If there was a 'God'

[Ginger Rogers]

I am not religeous, I am more of an agnostic as its' imposible to prove if there is or is not some kind of 'God'

My own opinion is that if there were a God surely one would just know it, like we know that the sky is eternal (well, apparantly!) , grass is green, and dogs have 4 legs (in most cases)

But the question is, why is it that so many people believe in something so whimsical, on such little evidence, and that presidents, prime ministers and monachs the world over proudly bow down to their 'church'
Yet, talk of aliens, magic, or witches, and you'd be laughed at by most.

I don't understand? !

My own opinion is that the church was set up by some old government somewhere to 'control the masses' as someone I know once put it! but I guess that's conspiracy theory!

[Jocky]

Yeah, I call myself 'agnostic' too, for much the same reason. There are others here who prefer 'atheist'. I suspect that most card carrying Christians would call us all 'atheists' (among other things :D ).

My personal theory is that religion evolved as an integral part of many societies from very early in the history of humankind: it was socially functional as a mechanism for passing down important information between generations; as a way of coping with despair at the pointlessness of life; as a device for marking important moments in life; and yes, also as a vehicle for political control.

I am skeptical of whether all the people who profess to believe in it actually do - and BTW I say that as a son of the manse, brought up in the body of the Kirk of Scotland >:D

[Mongrel]

My personal theory is that religion evolved as an integral part of many societies from very early in the history of humankind: it was socially functional as a mechanism for passing down important information between generations; as a way of coping with despair at the pointlessness of life; as a device for marking important moments in life; and yes, also as a vehicle for political control.


I'll add my theory to the mix and politely suggest you missed out enforcing common sense stuff. Best example, from my chefing days, is that of Kosher food so here's a couple of examples

Pigs are unclean - Pigs will also food competitors. When you're a nomadic desert tribe you don't want to beat your herd off of the succulent greens when you can have goats which are a far more practical animal. Second reason is that improperly kept or prepared Pork is much more likely to give you food poisoning than any commonly domesticated stock.

Draining meat of blood - the dryer a chunk of meat is the less likely bacteria will want to inhabit it, especially when you consider that blood is what every growing bacteria needs. Also from here (http://www.myjewishlearning.com/daily_life/Kashrut/Overview_Kosher_Food/Kosher_Meat.htm) as part of the process the meat is salted for half an hour, salt is good at killing the nasties.

[Ginger Rogers]

That is common sense stuff, but I'm not too sure what it has to do with religeon really - thats only a jewish thing anyway isn't it.

[median]

That is common sense stuff, but I'm not too sure what it has to do with religeon really - thats only a jewish thing anyway isn't it.

I think what Mongrel states is quite a plausible idea and it isn't incongruent with Jocky's proposal.
Development of well established religions such as Judaeism would have been a powerful social cohesive force. As such, elements of ritual social behaviours such as feeding would, I daresay, become integrated in the whole religious edifice.
If the concept of God was man-made then what better way to make sure such, 'survivalist' eating habits are adequately disseminated, than by insisting they were the word of God?
Remember, it is fundamental in religion to state that all things wise/good come from God. ;D

Interestingly, when I was growing up, it was established pork wasn't eaten in the hotter months.
Various horror stories featuring tapeworm were told by my mother and we were C of E?

[Hazen]

Ed works in mysterious ways:

Oh really?

You can't take the credit for all the good stuff that happens and not take take the blame for all the bad stuff.

According to Pat Robertson, hurricane Katrina wasn't, in fact a hurricane, it was the hand of god sent to punish the wicked - evidently jewgod hates poor black people, now.

Ariel Sharon didn't have a stroke, he was struck down by the hand of god for dividing the land of Israel - pretty rich coming from a baptist fundie.

I think the quote you're mentioning is: 'religion is the opiate of the masses' for precisely the reasons you mention.

Snake oil anyone?

[Mongrel]

That is common sense stuff, but I'm not too sure what it has to do with religeon really - thats only a jewish thing anyway isn't it.

I think what Mongrel states is quite a plausible idea and it isn't incongruent with Jocky's proposal.
Development of well established religions such as Judaeism would have been a powerful social cohesive force. As such, elements of ritual social behaviours such as feeding would, I daresay, become integrated in the whole religious edifice.
If the concept of God was man-made then what better way to make sure such, 'survivalist' eating habits are adequately disseminated, than by insisting they were the word of God?
Remember, it is fundamental in religion to state that all things wise/good come from God. ;D

Interestingly, when I was growing up, it was established pork wasn't eaten in the hotter months.
Various horror stories featuring tapeworm were told by my mother and we were C of E?



Thanks for putting that better than I could Meridan O0

It's not only a Jewish thing, the Muslim halal is very similar but they get more leeway in what fish they can eat and they skip the 'can't mix meat and milk' rule.

