The Debate of God.

[Repox]

God is real, but he's been mostly absent from the world, having assumed a policy of nonintervention. The last time God was involved with our world was when he came as Jesus Christ. After Humans murder him, God went AWOL.

 

[godnotgod]

Hi, godnotgod. Since you guys have been speaking of dogmatism, I'm curious.

Do you say that a nextlife is delusion?

Or do you say that a nextlife seems like a delusion to you?

I see what you are trying to get at, but it does not apply. A dogma is about a belief propped up as fact and foisted upon others,with no valid supporting evidence. I am not peddling a belief in 'no next life'; I am observing that there is no evidence to support such an idea, which Shunryu Suzuki, Zen Roshi at SF Zen Center calls "a substantial, delusive idea".

Just looking at what we know for certain: all we have is this present moment. Nothing else. The rest is pure conjecture based on a delusive idea of a 'next life'.

So no. I am not saying it SEEMS like a delusion; I am saying it IS a delusion, which is belief in something that does not exist. If you want to insist that it could exist, since arguably anything could exist, even the idea that everything is a Grand Illusion, I won't argue with you, but what evidence do you have to base such an idea upon?

Dictionary.com

de·lu·sion
1.
an act or instance of deluding.
2.
the state of being deluded.
3.
a false belief or opinion: delusions of grandeur.
4.
Psychiatry . a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact: a paranoid delusion.

Synonyms
1. deception. See illusion.

Collins
World English Dictionary
delusion

1.
a mistaken or misleading opinion, idea, belief, etc: he has delusions of grandeur
2.
psychiatry illusion See also hallucination a belief held in the face of evidence to the contrary, that is resistant to all reason
3.
the act of deluding or state of being deluded

If you want to still talk about a 'next life', then I would have to say that the life you are now immersed in IS none other than your 'next life', which you are failing to realize for various reasons having to do with a flaw in the mind.

The question is not so much: "is there a 'next life'?, but 'why do we pursue the idea in the first place?'"

 

[Thief]

God is real, but he's been mostly absent from the world, having assumed a policy of nonintervention. The last time God was involved with our world was when he came as Jesus Christ. After Humans murder him, God went AWOL.

Yeah...but not altogether.

Nonintervention is correct.
Leaving you to form your own thought and feeling is part of letting you become unique. I believe that is why, we are made this way.
Each to his own devices and perspectives.

This is what makes us interesting before God.

But this earth has no hope without someone to keep such discussion moving in the right direction.

There are prophets among us.
Without them the end comes quickly.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I see what you are trying to get at, but it does not apply. A dogma is about a belief propped up as fact and foisted upon others,with no valid supporting evidence. I am not peddling a belief in 'no next life'; I am observing that there is no evidence to support such an idea....]

That word 'evidence' is an interesting one. I'm sorry, but think you are using it in a rather dogmatic way.

Creationists often insist that there is no evidence for evolution. But I think what they mean is 'there is no evidence which compels me, personally, to embrace evolution.'

But surely there is evidence of evolution.

In the same way, I think it might appear less dogmatic for you to declare that there is no evidence which compels you, personally, to embrace belief in the afterlife. Many prophets have told us of the afterlife, after all. That seems like evidence. It sure doesn't compel me, but I don't think afterlife-believers have pulled their belief out of thin air, in a pure evidenceless way.

Just my take on it.

Just looking at what we know for certain: all we have is this present moment. Nothing else. The rest is pure conjecture based on a delusive idea of a 'next life'.

But you could be hallucinating this present moment. Cogito ergo sum -- if we want more precision in our thought and talk -- might be better expressed as, "I think, therefore I seem to be."

So no. I am not saying it SEEMS like a delusion; I am saying it IS a delusion, which is belief in something that does not exist.

OK. In my way of seeing things, your view looks fairly dogmatic. I don't think you can know that there is no afterlife any more than Thief can know that there is one.

If you want to still talk about a 'next life', then I would have to say that the life you are now immersed in IS none other than your 'next life', which you are failing to realize for various reasons having to do with a flaw in the mind.

That's a fine opinion. But since there is no evidence for it, I think I'll continue seeing it as I see it.

 

[waitasec]

My God is not a whimsical tyrant.

not to you, but to me your god is

And your description of Him is clear indication you do not understand...
and never did.

