Re: What use does an atheist have for deities?

[syo]

So there is no middle ground? One is either happy or miserable?

Happiness, in my experience is temporary, and is dependent on what one is experiencing at the time. I have yet to meet anyone in a perpetual state of happiness.

Happiness is the most valuable thing on earth. but society strangles happiness.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Happiness is the most valuable thing on earth. but society strangles happiness.

And here I thought it was antimatter.

But you have not yet answered my question. What is "fake happiness?"

 

[syo]

And here I thought it was antimatter.

But you still have not yet answered my question. What is "fake happiness?"

You must be rich and famous to be happy.

That's fake happiness.

 

[SalixIncendium]

You must be rich and famous to be happy.

That's fake happiness.

So delusion is fake happiness?

 

[PureX]

My "bias" is the result of looking at religion and religions over many years. My "bias" is the result of seeing the harm caused by religion and religions over many years.

It's also caused by ignoring all the good religion has done over the centuries. Bias is only seeing what you already presume to be true, while ignoring and dismissing what you don't.

The denigration of Science by the Religious Right puts us at a disadvantage with competing nations.[/QUOTE]I don't see much evidence for that. At one time, perhaps, but not now. I do, however see significant evidence to suggest that our greed is causing us to fall behind the other nations of the world in terms of science.

 

[sealchan]

So, might some of these "presence" experiences bubbling up from the unconscious mind be mistaken for god?

Certainly, in fact, I personally would account it a mistake to say that gods exist outside of the realm of the psyche and that such experiences prove otherwise.

But, at the same time, one has to erect a fairly speculative and complex scientific perspective to confidently state this without feeling like one is sacrificing one of the best, most meaningful experiences in one's life. So in the company of believers I dont strive to make a point of it.

 

[Firemorphic]

Ah, without that the 'Ultimate Reality' would not sustain us?

Of course it still does, what a ridiculous question. That is in it's very nature, whether the universe reciprocates or not.
Actually The Qur'an itself goes as far to state that the act of living/breathing itself is an unconscious form of worship, that all things worship Ultimate Reality against their conscious will simply by being alive.

 

[ecco]

What a dumb straw man. Atheistic satanists worship neither a literal nor symbolic Satan. Do you not understand how symbolism works (think team mascot)? The only thing they "worship" are themselves as their own "gods". You have access to Google and Wikipedia just like the rest of us.

Yes, I have access to many sources. Google says Satanism is the worship of Satan. Google does not say Satanists ' "worship" are themselves as their own "gods" '. You are the only one who says that. Therefore, I must presume that you made it up and are now struggling to defend a ridiculous, indefensible position.

sa·tan·ism
/ˈsātnˌizəm/

noun


the worship of Satan, typically involving a travesty of Christian symbols and practices, such as placing a cross upside down.​

However, the most important source is this thread is your own conflicting comments...

Some forms of Satanism are atheistic, in such Satan is a symbolic rather than literal figure.

Now you write...

Atheistic satanists worship neither a literal nor symbolic Satan. The only thing they "worship" are themselves as their own "gods".

If people only worship themselves symbolically, why do you refer to them as Satanic atheists? Do you believe that all people who worship themselves symbolically are Satan? That sounds really silly.

Perhaps you can explain why you believe that some people worship themselves symbolically.

 

[Firemorphic]

What does the name "Islam" refer to?

Willful submission in an act of reciprocal love, in response to the very Source that transcends and pervades the entire universe that gives you breath, pumps your blood every second of your entire life on this Earth. That's what the word means

That is a very useful question, and unfortunately it is also one that is very easy to answer.

Because Muslims are adherents to Islaam, while Hindus follow a true religion.

You're quite the ambitious one to go around denying and acting like you're discrediting truth claims while simultaneously making truth claims like this. I'm not the one that in a matter of replies insinuates universal relativism.

Hindus realize that they are not expected to neurotically make authoritative claims about the universal nature of their unavoidably personal beliefs.

You just lack the bigger picture here, which is unfortunate to see from the comparative perspective I take.
I will take your reply here on account that you probably just replied too quickly without really thinking about what you where saying.

Indeed. Muslims are taught to feel guilty about being human.

That is a textbook non-sequitur fallacy.

But taking that logic (or lack thereof) in the other direction, you would be near asserting that Atheists are inhuman (on accord to not only rejecting Idolatry but also all conceptions of "God"). Of which I consider an absurd proposal, although you might be a nihilist with a misanthropy towards humans but I'm not going to make assumptions like you do.