As for common sense Ginger, it is now. We have the luxury of knowing what bacteria are, how they breed and their favourite places to do it, food hygiene, excellent websites like this one (http://aggie-horticulture.tamu.edu/extension/poison.html) and a large dollop of hindsight. There's possibly some social considerations for some of the fish restrictions, in much the same way that Baluga caviar is a status symbol today or oysters 10-15 years ago. And finally how many times do you see common sense failure in your daily life? Whilst the living enviroment would have winnowed some of them out rather quickly I doubt it would have got all of them, like Einstein said
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.

[Jocky]

Mongrel / median: yes, good practice relating to food was one of the things I had in mind when I described religion as "a mechanism for passing down important information between generations". Techniques for tracking the passing of the seasons, and thereby organising harvesting of crops, preparation for hard winter months etc. is another such example. Prescientific societies would have needed some way of making such information authoritative and binding in order to maximise the chances of survival.

I deduce from your avatar that you're a big fan of religion, Hazen :)


According to Pat Robertson, hurricane Katrina wasn't, in fact a hurricane, it was the hand of god sent to punish the wicked - evidently jewgod hates poor black people, now.

Odd though it seems, I think that in the context of a prescientific society the ravings of creatures like Robertson might have been functional as well. Finding a way of making sense of unpredictable catastrophes would have been indispensible in the wake of such an event, to stop despair and fragmentation from causing the society to crumble. Uniting people against a (real or imagined) common enemy, or interpreting the catastrophe as an admonition to behave more functionally, would be the best thing the leadership could do to help the society as a whole rise to the challenges of reconstruction.

I agree of course that it is deeply offensive for preachers to make religious capital out of such disasters in this day and age, though. IMHO, part of what we can achieve by organising as skeptics is to reduce the influence wielded by such dangerous rubbish. What was right three thousand years ago, or even one thousand years ago, is not necessarily still right today - and that is a point that fundamentalist religion misses completely.

[Hazen]

I deduce from your avatar that you're a big fan of religion, Hazen

I have the utmost respect for those who think themselves morally superior precisely because they believe in I-used -to-be-a-racist-sexist-homophobic-genocidal-pyscho-but-I-changed-my-mind-and-now-I'm-the-god-of-love-except-you'd-still-better-
worship-me-or-I'll-fry-your-ass god.

[Jocky]

It almost sounds like you would prefer the good old traditional I'm-an-unrepentant-racist-sexist-homophobic-genocidal-pyscho-now-bow-down-to-me-you-plebs-or-I'll-fry-your-asses god ...


You can't take the credit for all the good stuff that happens and not take take the blame for all the bad stuff

Absolutely, religion has been an ostensible 'cause' of any amount of bad stuff which has happened in human history. But how much of that do you think might have happened anyway, even if god had never been invented? IMO, quite a few (not all) conflicts which have been expressed in religious terms are actually primarily political or economic in origin: religion has merely been a medium for expressing and rationalising the hostility.

[Ginger Rogers]

Buddhism does interest me though. But I wouldn't really call it a 'religeon' as such..

[Jocky]

Buddhism is a religion, in the broadest sense of the word (even though it does not preach the existence of god):


A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion

It does come across as a more personal, practical phenomenon than (say) the lofty and distant self-proclaimed authority inherent in Roman Catholicism, but like other religions it does require faith in a fundamental belief which has no verifiable basis in fact: in this case not the existence of a supreme being, but the reality of reincarnation.

I do not mean to deny the personal benefit which some people derive from Buddhism, btw. Like some other religious practices, there are certain functional aspects (eg meditation as a way of reducing stress) hidden amid the associated woo.

[Ginger Rogers]

Buddhism is a religion, in the broadest sense of the word (even though it does not preach the existence of god):


A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion

It does come across as a more personal, practical phenomenon than (say) the lofty and distant self-proclaimed authority inherent in Roman Catholicism, but like other religions it does require faith in a fundamental belief which has no verifiable basis in fact: in this case not the existence of a supreme being, but the reality of reincarnation.

I do not mean to deny the personal benefit which some people derive from Buddhism, btw. Like some other religious practices, there are certain functional aspects (eg meditation as a way of reducing stress) hidden amid the associated woo.


hmmm from the book I read on the subject, not reincarnation in the way that you might think.
it's more about the fact that we're all of the same atoms and particles so in effect we are a reincarnation of material before us... ?
It was called Buddhism: Plain and simple by Steve Hagen. I found it to be very very interesting, though hands up I didn't fully understand the full concept of what he was trying to say.

But I promise, even for the most 'skeptical' or non believer, it's really worth a read.....

[Jocky]

we're all of the same atoms and particles so in effect we are a reincarnation of material before us

Well, I suppose that's true; but if you boil reincarnation down to that prosaic level , I can't see a lot of spiritual value in it.

As I understand Buddhism (admittedly as a lay observer :) ), it entails a belief in the notion that your 'karma' follows you from one incarnation to the next. That belief does not appear to be compatible with a truism about the conservation of matter.

[Ginger Rogers]

I think there is buddhism, and then there is the souped up glorfied version..

again that book mentions nothing about 'good karma' It simply re-iterates that all we have to do is 'see' (ie things as they really are) to be enlightened.