:spit:
duh...of course i don't understand YOUR god silly, that is what i've been saying


glad to see you finally caught up

 

[waitasec]

God is real, but he's been mostly absent from the world, having assumed a policy of nonintervention. The last time God was involved with our world was when he came as Jesus Christ. After Humans murder him, God went AWOL.

according to whom?
and why would you leave out these guys:

Simon of Peraea (ca. 4 BCE), a former slave of Herod the Great who rebelled and was killed by the Romans.[3]
Athronges (ca. 3 CE),[4] a shepherd turned rebel leader.
Menahem ben Judah (?), allegedly son of Judas of Galilee, partook in a revolt against Agrippa II before being slain by a rival Zealot leader.
Vespasian, c. 70, according to Josephus[5]
Simon bar Kokhba (? – ca. 135), founded a short-lived Jewish state before being defeated in the Second Jewish-Roman War.
Moses of Crete (?), who in about 440–470 convinced the Jews of Crete to attempt to walk into the sea to return to Israel; he disappeared after that disaster.
Ishak ben Ya'kub Obadiah Abu 'Isa al-Isfahani (684–705), who led a revolt in Persia against the Umayyad Caliph 'Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_messiah_claimants

 

[godnotgod]

That word 'evidence' is an interesting one. I'm sorry, but think you are using it in a rather dogmatic way.

Let's just say: "nothing existing to support such an idea".

In the same way, I think it might appear less dogmatic for you to declare that there is no evidence which compels you, personally, to embrace belief in the afterlife. Many prophets have told us of the afterlife, after all. That seems like evidence. It sure doesn't compel me, but I don't think afterlife-believers have pulled their belief out of thin air, in a pure evidenceless way.

As I said, we should be asking the question: "Why do we pursue the idea in the first place?" That should provide the clue as to why even, or especially, the prophets hold such an idea as true.

But you could be hallucinating this present moment. Cogito ergo sum -- if we want more precision in our thought and talk -- might be better expressed as, "I think, therefore I seem to be."

If that is true, there must, then, exist a non-hallucinating state, but that is besides the point, which is that, hallucinating or not, we are immersed in this present moment. We are all here, now. What we are doing while being here now is another issue. Some live the moment fully; others live for an 'afterlife', while still others live in the dead past, and then there are those who, as you indicated, are hallucinating. To live in the present moment, however, is to be awakened, because deliberate conscious attention is required. To live in the dead past or for some pie in the sky notion of an 'afterlife', or to hallucinate, is to be asleep and dreaming. We call this state 'Waking Sleep', the Third Level of Conscious Awareness, also known as 'Identification'. Awakening is to enter the Fourth State of Consciousness and beyond.

OK. In my way of seeing things, your view looks fairly dogmatic. I don't think you can know that there is no afterlife any more than Thief can know that there is one.

That's neither here nor there. No one puts stock in the Invisible Pink Unicorn, so why in an afterlife?. But, you see, there is an underlying reason why we put stock in an afterlife and not in the IPU. What do you suppose that might be?

That's a fine opinion. But since there is no evidence for it, I think I'll continue seeing it as I see it.

Well, that's sort of forcing a square peg into a round hole to suit your position, isn't it? A sort of, well, 'dogma''.

What we do have is our immediate experience of insight to verify that 'this is it'. If this is not it, then what is? There is no other 'it' that we know of for certain. This is it.

I am basing my statement on what we actually know/don't know for certain, and that is that we are here, now, and that there is nothing in the here and now that points to an afterlife. Do you see anything that does? In fact, everything points to a non-afterlife: All living things, without exception, die.

 

[godnotgod]

Creationists often insist that there is no evidence for evolution. But I think what they mean is 'there is no evidence which compels me, personally, to embrace evolution.'

But surely there is evidence of evolution.

In the same way, I think it might appear less dogmatic for you to declare that there is no evidence which compels you, personally, to embrace belief in the afterlife. Many prophets have told us of the afterlife, after all. That seems like evidence. It sure doesn't compel me, but I don't think afterlife-believers have pulled their belief out of thin air, in a pure evidenceless way.

Uh, not exactly, because creationists make the tail wag the dog. That is to say, they seize upon factual evidence to support their belief system. which is already a given, as far as they are concerned.

Science, on the other hand, gathers evidence which culminates in a hyothesis, then a theory. In the case of science, the word 'theory' is used differently than that of the lay usage. In effect, the Theory of Evolution, from the scientific point of view, is indeed a fact.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Let's just say: "nothing existing to support such an idea".

Same thing as 'no evidence'... yes?

But others disagree with you. They consider that there's lots of stuff to support the idea. Many major religions embrace the idea, for example. Plenty of intelligent people have argued for the idea. Some have even reported that they've died, gone into the afterlife, and have come back to tell of it. Those are items which support the idea. They just don't support it well enough to sway me, personally.

As I said, we should be asking the question: "Why do we pursue the idea in the first place?" That should provide the clue as to why even, or especially, the prophets hold such an idea as true.

Sure it's a possible clue. Looks like a pipe dream. Might've been made up out of whole cloth to satisfy some need. Are you saying that the recognition of such a possible motivation settles the issue for you once and for all?

If so, that's fine, but it still looks like dogmatism to me. Any time we are positive that we're right and couldn't be wrong, we're dogmatic... at least in my word usage.

