The Debate of God.

[Thief]

And on top of that....this thread is suppose to be about God.

So far...no one wants to approach as if He is real.

 

[Gui10]

You implied that your "I" and your body are separate things. I was just confirming what you said. Now stop being an annoyance to yourself!

Giving up is exactly what the ego wants you to do. That way, it cannot be found out for the fraud that it is.

'I think, therefore I am' is old hat dualistic existentialism, and now seen by many as flawed and ridiculous.

It's more like: "I like to think I exist, therefore I become", and thus is hatched the fictional character we call "I". That state of consciousness is known as 'Identification'.

It sounded good on paper. Oh, well!

Ok, thats absolutely awesome man.

Now, please explain to me the relevance of your argument towards my main thesis, which can be found a couple of pages behind: ''''God'' is a only a word. Nothing else. It is a result of missinformation. The first individuals who came up with this concept were uneducated (compared to us, of course). It was one of many attempts to answer many questions and turned out to be the most popular one.''

 

[godnotgod]

Ok, thats absolutely awesome man.

Now, please explain to me the relevance of your argument towards my main thesis, which can be found a couple of pages behind: ''''God'' is a only a word. Nothing else. It is a result of missinformation.

The first individuals who came up with this concept were uneducated (compared to us, of course). :biglaugh:

It was one of many attempts to answer many questions and turned out to be the most popular one.''

It's very simple: that fictional character you call "I"? Once the illusory self is self-created, it must necessarily include an 'other', and that 'other' is the idea of 'God', which is only a projection of the self. So, to extrapolate a bit further on YOUR position, that the word 'God' is ONLY a word, it is more than just a word, as it conjures up images thought to be real which are then acted upon. This is the God of which belief is the target. It is the realm of the orthodox believer.

Having said that, what lies beyond concept and belief is what is real, and can only be accessed via of the non-conceptual, intuitive mind. This is the realm of the mystic.

Even the atheist is attached to the idea of God, and has not gone beyond the world of conceptual thought to direct spiritual experience.

The believer and the atheist/sceptic are two peas in a pod. In order to get anywhere, they must get out of the trap of dualism first.
*****

Neti, Neti

“Not this, not this” (Neti, Neti); for there is no other and more appropriate description (of Brahman) than this “Not this.”...

We can never truly define God in words. All we can say, in effect, is that "It isn't this, but also, it isn't that either". In the end, the student must transcend words to understand the nature of the Divine. In this sense, neti-neti is not a denial. Rather, it is an assertion that whatever the Divine may be, when we attempt to capture it in human words, we must inevitably fall short, because we are limited in understanding, and words are limited in ability to express the transcendent.

Wikepedia

 

[InfidelRiot]

And on top of that....this thread is suppose to be about God.

So far...no one wants to approach as if He is real.

That is because god is not real. Besides, just because god's name is in the title does not mean that the thread has to be about praising him. It can also be about reaffirming his non-existence.

 

[godnotgod]

That is because god is not real. Besides, just because god's name is in the title does not mean that the thread has to be about praising him. It can also be about reaffirming his non-existence.

In saying so, you are caught in the trap of dualism. God is neither real, nor not-real, via human standards. All you are referring to is the God of conceptual thought. Get out of that trap, then go have another look.

(Read my post just prior to yours for more info)

"Thus, the Divine is not real as we are real, nor is it unreal. The divine is not living in the sense humans live, nor is it dead. The Divine is not compassionate as we use the term, nor is it uncompassionate. And so on."

Wikipedia
*****

PS: By saying that 'God is not real', you are expressing a sentiment spoken by God, wherein God is playing the character called 'InfidelRiot', but is pretending not to know that he is God so thoroughly, that God has even forgotten he is pretending, and firmly believes himself to be the character called 'InfidelRiot'. It is the ultimate poker-faced cosmic game of Hide and Seek.

"You are the universe looking at itself through your own eyes"
Deepak Chopra

 

[InfidelRiot]

I have been of the notion that man created god for some time. Religion itself is a man-made concept.

 

[godnotgod]

I have been of the notion that man created god for some time. Religion itself is a man-made concept.

Not exactly. Religions are myths and rituals taken from authentic spiritual experiences, the primary example being the religion of modern Christianity, which involves a character named 'Jesus', who is largely an invention of St. Paul, who took the original teachings of Yeshua the Essene and overwrote them with those of Mithra.

In addition, new archaeological discoveries now point to religious rituals having been born of the activities of hunter-gatherers, rather than an outgrowth of agriculture into modern societies, as was previously thought, eg, the Fertile Cresent. What I am trying to say is that earlier man, prior to writing, was closer to nature and thus to the Source itself, without language and learning in the way of direct experience.