[Jocky]

I think there is buddhism, and then there is the souped up glorfied version

Could well be ... I don't claim to be an expert. If Steve Hagen's brand of Buddhism moves away from reincarnation and karma towards something more concentrated on the self then good luck to him!

My comments were based on my understanding of traditional Buddhism - but as with all religions, no doubt there are many strands of thought that emphasise different aspects, or works from different sets of tenets.

[tkingdoll]

I always thought Buddhism was classified as a philosophy?

[Hazen]

I always thought Buddhism was classified as a philosophy?

This was also my understanding

[Jocky]

It depends on how you define religion. Buddhism is "A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader", but it's not "Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe."

By the sound of it, it also depends on what flavour of Buddhism one chooses to practice. I was under the impression that buddhists generally believed in reincarnation, and that the concept of karma was pretty fundamental. These things in my book are 'woo' beliefs, every bit as much as belief in Heaven and Hell. However, by the sound of Ginger's reading, my impression is not applicable to all strands of buddhist thought.

[seren]

*wades in*

Well, firstly it ain't "reincarnation". The word Buddhists prefer is rebirth, which doesn't clarify much, but the difference is marked. Jocky you talk about focussing on the "self"- that's exactly what Buddhism doesn't do. In contrast to Hinduism, Buddhists do not believe in "atman" (or "atta")- the essence, or "soul" of a person. The concept of "anatman" ("anatta") is fundamental to Buddhism. It means that nothing of a person survives beyond death except the consequences of their actions, your "karma", which plays itself out in subsequent rebirths. Yes, that's woo.

But here I must make the distinction between Buddhist monks and nuns and the Buddhist laity. The beliefs of lay Buddhists in Buddhist societies are much more likely to be mystical and woo woo. You'll find monks are often a lot more open-minded and sceptical. Buddha himself told his followers not to blindly follow his teachings. He said try it, see if it works for you.

He also told them not to cling to their beliefs, likening them to a raft that gets you across a river. Once you've got to the other side, he said, why keep carrying the raft? He always encouarged the questioning and dumping of superfluous beliefs.

So actually, once you get beyond the later additions to the faith, the rituals etc, the heart of Buddhism is meditating on the fact that you are going to die and life is pretty much pointless, and coming to terms with it. The rest of it- the karma and rebirth and whatnot- well, take it or leave it.

Philosophical Taoism is much like Buddhism stripped of its religious overtones and I'd recommend reading a good translation of the Tao Te Ching if you can't handle some of the more freaky cultural Buddhist stuff.

[seren]

Phew..took me ages to find. This is my preferred translation, because it's the most straightforward and clear. Others tend to be a bit florid.

http://www.avellunau.com/Taoism/tao_te_ching__rosenthal.htm

[Jocky]

Jocky you talk about focussing on the "self"- that's exactly what Buddhism doesn't do. In contrast to Hinduism, Buddhists do not believe in "atman" (or "atta")- the essence, or "soul" of a person. The concept of "anatman" ("anatta") is fundamental to Buddhism.

Point taken seren - perhaps I used the word 'self' rather carelessly. I did not intend to refer to a 'soul' or anything like that when I said "focussed on the self" - I meant something quite different and much more mundane. I simply meant "focussed on practical techniques from which an individual can derive personal value", as opposed to "dogma which imposes a set of values or world view on the individual from without" - as other more prescriptive religions tend to do.

ISWYM too about laity and monks tending to have a rather different take on how much of the woo they find useful - and I do appreciate that buddhism is a personal journey rather than a process of signing up to a creed. However, for the overwhelming majority who will never approach nirvana, I still maintain that it counts as a 'religion' - albeit a very different flavour of religion than (for example) most forms of Chritianity.

I have read the Tao Te Ching before, although not in that translation. Personally it is not my cup of tea, although I can see why people find value in it. I will read this translation when I have the leisure and see if I get on better with it.


Well, firstly it ain't "reincarnation". The word Buddhists prefer is rebirth, which doesn't clarify much, but the difference is marked.

Yeah but as you say it's still woo either way. How would you sum up your understanding of the difference?

[seren]

It's the "incarnation" bit that's the difference. Hindus believe that there's something essentially "you" that continues throughout a neverending cycle of death and birth, some thread that remains.

The Buddhist idea is a strange one. There is rebirth, but no soul or self to be reincarnated. It isn't "coming back", it's "coming again", if you see what I mean. You were one consciousness, now you are another.

Buddhism was really a kind of Hindu social reform in that it democratised the way to personal peace. It said that everyone, no matter what background, could achieve enlightenment and therefore no one caste held the keys to God, as it were. So if you look at it in that cultural context, that's the reason for the ditching of "self" or "soul": it does away with the need for priests and castes and puts enlightenment in the hands of the individual.