Some live the moment fully; others live for an 'afterlife', while still others live in the dead past, and then there are those, as you indicated, are hallucinating. To live in the present moment, however, is to be awakened.

OK. But don't be surprised if the dogmatist replies that there is no evidence to support the idea of an awakened state.

That's neither here nor there. No one puts stock in the Invisible Pink Unicorn, so why in an afterlife?. But, you see, there is an underlying reason why we put stock in an afterlife and not in the IPU. What do you suppose that might be?

I think you're mistaken about the IPU. Some put stock in it. As for why some put stock in the afterlife, I'd say that they are convinced by the evidence that there is an afterlife. The difference between us may be that I don't care if they do that. Their belief neither picks my pocket nor breaks my arm, as they say.

Well, that's sort of forcing a square peg into a round hole to suit your position, isn't it? A sort of, well, 'dogma''.

I'm sorry but you've lost me. I'm dogmatic because I've studied the evidence and reached a tentative conclusion?

I am basing my statement on what we actually know/don't know for certain, and that is that we are here, now, and that there is nothing in the here and now that points to an afterlife.

For you, there's nothing. For others, there is something.

Do you see anything that does? In fact, everything points to a non-afterlife: All living things, without exception, die.

Actually, you're mistaken about that, too, I believe. There is some water-going species which apparently never dies. I can't remember what sort of thing it is right now. A type of jellyfish, maybe?

But I take your major point. Most everything dies. But when people speak of the afterlife, they're not speaking of the flesh never dying. I think they conceive some kind of spiritual existence.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Uh, not exactly, because creationists make the tail wag the dog. That is to say, they seize upon factual evidence to support their belief system. which is already a given, as far as they are concerned.

My experience differs. As I say, I've heard various creationists claim that there is no evidence for evolution.

Science, on the other hand, gathers evidence which culminates in a hyothesis, then a theory. In the case of science, the word 'theory' is used differently than that of the lay usage. In effect, the Theory of Evolution, from the scientific point of view, is
indeed a fact.

Not to sound all snooty, but I'm fairly familiar with evolutionary thought. If I need you to slow down for me, though, I'll holler.

As for facts, I hardly believe in them when examined closely, but I understand the term as you seem to be using it here.

 

[otokage007]

God is real, but he's been mostly absent from the world, having assumed a policy of nonintervention. The last time God was involved with our world was when he came as Jesus Christ. After Humans murder him, God went AWOL.

Being "mostly" the keyword here.

 

[godnotgod]

Same thing as 'no evidence'... yes?

But others disagree with you. They consider that there's lots of stuff to support the idea. Many major religions embrace the idea, for example. Plenty of intelligent people have argued for the idea.

Yes, but the reason for such overwhelming support is not because of 'lots of stuff' to support the idea, which is just so much fluff, but because of a deeper underlying reason. I tried to give you a clue. Why do you suppose millions opt for an afterlife in spite of the sheer lack of real evidence to support such an idea?

Some have even reported that they've died, gone into the afterlife, and have come back to tell of it.

But there was no 'afterlife'; their experience occurred in the here and now. If there were truly an 'afterlife' they would not have returned. But then there would be no one to tell the tale, would there? The wonderful thing about the belief in an afterlife is that no one can prove it's existence false, just as they cannot prove the Flying Spaghetti Monster false either. It all ends up as just so much fancy poop.

Those are items which support the idea. They just don't support it well enough to sway me, personally.

They don't support it, period!

Sure it's a possible clue. Looks like a pipe dream. Might've been made up out of whole cloth to satisfy some need. Are you saying that the recognition of such a possible motivation settles the issue for you once and for all?

Yes, but there are several parts to the story, all of which fit together, and which point to this deeper underlying psychological/emotional motive. The condition that emerges from man's lot is called 'Metaphysical Anxiety', and the desire to become free of it.

If so, that's fine, but it still looks like dogmatism to me. Any time we are positive that we're right and couldn't be wrong, we're dogmatic... at least in my word usage.

As I was explaining to cottage, there are two kinds of certainty: one in which one treats one's beliefs as truth, and the other where one has experienced a spiritual transformation of the mind and knows beyond the shadow of a doubt. It is the first condition to which you refer, which involves doctrine, and the foisting of it thereof, whereas the second is without doctrine, so there is nothing to foist.

OK. But don't be surprised if the dogmatist replies that there is no evidence to support the idea of an awakened state.

I was waiting for that shoe to drop. They do reply in that manner, and consistently so, but they are playing tit for tat at that point. In short, it is a dialogue between the believer in a doctrine, and the mystic who has had a direct spiritual experience of the Infinite. The first has no evidence to support his belief system, but the mystic tells you that anyone can have the experience in the here and now, so it is a verifiable experience. Mystics throughout history and in places far from one another consistently report the same kind of insights. The underyling reality of the world is the same everywhere. Why should it be any different? In the West, Jung got close with his idea of universal archetypes and the collective unconscious.