Of course it would. Yet at the same time, Allah is also the author of the Qur'an. Impressive for a non-entity. And I suppose that it makes it also somewhat self-demeaning, since it is the Qur'an that establishes the parameters that require its existence to be Shirk and that determines that Shirk is something to be avoided.

This is another topic entirely. But given that Buddhism generally does believe in varying states or realms of existence and consciousness (both self and other) then the concept of Tanzil is not as foreign as you think (although it is present in a much wider accepted manner in Hinduism than Buddhism, by default), of course we don't have to agree on all things, nor does it contradict the strong belief in Ultimate Reality that we Muslims have.

The very sustentation of Islaam is idolatry. Idolatry of the idea itself of God.

Now your personal opinions about Islam as well known and I am not obliged to care whatsoever about your whims, in spite of how absurd and intentionally provocative you try to paint them as.

Now, if you have been properly following this discussion and not typing random words into your keyboard you would know that I have already outlined the categorical differences between idolatry and God (as Ultimate Reality, as believed inherently in Tawhid).
As a reply to the things I have raised, your comment is rendered utterly meaningless (and even potentially pretentious). Please add substance to the conversation please, I'm sure you're capable of it if you put effort into it.

I did. That made me an atheist from very early on. I have a good nose for false gods.

Well so did I and I'm a Monotheist. Please rethink what I said in the context I said it, thank you.

Quite so.

Well there is something we agree on!

Don't you worry about that. I have learned from various sources, and I am a Dharmi. I do not value adherence to traditional views very much, mainly because not too much of those can actually make sense for any given person, including myself.

I take responsibility for my beliefs, not the other way around.

I don't worry, no, but I ask genuinely to understand you better. Obviously you don't want that, in spite of me trying to help you understand Islamic beliefs better.

You know that conversations can be much more productive than:
"I don't like you"
"Yeah, well I don't like you either"
"Good, cause I don't like you, goodbye"

But many people are wide-read, including myself, I can attest to that.

In the text above you are implying that existence has a Creator-nature which should for some reason receive devotion.

Not merely that and that alone in itself would be just Deism. No, Islam posits that this material universe is in a constant process of creation and being sustained, Allah is transcendent and immanent. Maya comes from Allah and is the thing (via the Body, which is in Maya) that allows the Soul (Ruh or Atman in many forms of Hinduism) to experience this realm of existence and/or being. All things come from and return to that very same Source of Ultimate Reality.

That is a very arbitrary and unsupported belief, and it violates this self-imposed parameter of yours of avoiding illusions, images, symbols and other idols.

This comment requires more expounding via your strange comments alluding to 'human nature', so that there is some way of making sense of your quite nonsensical contentions.

Yeah, that is common among Muslims. I hope you learn to deal with that.

And what do you mean by this comment?
1. Are you alluding to how Muslims try to emphasize breaking barriers of culture and/or religion/tradition-bound semantics in having rational discourse?
2. Or are you alluding to how you disagree with Muslims over things often?

If it's 1, I'd be surprised by your reaction to people being willing to step outside their tradition to bring about proper understanding of other religious beliefs.
If it's 2, then yes, I do love that we're on the polar opposite side of the spectrum over the same ontological concept, it's great You're a Buddhist (well, at least you associate yourself with it) which makes it a little more interesting.

You and me do not hold very similar beliefs at all.

See! You even admit it

That is good, but I don't think I have seen that happen.

This is in regard to Aup, however the kind of discussion described there is not one I've had with you or Aup as of yet, no, as the kinds of conversations the three of us have had have been of either a specified or a comparative nature, not of a etymologically static nature as you should know.

I disagree, and I offer that instead you have a lot to learn about the difference between the Divine and the Sacred. Or, to use a traditional world, Advaita. Or by a different perspective, Anicca, Anatta and Pratītyasamutpāda.

But that's where you assume on your part that I am not familiar with the philosophy of those terms on the account of me being a Muslim alone, however I am.

Why would you think that? He seems to have a pretty functional understanding of both concepts.

Again, only within the belief system of Hinduism and not when applied over other belief systems, as stated word-for-word.

I fear that I am indeed. You seem to believe that Islaam teaches detachment from false forms, and in that sense it coincides with Hindu Advaita or even transcends it.

Well again, you're not discussing this in the contexts and definitions set place throughout this discussion. And for the record, I did not solely mention Advaita, I mentioned Vedanta itself which covers other views than simply Advaita. The two major schools; Advaita and Dvaita in themselves are limiting in their understanding of things but work very wonderfully when placed within each other

I don't think so.