If you ignore all the woo-woo, it's rather refreshing: a religious leader saying, "Sod the rules and the ritual. Life sucks. I did this, it made me happy, you might want to try it too". Buddha had a great approach to the origins of the universe. Being an atheist*, people would ask him how he thought we got here. He'd say, "I don't know. Does it matter? We are here, there is suffering, I am trying to help with what is happening now". He was a very pragmatic man!

Fast forward a few thousand years and you have to cut through a cruddy crust of ritual, mysticism and idolatry to find the message at the heart. And yes, I agree it's a "religion", but rather a unique one!


*not entirely true, he said Gods existed but had no power and weren't worth worshipping. I think this again is a product of the Hindu culture he came from- pretty scandalous to deny the existence of Gods!

[Ginger Rogers]

Wow thanks for that Seren. Sounds like you understand it better than me. I must admit i couldn't get me head around what they were trying to say.
Steve Hagen kept reitereiting that we just need to 'see' but i'm not entirely sure what he was meaning by that - well yes, that many of us don' see the wood for the trees. Well I think I do, I take quite a lot of notice of what is going on around me, but I ain't feeling any kind of enlightenment!
I find it all a abit of a mystery and I'm dying to know what this enlightenment is!

[ergry]

It's the "incarnation" bit that's the difference. Hindus believe that there's something essentially "you" that continues throughout a neverending cycle of death and birth, some thread that remains.

The Buddhist idea is a strange one. There is rebirth, but no soul or self to be reincarnated. It isn't "coming back", it's "coming again", if you see what I mean. You were one consciousness, now you are another.

[...]

I would like to ask whether such kinds of concepts and their combination or permutation and alignment then re-alignment can jibe with critical thinking and empirical evidence that are the canons of skepticism.

But what I find most intriguing is the penchant, no irreverence intended to Buddha and his followers, of the Gautama to skip any difficult question by resorting to labeling it as pointless.



ergry

[Mongrel]

I see no practical reasons why a sceptic can't follow their own version of Buddhism, although I personally find it a tad too philosophical. From my, albeit limited, knowledge the basic tenets are not incompatible - to paraphrase,
Be nice to one another and treat yourself well
Question things and strive to improve yourself, ignorance is bad.

As for the 'Re-incarnation', from Serens quote
The Buddhist idea is a strange one. There is rebirth, but no soul or self to be reincarnated. It isn't "coming back", it's "coming again", if you see what I mean. You were one consciousness, now you are another. could (IMO) just mean that matter is recycled, statistically I've breathed molecules that interacted with the dinosaurs.

[ergry]

I see no practical reasons why a sceptic can't follow their own version of Buddhism, although I personally find it a tad too philosophical. From my, albeit limited, knowledge the basic tenets are not incompatible - to paraphrase,
Be nice to one another and treat yourself well
Question things and strive to improve yourself, ignorance is bad.

As for the 'Re-incarnation', from Serens

Quote:
The Buddhist idea is a strange one. There is rebirth, but no soul or self to be reincarnated. It isn't "coming back", it's "coming again", if you see what I mean. You were [B]one consciousness, now you are another.

could (IMO) just mean that matter is recycled, statistically I've breathed molecules that interacted with the dinosaurs.



That's all very well, except that one must at least maintain an implicit disclaimer to the effect that one is just indulging in the luxury of belief, not binding oneself to critical thinking and empirical evidence.

Try for example figuring out how the masters of Buddhism explain your unique consciousness that passes from molecules to molecules, unless you also subscribe to the luxury of a consciousness of your individuality that exists and does not exist -- that is the metaphysics incidentally of Buddhism: existence and non-existence are equivalent, the basic paradox of Buddhism.

Ah yes, now they will bring in quantum mechanics to explain how a thing can be and not be at the same time and under the same aspect, and render you speechless.


Better maintain a disclaimer if for the luxury of our emotions we want to take up Buddhism, or any other isms that are beyond at least for the present time, human critical thinking and demand for empirical evidence.


ergry

[Cuddles]

Try for example figuring out how the masters of Buddhism explain your unique consciousness that passes from molecules to molecules,

Perhaps when you were distracted with your random bolding you missed reading the actual post.

You were one conciousness, now you are another

The whole point is that it is not a unique conciousness being passed between molecules.

[Araneus]

Ah yes, now they will bring in quantum mechanics to explain how a thing can be and not be at the same time and under the same aspect, and render you speechless.

No they won't, they would render most of us very bored. The argument "It's quantum LOL!!!" gets regurgitated over and over again by people who don't know the first thing about quantum mechanics, and therefore are not qualified to offer it as an explanation for anything.

[Mongrel]

P
The whole point is that it is not a unique conciousness being passed between molecules.

