Belief in a Personal God is very bad news

[Shantanu]

"Belief" in general is generally bad news.

Of course not: one does need theories that one can try and then prove or disprove.

 

[Shantanu]

I think I have contact: I just do not trust God any more.

This is because I did not know how to consult God possibly. Now I know and am trying out a new technique of practicising Brahmanism.

 

[9-18-1]

Of course not: one does need theories that one can try and then prove or disprove.

A "belief" and a "theory" are not the same thing.

At all. eg.

A. I "Believe" that the Qur'an *is necessarily* the perfect word of god and Muhammad is his final messenger.

B. I "Theorize" that the Qur'an *is necessarily* the perfect word of god and Muhammad is his final messenger.

Whereas A presumptuously treats the statement as 'true' requiring no further evidence/validation outside of self-reinforcement,
B requires evidence/validation in order to establish itself in the first place.

For example the theory of evolution can not / would not exist had it not been for the evidences which allow for it in the first place that lend itself to the purported theory. Charles Darwin did not come up with the theory prior to evaluating the evidences which were required in order for him to purport it in the first place.

Someone "believing" the Qur'an is the perfect, inimitable, unaltered, inerrant word of the creator of the universe is not theoretical/scientific, it is merely asserted without evidence (esp. for the gravity of the claim!) - all while there is an embarrassing amount of evidence to undermine such a suggestion in the first place.

This is why "BELIEF" is not a virtue.

 

[Shantanu]

A "belief" and a "theory" are not the same thing.

At all. eg.

A. I "Believe" that the Qur'an *is necessarily* the perfect word of god and Muhammad is his final messenger.

B. I "Theorize" that the Qur'an *is necessarily* the perfect word of god and Muhammad is his final messenger.

Whereas A presumptuously treats the statement as 'true' requiring no further evidence/validation outside of self-reinforcement,
B requires evidence/validation in order to establish itself in the first place.

For example the theory of evolution can not / would not exist had it not been for the evidences which allow for it in the first place that lend itself to the purported theory. Charles Darwin did not come up with the theory prior to evaluating the evidences which were required in order for him to purport it in the first place.

Someone "believing" the Qur'an is the perfect, inimitable, unaltered, inerrant word of the creator of the universe is not theoretical/scientific, it is merely asserted without evidence (esp. for the gravity of the claim!) - all while there is an embarrassing amount of evidence to undermine such a suggestion in the first place.

This is why "BELIEF" is not a virtue.

A belief is a virtue as long as it makes one's boat float pending confirmation or proof otherwise that it is delusional. Every person deserves the structures needed to make his or her boat float.

 

[9-18-1]

A belief is a virtue as long as it makes one's boat float pending confirmation or proof otherwise that it is delusional. Every person deserves the structures needed to make his or her boat float.

A "belief" has no grounded structure - that is the point. You can't build a structure/vessel that doesn't have a basic framework (ie. "theory"). A "belief" merely reflects what a person wants to be true, because it suits their identity and/or worldview. A "theory" discards what one might want to be true, and places whatever is true as the most important thing.

Speaking of boats, this is why the mythical Noah (ie. Gilg'mesh) had to build an ark: the "boat" is the structure. It is the same as the Tree of Life:

The Hebrew mythology is a successive advancement from Malkuth (ie. Adam) culminating in Christ (ie. Chokmah) which is wisdom, that is one with the crown, achieved through understanding: crowned wisdom and understanding. Christianity turns this into father/son/holy spirit. In Hinduism these would reflect brahma, vishnu and shiva: creator, preserver, destroyer.

This is why "belief" is not a virtue - it is a vice.

Knowing is always superior to "belief" - especially when one 'knows' what others "believe" to be, in fact, not true.

 

[sealchan]

"Belief" in general is generally bad news.

"Does loving someone require belief?" I ask myself...may be a new thread...

 

[sealchan]

A "belief" has no grounded structure - that is the point. You can't build a structure/vessel that doesn't have a basic framework (ie. "theory"). A "belief" merely reflects what a person wants to be true, because it suits their identity and/or worldview. A "theory" discards what one might want to be true, and places whatever is true as the most important thing.