I suspected so, and it shows in many respects.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Of course it still does, what a ridiculous question. That is in it's very nature, whether the universe reciprocates or not.
Actually The Qur'an itself goes as far to state that the act of living/breathing itself is an unconscious form of worship, that all things worship Ultimate Reality against their conscious will simply by being alive.

Ridiculous questions because I do not know Islam very well. Please keep on enlightening me.
I like that. If we worship 'That' even in our act of living/breathing, then why the five daily Salat? And why does 'That' sometimes seals some peoples' hearts and their hearing; and covers up their eyes; and then punishes them enormously for no fault of theirs? And why not Islam without Mohammad?

 

[crossfire]

Yes, I have access to many sources. Google says Satanism is the worship of Satan. Google does not say Satanists ' "worship" are themselves as their own "gods" '. You are the only one who says that. Therefore, I must presume that you made it up and are now struggling to defend a ridiculous, indefensible position.

sa·tan·ism
/ˈsātnˌizəm/

noun


the worship of Satan, typically involving a travesty of Christian symbols and practices, such as placing a cross upside down.​

However, the most important source is this thread is your own conflicting comments...

Now you write...


If people only worship themselves symbolically, why do you refer to them as Satanic atheists? Do you believe that all people who worship themselves symbolically are Satan? That sounds really silly.

Perhaps you can explain why you believe that some people worship themselves symbolically.

See Anton LaVey's The Satanic Bible. LaVeyan Satanism is non-theistic.

 

[Father Heathen]

Yes, I have access to many sources. Google says Satanism is the worship of Satan. Google does not say Satanists ' "worship" are themselves as their own "gods" '. You are the only one who says that. Therefore, I must presume that you made it up and are now struggling to defend a ridiculous, indefensible position.

sa·tan·ism
/ˈsātnˌizəm/

noun


the worship of Satan, typically involving a travesty of Christian symbols and practices, such as placing a cross upside down.​

However, the most important source is this thread is your own conflicting comments...

Now you write...


If people only worship themselves symbolically, why do you refer to them as Satanic atheists? Do you believe that all people who worship themselves symbolically are Satan? That sounds really silly.

Perhaps you can explain why you believe that some people worship themselves symbolically.

LMGTFY

 

[Father Heathen]

See Anton LaVey's The Satanic Bible. LaVeyan Satanism is non-theistic.

In his mind, satanism only exists as portrayed by Hollywood and Chick tracts.

 

[ecco]

It's also caused by ignoring all the good religion has done over the centuries. Bias is only seeing what you already presume to be true, while ignoring and dismissing what you don't.

Why do you assume I ignore the good that religion does? I am aware that churches become shelters during and after storms. I am aware church groups sponsor feeding and sheltering the homeless.

However, the truth of the European witch hunts and the Spanish Inquisition and the years-long Catholic-Protestant wars is unquestionable. I don't have to revisit every couple of years with unbiased eyes. Truth doesn't change.

I don't see much evidence for (denigration of Science by the Religious Right). At one time, perhaps, but not now.

You are on this forum and you don't see Creos and Fundies and Cultists posting? Are you kidding?

I do, however see significant evidence to suggest that our greed is causing us to fall behind the other nations of the world in terms of science.

What does that have to do with religion?
How is our greed causing us to fall behind the other nations of the world in terms of science?

 

[ecco]

Actually The Qur'an itself goes as far to state that the act of living/breathing itself is an unconscious form of worship, that all things worship Ultimate Reality against their conscious will simply by being alive.

Could you show the actual verses you are referencing?

 

[ecco]

Yes, I have access to many sources. Google says Satanism is the worship of Satan. Google does not say Satanists ' "worship" are themselves as their own "gods" '. You are the only one who says that. Therefore, I must presume that you made it up and are now struggling to defend a ridiculous, indefensible position.

LMGTFY

I understand that's the best you can do to cover your embarrassment.

 

[Firemorphic]

Ridiculous questions because I do not know Islam very well. Please keep on enlightening me.

Ok, sure thing, just keep in mind that this thread itself is only on a specific topic.

I like that. If we worship 'That' even in our act of living/breathing, then why the five daily Salat?

Ok, firstly Islam (especially Shi'ism and Sufism) heavily emphasizes two primary levels of knowledge - the Exoteric (Zahir) or Outer, and the Esoteric (Batin) or Inner. Now the Inner understanding of existence is one in which all created things prostrate (without even knowing it) to their creator (I've already outlined our understanding in Ultimate Reality al-Haqq already) by the mere fact of being alive and existing, this can also be understood by what I already explained about Ultimate Reality (or Allah) as sustainer of all things.
The ritual act of worship serves many many many purposes but one of the most relevant ones to this discussion is the willful act of submission (which is what Islam itself originally means as a word) and love to that very source that pervades and transcends the universe.
Salat itself is also a very mindful and meditative ritual, comparable in some regards to various forms of Asana in many Hindu traditions. Calling Salat a Yoga is very applicable, at least comparatively speaking. Every action and word performed during Salat has an Inner (Batin) significance and the ritual itself is like the microcosm of the Islamic religion itself.