Fair point - I'll go stand in the corner and read up some more on it when I get time :-[

[Cuddles]

Fair point - I'll go stand in the corner and read up some more on it when I get time :-[

Hmm? I was supporting your point. At least I think I was. I certainly meant to. Get out of that corner and join the rest of us. :smiley:

[Mongrel]

Hmm? I was supporting your point. At least I think I was. I certainly meant to. Get out of that corner and join the rest of us. :smiley:

Think it may have been the random bolding that got me confused then, ah well tlet's grab a beer instead of this trying to dissect this religious malarkey:booze: :smiley:

[Tracy]

I am not religeous, I am more of an agnostic as its' imposible to prove if there is or is not some kind of 'God'

My own opinion is that if there were a God surely one would just know it, like we know that the sky is eternal (well, apparantly!) , grass is green, and dogs have 4 legs (in most cases)

But the question is, why is it that so many people believe in something so whimsical, on such little evidence, and that presidents, prime ministers and monachs the world over proudly bow down to their 'church'
Yet, talk of aliens, magic, or witches, and you'd be laughed at by most.

I don't understand? !

My own opinion is that the church was set up by some old government somewhere to 'control the masses' as someone I know once put it! but I guess that's conspiracy theory!
-----------------------------------
I have often pondered the same thing.

I wrote about this very thing in my blog a few days back. Here are two post I made. I would love to hear what everyone thinks.

My Blog Address: http://absolutetruthandreligion.blogspot.com/

----------------------------

Religion's Lack Of Justification

I first just want to say the motives for my statements are not to offend or anger anyone but rather to try to get people to stop and think about things a little. I would like to get people who are a little too confident in their justification of their beliefs in their religion to be shaken awake to the fact that what they believe to be absolute truths are in reality just their beliefs. Believing something to be "truth" does not make it "truth". If their is an absolute truth, God, out there, it is only He that can claim to know what the truth is. As it stands, no human has the ability to prove he or she knows what the absolute truth is. As long as this is the case, no human can justifiably claim to know any aspect of the absolute truth let alone justify using such claims to know what the absolute truth is to control another human.

I do believe there is an absolute truth. I also know that my belief is not justification to do anything to another human or force another human to do anything. Because I can never claim to know what God says or wants, others will always be justified to challenge me on any power I might try to impose on another. The moment I claim "justification" by claiming "God tells me...", I am attempting to claim to know the absolute truth. This amounts to saying that I am on the same level as God. Some say that God has shown them the absolute truth. Unless they can prove this to be true, they will never be justified to use this claim to hold power over other humans.

Religion is used to control people. They do this by claiming to know the mind of God, what He thinks, wants, commands. The problem with this is no human can know these things. These things can not be proved. How can one human know with such complete certainty, the mind of God, to justify the dictation to another human what God wants, says, thinks, demands, commands...? How arrogant to think you know the mind of God with such certainty that you can justify controlling any other human in any way shape or form.

As to the negative effects of religion, lets not forget about the millions of people who have been killed in the name of God and religion. Christianity and Islam being two of the worst offenders.

Going back to the fact that no human can prove anything about God or any writing professed to be directly from God, this alone is enough to move away from such belief systems that have overwhelmingly caused more harm than good, death being only one negative effect to come from them. We can teach "Good Morality and Love" and achieve the same few good effects of religion without all the rest of the garbage from religion's negative effects. It is not logical to hang onto such a thing as religion when it can never be proved to be from God. When you take a true and honest comprehensive look at the true history of religion, looking at it with open eyes, meaning not looking at it from a prospective of wanting to find justification for its continued existence, you just might change your mind about religion.

-------------------

Science vs The Word Of God

If God gave us the ability to see, hear, touch, spell, think etc... and then we use these things to investigate the universe that He created and we find during this investigation, truths about universe that contradict the writings believed to be the word of God, then one of two things has to be true.

The writings believed to be the Word of God are in fact not the Word of God.

OR

The writings are in in fact the Word of God and God has Lied to us in his Word or He has created the Universe such that when investigated by us, it would give evidence that contradicts his Word which again is effectively lying.

The age of the earth is great example of a conflict between what the Bible says and what can be observed through science. In the bible, the family line from Christ to Adam is given. Using this information, people have calculated the age of earth to be some where around 5 to 6 thousand years old. There is over whelming evidence that the earth is far older than this. (4.5 billion years old).

Not only do people say the bible is infallible, the bible itself says it it infallible. If the bible itself states that the bible is the inerrant truth, the moment you prove any single fact in the bible to be wrong, it makes the bible not what it professes to be, the Word OF God. There is no way to get around this fact!!

Yes, one could still use the bible as a self help book but no one has the right to uses the bible as a source of justification for the use of power over another human based on the bible being the inerrant Word of God.

[Zaira]

Tracy,

I don't know if you are still around but I hope you are because I would like to discuss this some more.

To begin with, you shouldn't be too concerned about offending anyone around here. This forum is all about putting forward whatever thoughts you have on any subject. What the guys here do is open them up to debate. And if you are a truth seeker it can be very enlightening. It's always a good idea to get someone else's take on things. It keeps us real!