Take a look at this video about Gobekli-Tepe to see what I am referring to:

[youtube]xjJeEP8-fAQ[/youtube]
Göbekli Tepe - YouTube

 

[InfidelRiot]

I am well aware of primitive beliefs and the main fact that most cultures believed primarily in a goddess religion up until Greek polytheism and then Judaic monotheism. However, I also know that man saw the divine in that which was around him to explain his origins as well as the origins of the world around him. There was no evidence of this divine being, for just the wind blowing was purportedly the breath of the divine, but man found comfort from the unknown in depicting god(s) into his daily life.

 

[godnotgod]

I am well aware of primitive beliefs and the main fact that most cultures believed primarily in a goddess religion up until Greek polytheism and then Judaic monotheism. However, I also know that man saw the divine in that which was around him to explain his origins as well as the origins of the world around him. There was no evidence of this divine being, for just the wind blowing was purportedly the breath of the divine, but man found comfort from the unknown in depicting god(s) into his daily life.

I'm not talking about beliefs; I'm talking about direct experience/union with the mystery itself, and I'm not talking about what is outside of man, but what comes from within. Did you miss the part about 'direct spiritual experience' to which I alluded?

 

[InfidelRiot]

Any experience of the divine/mystery/call-it-what-you-will is personal and thus subjective, counterproductive to reason and logic.

 

[Curious George]

Any experience of the divine/mystery/call-it-what-you-will is personal and thus subjective, counterproductive to reason and logic.

That is technically begging the question- and therefore invalid to state.

 

[InfidelRiot]

I fail to see my statement as a fallacy.

 

[Curious George]

I fail to see my statement as a fallacy.

The implicit premise that there exists an objective logic is needed to define subjective as counter-productive to logic. Thus, you were begging the question.


There is also, implicit in your statement is that any religious experience is distinct from non-religious experience. A statement you have yet to prove, and thus are relying on in order to reach your conclusion that religious experience is counter productive to logic.

There is also the semantic argument debating what is experience.

 

[godnotgod]

Any experience of the divine/mystery/call-it-what-you-will is personal and thus subjective, counterproductive to reason and logic.

You're wrong. A belief in a religious doctrine is personal and subjective; a direct experience of the divine nature is impersonal and universal. It has nothing to do with the person you have become via social indoctrination; it has everything to do with your universal nature prior to such indoctrination.

Mystics around the world and in various times in history have essentially corroborated the content of each other's experiences; the saltiness of the ocean is the same everywhere.

It is not counterproductive to reason and logic; it is simply transcendent of them, as it is beyond concept.

 

[Thief]

You're wrong. A belief in a religious doctrine is personal and subjective; a direct experience of the divine nature is impersonal and universal. It has nothing to do with the person you have become via social indoctrination; it has everything to do with your universal nature prior to such indoctrination.

Mystics around the world and in various times in history have essentially corroborated the content of each other's experiences; the saltiness of the ocean is the same everywhere.

It is not counterproductive to reason and logic; it is simply transcendent of them, as it is beyond concept.

It is still a matter of what you believe.
That you think you have an experience....and this should be convincing?

 

[godnotgod]

It is still a matter of what you believe.
That you think you have an experience....and this should be convincing?

Belief is based upon thought. There is no thought in the spiritual experience, and therefore, no belief. There is only the direct experience itself, without thought, without an 'ex-perienc-er' of the experience. You and the experience are one and the same. Get it?

 

[Thief]

Belief is based upon thought. There is no thought in the spiritual experience, and therefore, no belief. There is only the direct experience itself, without thought, without an 'ex-perienc-er' of the experience. You and the experience are one and the same. Get it?

And you continue to deny the immediate while claiming it to be your own.

You claim to be all about the here and now.....
all the while denying that you have a thought in your head?

It is the thought and feeling that makes you....'you'.

It seems you don't want to be 'you'.

I think that sums it up.

 

[InfidelRiot]

What godnotgod seems to be referring to is the same concept that seems to exist in Buddhism. It is but it is not, etc. It makes absolutely no rational sense.

 

[Thief]

What godnotgod seems to be referring to is the same concept that seems to exist in Buddhism. It is but it is not, etc. It makes absolutely no rational sense.

yeah...so it seems...

 

[godnotgod]

And you continue to deny the immediate while claiming it to be your own.

You claim to be all about the here and now.....
all the while denying that you have a thought in your head?

It is the thought and feeling that makes you....'you'.

It seems you don't want to be 'you'.

I think that sums it up.

Who you think you are is not who you actually are.

The former is the you of your social indoctrination; the latter your true nature prior to mental conditioning.