Do theists disbelieve the same God as atheists? Topic open for everyone

[Rick O'Shez]

This is about the interior world, not an investigation of the exterior world.

I think it also involves an investigation of the relationship between the interior and the exterior world. If our interior landscape changes then our perception of the exterior world is going to be different.

 

[Looncall]

But the things I mentioned are things science are debating. They've not been confirmed, but in physics, they're trying to figure out how the world works and what lies beneath it. They're calling it other things, like multiverse, and such. I didn't mention anything that is not part of contemporary science.


Navel gazing? I'm not sure why this is navel gazing.

What I am objecting to in this thread is the notion that one can gain information about the universe by introspection.

 

[Ouroboros]

What I am objecting to in this thread is the notion that one can gain information about the universe by introspection.

Well, I'm going to refuse to answer any more questions because I've been told that these discussions only pertain to the Abrahamic Gods, and not other views, religions, beliefs, and that when I express my personal and subjective views somehow they're taken as me trying to push them as objective views. So, I'm not going to discuss matters of belief in the general debates anymore. There's no use.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

What I am objecting to in this thread is the notion that one can gain information about the universe by introspection.

Not new information, but a different perspective on existing information.

 

[Looncall]

If you are describing a sort of psychology by other means, I have no problem with it. Why add decorations like Ultimate Reality etc?

I am not so easy with statements like "I am the universe". Being a part of the universe, or a product of it makes sense to me, but not being the universe. There is a big expansion of meaning here.

I gathered that this thread was about gods and that you were describing how to get in touch with one/them, however unusually defined. I simply do not see how introspection leads to statements about gods, Ultimate Realities(TM) and the like, and I am suspicious about such claims. I am especially suspicious, and cynical, about so-called spiritual teachers who lead people to make such claims.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I am not so easy with statements like "I am the universe". Being a part of the universe, or a product of it makes sense to me, but not being the universe. There is a big expansion of meaning here.

I agree. I think what happens is that people have meditative experiences and then make all kinds of assumptions about them.

 

[Quintessence]

Well, I'm going to refuse to answer any more questions because I've been told that these discussions only pertain to the Abrahamic Gods, and not other views, religions, beliefs, and that when I express my personal and subjective views somehow they're taken as me trying to push them as objective views. So, I'm not going to discuss matters of belief in the general debates anymore. There's no use.

Of course there's a use! I avoid debating for a variety of reasons, but letting a single perspective dominate the conversation just helps perpetuate cultural hegemony. Personally, I refuse to be a party to that and be silenced just because I'm supposedly a minority. I much prefer to encourage people to broaden their thinking about things, for in that, we all have more opportunities for understanding, knowledge, and finding meaningful gems to apply within our own ways of life. You can do it! Be the awesome!

(that said, pick your battles)

 

[Ouroboros]

(that said, pick your battles)

You're right. And yes, I will pick my battles.

 

[Windwalker]

I think there are different ways of experiencing things, and so there are different kinds of truth.

Is there a different sort of wetness to each wave? Or is wetness the same everywhere? But to expand the analogy to include what you are saying, yes, that wetness is experienced in different forms, in different ways, i.e., soggy socks versus cooling on the skin, so experiences will vary of course. But if you look deeply enough, beyond the sense of the wetness on the skin or in your socks, and look at wetness itself, this is the same. I am describing Emptiness, BTW, which I believe you have an understanding of from Buddhism.

 

[Windwalker]

I think it also involves an investigation of the relationship between the interior and the exterior world. If our interior landscape changes then our perception of the exterior world is going to be different.

Yes, I fully agree that one helps inform the other. They are never fully isolated, but there is interpenetration of domains. But the focus of investigation of meditation is the interior. As the interior depth increases, HOW we see the world will in fact be affected. The subject is always a part of what is perceived in the object. Meditation is not a substitute for scientific inquiry. And Science is not a substitute for self-inquiry.

 

[Windwalker]

If you are describing a sort of psychology by other means, I have no problem with it. Why add decorations like Ultimate Reality etc?

When you go deeply enough within, who are you really? You see this is about disidentification with the surface structures of what we look at and say definies us. If we can look at those, then who is it looking? It's the exploration of knowing that, stripping away all of these surface identification as this object or that in our awareness, that leaves us with simply the one who is seeing, or the "Seer". When we realize ourselves as That, we see that it is unconditional. It is not based on this or on that, and is who we are before and beyond all forms we self-identify with. So what is that, but the Ultimate Reality of ourselves, and we come to see it is the Ultimate Reality of everything. We are not this object or that object. Form is none other than Emptiness, and Emptiness is none other that form.