And why does 'That' sometimes seals some peoples' hearts and their hearing; and covers up their eyes; and then punishes them enormously for no fault of theirs?

To put it as simple and relevant to you, what you quote (not quite verbatim) connects directly to and reflects two different Hindu concepts: Avidya and Samsara, regarding "punishment". Although not so prevalent nowadays in Hindu traditions, you could also compare it symbolically to Naraka.

And why not Islam without Mohammad?

If you where a Vaishnavite, the idea of Prophethood could be better understood in relation to the way Vishnu functions in their belief system. Another way would be if you knew much about the role of the deity Morpheus in Greek Myth (note the role). Gnosticism also describes it very well too. Essentially the role of a Prophet is to bring the dream into a lucid dream by emanating warners or reminders, very significant figures that are guided by divine will (and highest form of Dharma likewise) as leaders to those in the dream.
This is an understanding you may appreciate even though you're not a Vaishnavite.

 

[Aupmanyav]

1. There is no need for prostrations/worship/being a servant when you are none other than 'That'. In your posts you agree to that. According to Hindu scriptures "Tat twam asi".
2. I could have quoted the exact translation (by various authors, I do not know Arabic), but there is no 'swarga' or 'naraka', or do you believe in what Quran says "oil will be poured on their heads till their brains melt". Do you think "That" does it to itself? I hope "That" is not like this.
3. I am, as you know, not a Vaishnava. I make my own decisions after going through the available literature/scriptures and my experiences in life, using Buddha's 'Kalama Sutta' (Kalama Sutta - Wikipedia, which I am sure you are aware of) as the Ockham's Razor. So many things fall by the way-side. Bulle Shah said:

"Avval ākhir āp nu jānā, Nā koi dūjā hor pichānā": Bulla Ki Jana Main Kaun by Bulleh Shah

 

[Firemorphic]

1. There is no need for prostrations/worship/being a servant when you are none other than 'That'. In your posts you agree to that. According to Hindu scriptures "Tat twam asi".

This is your view.
As for Tat twam asi, it's kinda like the infamous statement "Ana 'i-Haqq" uttered by Mansur Al-Hallaj.

To break my overview down, no, we vehemently reject Monism as it restricts contradicts Ultimate Reality's very inherent nature.
I view both Dualism and Nondualism to be both lacking in their naive exclusivity but both are very profound when understood together. Nondualism is as weak and pitiful as Dualism when taken in and of itself. The relationship between the Universe and Ultimate Reality in Islam is an interplay between both. We are finite (but our Soul/Atman is eternal), Ultimate Reality is Infinite, Transcendent but pervading.
We cannot claim ourselves to be identical with that Source, but we cannot consider ourselves separated from it either.

2. I could have quoted the exact translation (by various authors, I do not know Arabic), but there is no 'swarga' or 'naraka', or do you believe in what Quran says "oil will be poured on their heads till their brains melt". Do you think "That" does it to itself? I hope "That" is not like this.

You're stuck here in an interpretation that most Muslims (Sunni and Sh'ite) do not use, however hyper-literalists (who run contrary to the nature of Islam which is both outer and inner) like Salafists might appreciate your interpretation more.

I didn't mention Swarga but my mention of Maraka was a footnote to my point and I did deliberately mention "you could also take it symbolically"

3. I am, as you know, not a Vaishnava. I make my own decisions after going through the available literature/scriptures and my experiences in life, using Buddha's 'Kalama Sutta' (Kalama Sutta - Wikipedia, which I am sure you are aware of) as the Ockham's Razor. So many things fall by the way-side.

Yes I appreciate Siddhartha Gautama a lot too.
As for Ockham's Razor, it's not universally (pun intended?) the most objective principle but it is a useful tool, yes.

 

[Aupmanyav]

1. Oh, like Bhedabhedadvaita, Dvaitadvaita, Vishishtadvaita, Shuddhadvaita, Achintya Bhedabhedadvaita, etc. Not like this, not like that, somewhere in the middle.
2. But Allah says that in Quran. Where would it happen if not in 'Naraka'?
3. You believe Mohammad but not Mansur Al-Hallaj, why?