Speaking of boats, this is why the mythical Noah (ie. Gilg'mesh) had to build an ark: the "boat" is the structure. It is the same as the Tree of Life:

View attachment 28456
The Hebrew mythology is a successive advancement from Malkuth (ie. Adam) culminating in Christ (ie. Chokmah) which is wisdom, that is one with the crown, achieved through understanding: crowned wisdom and understanding. Christianity turns this into father/son/holy spirit. In Hinduism these would reflect brahma, vishnu and shiva: creator, preserver, destroyer.

This is why "belief" is not a virtue - it is a vice.

Knowing is always superior to "belief" - especially when one 'knows' what others "believe" to be, in fact, not true.

A belief != what someone wants to believe...that is a very naive statement.

Beliefs very often are a mixed bag which come with negative aspects for the believer.

 

[Zita]

God exists but is very bad news for humans to have to contend with.

God takes away ones freedom to act to ones one satisfaction on what is right or wrong, good or bad as duties. We humans are capable of looking after our own affairs without such guidance and imposition. It makes life more interesting if we make mistakes and try and resolve our problems by consulting each other and agreeing a joint path for mankind.

The correct method that works for me is to rely on my Consciousness to guide me as God does not insist that we subscribe to Him for our intelligence and wisdom. My Consciousness has always led me on the right path in terms of duties and righteous actions on a daily basis.

So I might as well be an atheist for all intents and purposes.

I do believe in a spiritual consciousness and a higher power I call God! but the God I believe in is not the God that most people talk about as you have stated some of the dogma that goes along with the bible and religion!! for example I don't need to read the so called 10 commandments,it's common sense.And the spiritual God I believe in doesn't judge me and punish me because I make a mistake. People have God all screwed up.

 

[sealchan]

Of course not: one does need theories that one can try and then prove or disprove.

I would say that it is extremely idealistic and naive to think that anyone can live on theory alone...somehow that strikes me as being like a Christian ignoring all people who lived before Jesus was crucified.

 

[Thief]

I think I have contact: I just do not trust God any more.

an op item if ever I saw one

 

[Shantanu]

I would say that it is extremely idealistic and naive to think that anyone can live on theory alone...somehow that strikes me as being like a Christian ignoring all people who lived before Jesus was crucified.

Does the longevity (life-span) of a person vary with the religion they believe in: I have no evidence to indicate that.

 

[Shantanu]

A "belief" has no grounded structure - that is the point. You can't build a structure/vessel that doesn't have a basic framework (ie. "theory"). A "belief" merely reflects what a person wants to be true, because it suits their identity and/or worldview. A "theory" discards what one might want to be true, and places whatever is true as the most important thing.

Speaking of boats, this is why the mythical Noah (ie. Gilg'mesh) had to build an ark: the "boat" is the structure. It is the same as the Tree of Life:

View attachment 28456
The Hebrew mythology is a successive advancement from Malkuth (ie. Adam) culminating in Christ (ie. Chokmah) which is wisdom, that is one with the crown, achieved through understanding: crowned wisdom and understanding. Christianity turns this into father/son/holy spirit. In Hinduism these would reflect brahma, vishnu and shiva: creator, preserver, destroyer.

This is why "belief" is not a virtue - it is a vice.

Knowing is always superior to "belief" - especially when one 'knows' what others "believe" to be, in fact, not true.

Knowledge is highly elusive, so we choose the next best option. Better to have a belief that works for one than being lost in the wilderness with no vision.

 

[Shantanu]

an op item if ever I saw one

The question is seemingly irrelevant as Brahman Consciousness has its own way of unfolding.

 

[Thief]

The question is seemingly irrelevant as Brahman Consciousness has its own way of unfolding.

that reply sounds like a 'possession' scheme

are you seeking to be possessed on a personal level?

 

[Shantanu]

I do believe in a spiritual consciousness and a higher power I call God! but the God I believe in is not the God that most people talk about as you have stated some of the dogma that goes along with the bible and religion!! for example I don't need to read the so called 10 commandments,it's common sense.And the spiritual God I believe in doesn't judge me and punish me because I make a mistake. People have God all screwed up.