I am not so easy with statements like "I am the universe". Being a part of the universe, or a product of it makes sense to me, but not being the universe. There is a big expansion of meaning here.

Earlier I talked about the wetness of each wave, it is the same wetness in small waves and big waves. There is no "more wet" or "less wet", than wet itself. When we realize that wetness in ourselves, we see this is the same in all forms. When I say I am the universe, it is not to say I am the objects that exist in the night sky, literally. I am saying that the "wetness" that is in my wave is the same wetness in all waves. I am ultimately not this skin sack I am in. I am the universe itself in this skin sack. This unique skin sack is the eyes of the universe in this form. As Carl Sagan eloquently put it, "We are the universe experiencing itself". I am 14.5 billion years of evolution typing to you right now in this person I am. And you are 14.5 billion years of evolution trying to understand the world through my eyes through reading these words. Marvelous. Quite marvelous.

I gathered that this thread was about gods and that you were describing how to get in touch with one/them, however unusually defined. I simply do not see how introspection leads to statements about gods, Ultimate Realities(TM) and the like, and I am suspicious about such claims. I am especially suspicious, and cynical, about so-called spiritual teachers who lead people to make such claims.

I have never said the gods are literal beings. Again, I think it would be enormously helpful if you were to make a list of what you believe the mystic is claiming and I can go point for point down that list and either affirm or correct misconceptions. I feel you are working off a lot of misconceptions or misinformation.

 

[Windwalker]

I agree. I think what happens is that people have meditative experiences and then make all kinds of assumptions about them.

I think there are a lot of assumptions about what mystics assume! I'm not yet hearing anything that accurately reflects my actual thoughts. I'm spending the bulk of my time correcting misconceptions, batting back assumptions that are completely off target, and repeating the process over and over. I keep saying it might be best if someone lay out what they assume mystics are saying, and that we deal with those directly, up front, out in the open. And then progress to the actual points of view. Does that sound like a better plan here?

 

[Ouroboros]

Does that sound like a better plan here?

Good intentions, but my friend... you need all the luck in the world to do that.

 

[Windwalker]

Good intentions, but my friend... you need all the luck in the world to do that.

We'll see. I'm choosing to hold out faith that the logic of the request will stand on its own merits.

 

[`mud]

Quote Windy,
"When you go deeply enough within, who are you really? You see this is about disidentification with the surface structures of what we look at and say definies us. If we can look at those, then who is it looking? It's the exploration of knowing that, stripping away all of these surface identification as this object or that in our awareness, that leaves us with simply the one who is seeing, or the "Seer". When we realize ourselves as That, we see that it is unconditional. It is not based on this or on that, and is who we are before and beyond all forms we self-identify with. So what is that, but the Ultimate Reality of ourselves, and we come to see it is the Ultimate Reality of everything. We are not this object or that object. Form is none other than Emptiness, and Emptiness is none other that form."

sounds like gnosis to me
~
And the wetness routine....slippery and like the UltimateWave....
go mine surfslider upon the slide to life's Ultimate Reality.
~
Life slides in, loiters awhile, and suddenly ceases to matter.
If there was a heaven, what good would it be ?
I kinda like the idea of the one's gnosis could further, but heaven ??
~
'mud

 

[Ouroboros]

We'll see. I'm choosing to hold out faith that the logic of the request will stand on its own merits.

Can't deny that you're brave.

 

[Ouroboros]

And the wetness routine....slippery and like the UltimateWave....
go mine surfslider upon the slide to life's Ultimate Reality.

Mind surfing... that's what I thought of reading your post. That sounds like something exciting, but not sure what it would be.

 

[Windwalker]

sounds like gnosis to me

Satori

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I tried in another thread and felt that I stepped into the hornets nest. Having pantheistic views is unwelcome by both theists and atheists both. It's a heresy in both camps.

Just because I don't accept YOUR particular spin on pantheism doesn't mean I think that all pantheism is invalid. For instance, take this panthieistic view:


Raphson begins with a distinction between atheistic ‘panhylists’ (from the Greek rootspan, "all", and hyle, "matter"), who believe everything is matter, and ‘pantheists’ who believe in “a certain universal substance, material as well as intelligent, that fashions all things that exist out of its own essence.”

Pantheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I accept that this sort of pantheistic concept really does describe a god. I don't accept that yours does.

It isn't about the Christian god. It never was. It's only about the fact than when I ask you "why call this 'God'?", I don't find your answer compelling at all.

Christian shared concepts. He's only addressing those. But there are theists with non-Christian concepts. The atheist should not assume that a theist is a Christian.

This atheist never has, and he's getting a bit tired of this hypocritical assumption.

 

[`mud]

A true Satori, would never be full, would it ?
~
'mud