Akshobhya
10. Jaya Tīrtha
11. Jñānasindhu
12. Dayānidhi
13. Vidyānidhi
14. Rājendra
15. Jayadharma
16. Purushottama
17. Brahmanya Tīrtha
18. Vyāsa Tīrtha
19. Lakshmīpati
20. Mādhavendra Purī
21. Īśvara Purī, (Nityānanda, Advaita)
22. Lord Caitanya
23. Rūpa, (Svarūpa, Sanātana)
24. Raghunātha, Jīva
25. Krishnadāsa
26. Narottama
27. Viśvanātha
28. (Baladeva) Jagannātha
29. Bhaktivinoda
30. Gaurakiśora
31. Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī
32. A. C. Bhaktivedanta Svāmī Prabhupāda

 

[wynn]

This implies religious institutes are the cause of religion, which makes no sense.

And further, it makes perfect sense if we simply acknowledge where and how we actually learn "about God": namely, we do so essentially from other people.


Normally, people are not receiving private revelations like Moses, much less like Arjuna.
Instead, we "hear about God" from other people.

 

[Jan Ardena]

And further, it makes perfect sense if we simply acknowledge where and how we actually learn "about God": namely, we do so essentially from other people.


Normally, people are not receiving private revelations like Moses, much less like Arjuna.
Instead, we "hear about God" from other people.

So how does it make sense that people are the original cause of religion.?

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

It makes perfect sense if we go with the idea that God gave religion to mankind.

In Christianity, Jesus gave Peter the keys to the Church, thus starting the disciplic succession.


In a school of Hinduism, the disciplic succession is said to start thus:



or, in another rendition:

You prove me right with this.

jan.

 

[SciWriter]

Just saying so doesn't turn it into truth, so why don't
you break with tradition and give an explanation or reason.


jan.

The reason is that you failed to answer the post. This is a discussion thread. 'Neglect' is a deflection against discussion.

 

[Jan Ardena]

The reason is that you failed to answer the post. This is a discussion thread. 'Neglect' is a deflection against discussion.

I'm in the process of doing that, I just want to clear some things up.

jan.

 

[SciWriter]

I'm in the process of doing that, I just want to clear some things up.

jan.

Good going.

Can you ask God to clear the hurricane that's going into New York City soon? I live about 75 miles up from there.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Good going.

Can you ask God to clear the hurricane that's going into New York City soon? I live about 75 miles up from there.

Yes.


jan.

 

[wynn]

You prove me right with this.

You seem to be missing my point.

So how does it make sense that people are the original cause of religion.?

I never said that people are the cause of religion.

I said that we learn "about God" from people. Note the quote marks.

We do not know, nowadays, whether what we learn "about God" indeed is about God.
We only have things that other people told us and which they claim are about God.

But we currently have no independet way to prove that what those people say indeed is about God. They could very well be charlatans and false prophets, leading us on.

Arjuna and Moses, for example, had first-hand revelations. We do not.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Signa,

You seem to be missing my point.

Probably.

I said that we learn "about God" from people. Note the quote marks.

We do not know, nowadays, whether what we learn "about God" indeed is about God.
We only have things that other people told us and which they claim are about God.

Initially, I suppose we do to some degree, but we can't actually learn about God from people, I doubt it's that simple. There has to be some input from the person themself in order to understand anything that he is told about God.

The scripture, is the best place to understand God from an intellectual point of view, and the place to put what they may have learned from people to the test.

But we currently have no independet way to prove that what those people say indeed is about God. They could very well be charlatans and false prophets, leading us on

Looking at it that way doesn't help, because we do not know anything, but act as though we do by giving God conditions.
Consider you are in a relationship, but you act as though you are an observer of the relationship trying to find out if love between you is real. You will never fully experience it becaue you have separated yourself from it.

Arjuna and Moses, for example, had first-hand revelations. We do not.

They only get first-hand revelations when they situated in the right position.

jan

 

[wynn]

Initially, I suppose we do to some degree, but we can't actually learn about God from people, I doubt it's that simple. There has to be some input from the person themself in order to understand anything that he is told about God.

Given how theists usually preach, the requirment seems to be just the opposite: namely, to not put in anything personal.

"Just try and understand" - which means: don't think, don't feel, don't speak, don't ask any questions; just repeat what you have been told.

The scripture, is the best place to understand God from an intellectual point of view,

Ah, which scripture, whose version, whose translation, whose commentary ...

and the place to put what they may have learned from people to the test.

How can God or knowledge of God possibly be put to the test??

If God is in charge of the whole Universe and everything in it, then surely He is in charge also of any attempt of putting Him (or anyone or anything to the test). Which makes the whole exercise of putting someone or something to the test, futile.

Looking at it that way doesn't help, because we do not know anything, but act as though we do by giving God conditions.

Nor does it help to give in to any person or scripture that claims to be about or from God.

Consider you are in a relationship, but you act as though you are an observer of the relationship trying to find out if love between you is real. You will never fully experience it becaue you have separated yourself from it.

I don't buy that. True love, like true faith, should be able to withstand any and all questions and doubts.

They only get first-hand revelations when they situated in the right position.

Sure, but that is not my point.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Signa,

Given how theists usually preach, the requirment seems to be just the opposite: namely, to not put in anything personal.

How do we usually preach?

"Just try and understand" - which means: don't think, don't feel, don't speak, don't ask any questions; just repeat what you have been told.

I'm not aware of this.
Do you have any examples?

Ah, which scripture, whose version, whose translation, whose commentary ...

An,y to begin with.

How can God or knowledge of God possibly be put to the test??

That's not what I said. ''and the place to put what they may have learned from people to the test.

If God is in charge of the whole Universe and everything in it, then surely He is in charge also of any attempt of putting Him (or anyone or anything to the test). Which makes the whole exercise of putting someone or something to the test, futile.

Read above.

Nor does it help to give in to any person or scripture that claims to be about or from God.

Why doesn't it help.
Relationships are all about giving, trusting.

But we currently have no independet way to prove that what those people say indeed is about God. They could very well be charlatans and false prophets, leading us on

Looking at it that way doesn't help, because we do not know anything, but act as though we do by giving God conditions.
Consider you are in a relationship, but you act as though you are an observer of the relationship trying to find out if love between you is real. You will never fully experience it becaue you have separated yourself from it.

I don't buy that. True love, like true faith, should be able to withstand any and all questions and doubts.

Of course, but the aim is not test love or faith, in a bid to decide whether they are real or not. You can only know that through personal experience, it is the same with God. So if we get duped by a charlaton, we have to accept that as part of the whole process of discrimination. IOW, experience counts, not talk.
This is relevant in all forms of knowledge.

Sure, but that is not my point.

Nevertheless, this is the qualification, so it acts as a basis for discrimination against charlatons.


jan.