[commonsense]

Hi everybody.
This is how i look at our experience here.
Am i able to state that there is a God? No because where is he when this world is in the manifestation that it is? Is it because he is waiting for us to believe in him before he assists us? Well then do i want to believe in such a God anyway?
If there is no God and i am the creator of my expression here then now what? Does that means that i must take responsibility for my own creations here and understand who i have become? If changing this world means changing each one on an individual basis then what does that mean for each being? Do we still speak consciousness ideas about we will all get there, or but everything is being taken care of, or but i am so clever i have the answers here in my head, or dont tell me i have read many books.... When do we practically become the answer? Are we just knowledge? Are we the living example of what is possible when we see what consciousness is and we stand into infinity beyond the mind. Remember the mind is a machine, therefore you do not die if you challenge it. That is a pre conceived idea, fear based survival teqhnique that enslaves us. Do we die when we are not directed by our minds? What does it mean to be responsible? Do we put some money in the collection tin for poor people or do the corrections begin within each person? What would that mean for me when i realise that my enslavement to consciousness is clearly not bringing all together in oneness as the practical answer?
Is it our seperation from ourselves and one another that has caused this situation? Yes, so that means that until each understands oneness and equality we are not able to move forward.
How were we created? My understanding thus far of our creation has given me the keys to understand our enslavement to the mind. Sound like i have made a statment saying if i stop the mind i would rather die, that is exactly why nobody questions consciousness.
All of us are sick of being fearfull, frustrated, waiting for ourselves, or the answer and we are tired of experiencing ourselves this way (each are aware how they experience themselves). Why are we constantly told that we should have a relationship to something outside of ourselves to survive eg. religion, healing, direction, marriage, God, the white light, authority, friends etc...
So once you are aware of how you were designed AND you are able to see that design exist within you (emotions, thoughts, fears, limitation, anxieties, needs, wants, desires, hopes etc) then what?
Once you understand the truth about how we currently experience here and that this is surely not who we are in our ultimate expression then what?
Once i understood that angels, gods, religion, believes etc was all just a mind projecton, designed with us when we were created, i had to stand up and become the answer. So If there is no God and all manifestations of the white light is just a program that was run to keep us enslaved to the idea of a God now what?
What is common sense? If at the moment of our creation we were unaware of how we were created, does that mean that we are innocent? does that mean however that when we become aware of our creation that we are then given reponsibility, what is responsibility?
What if heaven is not as we thought, frilly with pretty clouds and singing angels. What if heaven was just as lost as earth and just as unaware? Are we aware of what our so called reality is outside of our basic understanding? So if heaven was just as unaware of us as we were of what is going on, then what?
If consciousness is the mind that directs us and this world is the manifestation of our minds then what? I ask myself if consciousness is then really who i am, or was it placed in me as my physical body was created, so that i would act, think and function in a particular way? How does this serve us? Are we really changing this world by accepting ourselves within the limitations of consciousness?
Each person as myself is able to admit that we are more than the experience of consciouness.
So my question to each is..
If I am not consciousness then who am I? Do I exist into infinity? Am i the answer and if so am i the answer if I am consciousness that is a limited expression. Look at your mind. It is a machine that consists of specific instructions that are based in keeping you acting in a particular way......all of your exisence, lifetime after lifetime, year after year..our ultimate expression is.....fear, hate, seperation, anguish, confusion, sepression, anger, a perception that we need something outside of us to be 'whole'. Does that sound to me like enslavement? Are these our limitations that we have accepted because we do not understand any other way?
If somebody gave us insight into ourselves, our creation, our history and how consciousness created this expression that we are in...then what?
Do we carry on saying: I am fine, nobody is hurting me and i am not hurting anybody, although i dont actually know this, but it doesn't look like it...)?
So who are we?
If all that you have ever known is taken away from you, your believes, your trust in the mind, your ideas, ego, mind constructs(where you are forced to face your fears and limitations) etc what will remain?
Do we remain without what the mind tells us we are?
So, The desteni Videos and articles have made many people angry, dismisive, upset. Yet what are those videos actually telling us about ourselves...perhaps a mirror into the human mind.
If awareness is here for each being, then do we choose to remain unaware (consciousnes)?
Thanks guys

Cheers
Andrea
Desteni-Universe: Not for the weakminded, judgemental or system robots.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

Crackpots. More on Bad Psychics here

http://moh2005.proboards78.com/index.cgi?board=medpsy&action=display&thread=1188637495

[bindeweede]

Crackpots. More on Bad Psychics here

http://moh2005.proboards78.com/index.cgi?board=medpsy&action=display&thread=1188637495

Quote from the "Crackpots" post....

Do we still speak consciousness ideas about we will all get there, or but everything is being taken care of, or but i am so clever i have the answers here in my head, or dont tell me i have read many books.... When do we practically become the answer? Are we just knowledge

Although I was not born in Geordie Land, I was brought up there. John might correct me, but that post is what I would call "totalanduttershite". Or is it a computerised translation of simply, erm, intellectual excrement.

Just a thought.:cheesy:

Edit. Oops, forgot to add the question mark. Well, spank my posterior.

Oh, and while I can still edit this post, has the poster of this junk heard of splitting their comments into digestible chunks? Paragraphs, I think they are called.