Brahman charts the destiny: we are just actors so should be without aims and ambitions.

 

[9-18-1]

"Does loving someone require belief?" I ask myself...may be a new thread...

That is a gooooood question.

No - "belief" is not required to love someone. I would say true love would be the opposite: not that you "believe" in a person, but you know them, and love them for who they are.

However, a person *can* "love" someone based on who they "believe" that person is. For example if a woman had a childhood dream about a man, then later in life she sees a man that looked the same, she may "believe" that he is the one for her. As a result, based on such a "belief" she may actually only be projecting her own "belief"-based impression and "falling in love" with that, instead of actually getting to know the man.

This is another reason why "belief" is not a virtue.

A belief != what someone wants to believe...that is a very naive statement.

Beliefs very often are a mixed bag which come with negative aspects for the believer.

Well no it's not: a "belief" often (but not always) reflects the preferred worldview that suits a person's own identity. For example Muslims "believe" the Qur'an is perfect and Muhammad is the greatest role model for humanity. Such a "belief" defines the Muslim - despite neither being true.

This is another reason "belief" is not a virtue - I directly equate it to why hundreds of millions of people are dead due to:

"BELIEVE" vs. "UNBELIEVER"

Which is the most principle division humanity has carried for thousands of years.

 

[Shantanu]

that reply sounds like a 'possession' scheme

are you seeking to be possessed on a personal level?

I must find out what Brahman Consciousness is up to.

 

[sealchan]

Does the longevity (life-span) of a person vary with the religion they believe in: I have no evidence to indicate that.

I'm not sure I follow...I think that faith is a sort of natural epistemological stance that we take for emotional and even practical reasons that help us on a daily basis. The sort of beliefs like in God or dharma, etc. are merely the tip of the iceberg. Thinking that a person can make decisions based entirely on knowledge and rationality is a similarly limited, I think.

Life presents to us--some more, some less--a hard edge to walk on with balance. We would like to see "truth" compartmentalized into a creed or other elegant linguistic statement of intent or theory. But "truth-finding" is a flavor of our cognitive experience that goes deeper than self-conscious speech.

 

[sealchan]

That is a gooooood question.

No - "belief" is not required to love someone. I would say true love would be the opposite: not that you "believe" in a person, but you know them, and love them for who they are.

However, a person *can* "love" someone based on who they "believe" that person is. For example if a woman had a childhood dream about a man, then later in life she sees a man that looked the same, she may "believe" that he is the one for her. As a result, based on such a "belief" she may actually only be projecting her own "belief"-based impression and "falling in love" with that, instead of actually getting to know the man.

This is another reason why "belief" is not a virtue.



Well no it's not: a "belief" often (but not always) reflects the preferred worldview that suits a person's own identity. For example Muslims "believe" the Qur'an is perfect and Muhammad is the greatest role model for humanity. Such a "belief" defines the Muslim - despite neither being true.

This is another reason "belief" is not a virtue - I directly equate it to why hundreds of millions of people are dead due to:

"BELIEVE" vs. "UNBELIEVER"

Which is the most principle division humanity has carried for thousands of years.

Thanks for this...for the sake of the integrity of this thread I'm not going to respond here. These could each potentially be new threads. I'm not quite at the point, yet, to be the one to create them..

 

[9-18-1]

Knowledge is highly elusive, so we choose the next best option. Better to have a belief that works for one than being lost in the wilderness with no vision.

"Belief" is not the next-best thing to "knowing".
Just a simple question would be better than a "belief" - and the being focuses on this one question until it is answered within themselves such that they "know".

For example rather than trying know what god *is*, eliminating everything god is *not* through questions.

This is better than "belief" - it necessarily narrows it down such that one can only be left with knowledge of whatever god is, or is not.

"Belief" is a stagnation: one simply "believes" and that is all. One only need to look at Islam to understand why "belief" is not a virtue, but a retrograde force that keeps people in the dark ages.