I think you're mistaken about the IPU. Some put stock in it.

It's just a joke, you know. But again, why is it that an afterlife is taken much more seriously than the existence of the IPU?

As for why some put stock in the afterlife, I'd say that they are convinced by the evidence that there is an afterlife.

What evidence?

I'm sorry but you've lost me. I'm dogmatic because I've studied the evidence and reached a tentative conclusion?

For you, there's nothing. For others, there is something.

For me there is more in the present moment, (in fact, EVERYTHING is contained in the present moment) than the alleged 'something' in some pie in the sky notion after death. Their 'something' is, in reality, only a belief that there is something, when, in actual fact, it is a 'substantial, delusive idea', and that is ALL that it is. Once again, the key to understanding this is to find out WHY they put such stock in the idea. It is this key which provides the answer which compels them to believe, and to transform such a belief into what they consider to be Absolute Truth.

Actually, you're mistaken about that, too, I believe. There is some water-going species which apparently never dies. I can't remember what sort of thing it is right now. A type of jellyfish, maybe?

But I take your major point. Most everything dies. But when people speak of the afterlife, they're not speaking of the flesh never dying. I think they conceive some kind of spiritual existence.

No, not really. They are talking about the resurrection of the body to join the spirit in a heavenly realm forever and forever, where they can enjoy super-titillating pleasures of the flesh. It has always been about the flesh, right from the very beginning: "And the Word BECAME flesh".

If only Christians really understood those words, they would go screaming hysterically through the streets.

 

[Tiberius]

Yes, but the reason for such overwhelming support is not because of 'lots of stuff' to support the idea, which is just so much fluff, but because of a deeper underlying reason. I tried to give you a clue. Why do you suppose millions opt for an afterlife in spite of the sheer lack of real evidence to support such an idea?

Fear of being dead.

 

[Thief]

not to you, but to me your god is

That's right....not me.
:spit:
duh...of course i don't understand YOUR god silly, that is what i've been saying

And at this rate you never will.

glad to see you finally caught up

And now I'm waiting for you to move off of that stone.
You can't follow this kind of discussion without moving.

 

[Thief]

Fear of being dead.

Not I.

But even so, believers and nonbelievers fear death.

Not believing in God might placate the fear of death...for now.
Total non-existence takes away having to deal with something greater than yourself.
You're not in control if there is a God, waiting to hold you responsible for whatever
you have said or done.
So by rejecting the afterlife, there is no possibility of judgment.

Believing is also frightening, for the same Cause.
With judgment pending there is cause for consideration.

I say, the likelihood that all of the billions of people now living will all fail in spirit....is unreasonable.
All of this life and no one survives the last breath?...really?

And if chemistry is the only form of life possible then this life is indeed a mystery...
with no resolve.
Not much point is generating an 'intelligent' life form only to have it crumble into dust.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Believing is also frightening, for the same Cause.
With judgment pending there is cause for consideration.

The only people who believe judgment is pending, universally believe the judgement applies only to other people. They themselves never believe they will be judged against, as they believe those they chastise will be judged.

It's just self-supporting ego worship. Empty.

 

[Thief]

The only people who believe judgment is pending, universally believe the judgement applies only to other people. They themselves never believe they will be judged against, as they believe those they chastise will be judged.

It's just self-supporting ego worship. Empty.

I'm not worshiping my ego.
I lean toward God.

I see non-believing as an 'escape' mechanism.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

I'm not worshiping my ego.
I lean toward God.

I see non-believing as an 'escape' mechanism.

Of course you do

Seeing worshiping yourself as a more noble cause, is part of the delusion. But my assessment is correct.

You see yourself as being just fine when you get up from the dust as you constantly repeat.

You don't think you have anything to worry about, in that judgement, do you?

Only other people; most often, those who disagree with you.


This is what is seen, in every single case.

 

[godnotgod]

I'm not worshiping my ego.
I lean toward God.

'God' is none other than your projected ego. You're still playing the supreme cosmic game of Hide and Seek, which you fail to realize.

I see non-believing as an 'escape' mechanism.

On the contrary: it is believing that is an escape mechanism from Metaphysical Anxiety over not knowing what your fate is in what you conceive of as a 'next life'. 'God' is the eternal parent figure you need in order to feel everything is OK.


'The fundamental difference between Buddhism and other religions is that Buddhism has no God or gods before whom people bow down in return for peace of mind. The spirit enmeshed in the Buddha's teachings refuses to offer a god in exchange for freedom from anxiety. Instead, freedom from anxiety can only be found at that point where the Self settles naturally upon itself.'

from: 'From the Zen Kitchen to Enlightenment', by Dogen/Uchiyama

 

[godnotgod]

Fear of being dead.

Nail hit on head.