[Cuddles]

Oh, and while I can still edit this post, has the poster of this junk heard of splitting their comments into digestible chunks? Paragraphs, I think they are called.


No, but they have heard of spamming identical posts all over a forum.

[fifa]

Hello everyone!! Im new but interested in this, so thought I would post something. Please be kind!! (Just kidding, be as ruthless as you will.....)

Im beginning to think the whole science/God argument is almost pointless.

I don’t think religion can, or should, answer science’s questions, and vice versa. Like most modern religious people I know, I also believe in the laws of physics, in evolution, in the wonders of scientific discovery, in the miraculous unfolding of knowledge. Nothing that science uncovers further proves or disproves to me my belief in God.

Leaving fundamentalism aside for the moment, to most religious people, belief in God is simply belief that there is a power at work in the universe on the side of life and all its fulfilment (thank you to Sally McFague for those words). It is NOT a man with a white beard sitting on a cloud etc etc. It is not a fairy, a purple monster, a boogey man.

Being a Christian (and as with most other religions) is simply about trying live your own life with in synch with that power (which in turn by the way brings us to the Christian concept of ‘sin’ which can take a whole other post!!)

But the fundamental point is: why do I believe in this power? Because I have had a personal experience of God. Atheists have not. If they had, they would not be atheists. I cannot prove to you that my experience is ‘real’ and I have no desire to. I can only tell you its wonderful. If you think its just imaginary, or delusional on my behalf, well, what can I do about it? I can never fully give you the material proof that you would need to belive that the experience is real.

Just some other thoughts I have on this:


I can totally understand why atheists don’t want to feel compelled to live by any ‘religious’ rules – anyway it’s pointless as ‘you can lead a horse to water… etc’. You can't force anyone to believe in God. You can't argue someone into or out of believeing in God.
Most Christians I know think that ALL religions are valid expresions towards the same God (even if this expression takes the form of a number of Gods). Religions have evolved to seek to understand and represent God. Most include divinely inspired writings etc. For Christians, Jesus WAS God personified and if therefore for us the most perfect way of seeking and understanding God. Not that the other religions are ‘wrong’ per se.
In regards to point 2 – a fundamentalist would not agree with me, that’s true. They would probably think that all non-believers or other religions will burn in the fires of hell yadda yadda yadda. Fundamentalist religions and literal interpretations of the bible etc will always be around but most modern religious people are so far from this that I don’t think fundamentalists are in themselves some conclusive ‘proof’ that there is no God.
Really bad things have been done in the name of religion. Similarly, just a few years ago, a country was invaded and and thousands of people killed in the bombings in the name of democracy – it doesn’t necessarily invalidate democacy itself.Ok! That's it.. :)

[Matt]

Hello everyone!! Im new but interested in this, so thought I would post something. Please be kind!! (Just kidding, be as ruthless as you will.....)

Im beginning to think the whole science/God argument is almost pointless.

I don’t think religion can, or should, answer science’s questions, and vice versa. Like most modern religious people I know, I also believe in the laws of physics, in evolution, in the wonders of scientific discovery, in the miraculous unfolding of knowledge. Nothing that science uncovers further proves or disproves to me my belief in God.

Leaving fundamentalism aside for the moment, to most religious people, belief in God is simply belief that there is a power at work in the universe on the side of life and all its fulfilment (thank you to Sally McFague for those words). It is NOT a man with a white beard sitting on a cloud etc etc. It is not a fairy, a purple monster, a boogey man.


What makes you think that Science can't address that question? That there is a power at work in the universe on the side of life?

Double blind clinical studies have investigated the power of intercessionary prayer and found no benefit. The theory of evolution explains how life can develop into complex and beutiful forms wouthout recourse to supernatural intervention. It acts as a conciousness raiser suggesting that something similar might server to explain the first origins of life.

These are scientific questions. The god hypothesis is valid ground for exploration by science.

The idea of non -overlapping magesteria is simply a trite platitude aimed at wallpapering over the cracks in a flawed "God of the gaps" approach to theology: everything science can explain is rational but if science can't explain something or hasn't explained it yet then we'll shoehorn God in there and ask scientists ever so nicely to respect these boundaries.

I'm far from convinced by such arguments. I recommend the chanpet "The God Hypothesis" from "The God Delusion" for more details.

[Jordox]

If there was a god, I think we'd know.

There are many things: Ghosts, God(s) and such that all should have undeniable proof of existence that don't have a strand.

Oh, and if there was a god, the Bible might just have had at least 1 correct source of information :P

[hierosulos]

Hello everyone!! Im new but interested in this, so thought I would post something. Please be kind!! (Just kidding, be as ruthless as you will.....)

Im beginning to think the whole science/God argument is almost pointless.

I don’t think religion can, or should, answer science’s questions, and vice versa. Like most modern religious people I know, I also believe in the laws of physics, in evolution, in the wonders of scientific discovery, in the miraculous unfolding of knowledge. Nothing that science uncovers further proves or disproves to me my belief in God.

Leaving fundamentalism aside for the moment, to most religious people, belief in God is simply belief that there is a power at work in the universe on the side of life and all its fulfilment (thank you to Sally McFague for those words). It is NOT a man with a white beard sitting on a cloud etc etc. It is not a fairy, a purple monster, a boogey man.

Being a Christian (and as with most other religions) is simply about trying live your own life with in synch with that power (which in turn by the way brings us to the Christian concept of ‘sin’ which can take a whole other post!!)

But the fundamental point is: why do I believe in this power? Because I have had a personal experience of God. Atheists have not. If they had, they would not be atheists. I cannot prove to you that my experience is ‘real’ and I have no desire to. I can only tell you its wonderful. If you think its just imaginary, or delusional on my behalf, well, what can I do about it? I can never fully give you the material proof that you would need to belive that the experience is real.

Just some other thoughts I have on this:


I can totally understand why atheists don’t want to feel compelled to live by any ‘religious’ rules – anyway it’s pointless as ‘you can lead a horse to water… etc’. You can't force anyone to believe in God. You can't argue someone into or out of believeing in God.
Most Christians I know think that ALL religions are valid expresions towards the same God (even if this expression takes the form of a number of Gods). Religions have evolved to seek to understand and represent God. Most include divinely inspired writings etc. For Christians, Jesus WAS God personified and if therefore for us the most perfect way of seeking and understanding God. Not that the other religions are ‘wrong’ per se.
In regards to point 2 – a fundamentalist would not agree with me, that’s true. They would probably think that all non-believers or other religions will burn in the fires of hell yadda yadda yadda. Fundamentalist religions and literal interpretations of the bible etc will always be around but most modern religious people are so far from this that I don’t think fundamentalists are in themselves some conclusive ‘proof’ that there is no God.
Really bad things have been done in the name of religion. Similarly, just a few years ago, a country was invaded and and thousands of people killed in the bombings in the name of democracy – it doesn’t necessarily invalidate democacy itself.Ok! That's it.. :)

In theory, I don't see a problem with an overlap between science and religion, trying to answer questions about 'where we came from' and 'what it all means'. There are different ways of approaching everything (to use an analogy- a weak strategy for argumentation I know- I study and appreciate the religious awe the ancient Athenians experienced on their Acropolis, while scientists may be more interested in the specfics of the rock itself)- different talents or interests, and different beliefs (whether justified or not!). However, this overlap can be emotionally charged, and one side can contest the validity of the other for dogmatic reasons (I think it happens both ways, even if it's much more common from the religious).

I am in the process of letting go of religious belief (I'm still slightly afraid of the proverbial lightning bolt, but I'm working through it). But, even at my most religious (brought up Christian, was particularly enthusiastic in my mid to late teens), I could see beauty in science (my limited understanding of- my interests lie in history) and natural phenomena. The two worked quite well for me, for a long time.

I have had 'personal experiences with God' as well. Or I thought I had (I'm very, very confused about it all, still- this is a long and difficult process for me). But I don't see why that power can't just be the power of humanity, the power of good will, the way the sun or even the thunder makes you feel (not very scientific, but not necessarily religious).

The main problems I have with religion are intolerance and ignorance. I'm quite happy for people to believe what they believe, but I'm coming to the conclusion that I don't want to be in a system that discriminates against others (shame about the nation state, but not much I can do about that one), and struggle to believe that a God (god?) of infinite goodness can be so hateful (in this instance I'm talking about Christianity, but it can probably be applied to other religions as well)

I think, no matter the initial intentions of religions, they end up being abused. I think, even if one isn't a fundamentalist, the capacity to be judgemental creeps in (believe me, I've dealt with fundamentalists- seven years ago I was at a fundamentalist school when my boyfriend hit me, and because of some mumbo-jumbo about Eve, it was my fault), which is ultimately unhelpful and against my understanding of Christianity. Then there are the power trips and the abuses for political ends. But I'm just talking day-to-day.

I realise my comments are subjective. I think, in this context, that can hardly be avoided. But I apologise nonetheless.

[seren]

Yeah, I disagree that atheists haven't had experiences of god. It's perfectly possible to have immense spiritual experiences which at the time you might feel are god, or enlightenment, or something, but then later change your mind.

It IS confusing, because you're not sure if what you experienced has any objective meaning or if it's just things firing off in your head. I started off thinking the former, shot over to the latter and am now (if I'm honest) around 75% convinced by the "it's just things firing off in my head". I think this because I realised I just interpreted my experience based on my own beliefs- to me it was "enlightenment" because I don't believe in god. Had I had a pre-existing belief in god I would have thought it was god. In other words, the experience had no meaning other than the meaning I gave it.

The other 25%? It says you can't ignore such a unique, powerful, amazing revelation- there must be something going on for that to happen, something bigger than a bunch of neurons or synapses or whatever. The testimony of personal experience- utterly useless. Heigh ho.