The Debate of God.

[otokage007]

'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.

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

exactly my thoughts

 

[waitasec]

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

what stone?

i'm coasting on my bike.

you're still lagging behind i see...but what can one expect when the other compares themselves to god?

 

[Thief]

what stone?

i'm coasting on my bike.

you're still lagging behind i see...but what can one expect when the other compares themselves to god?

As you deal with your fellowman ...so heaven will deal with you.

"Fall upon this stone and you will break.
If this stone falls upon you it will grind you to powder."

Can you follow?....
or did you decide to get off your bike and go back to your stone?

 

[Awoon]

Only gods can debate about gods.

 

[Thief]

Only gods can debate about gods.

Are you are here to do what?

 

[Awoon]

Are you are here to do what?

Voice my Godly opinion

 

[Thief]

Voice my Godly opinion

Let's run with that.
It could be more entertaining than you think.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

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....

That's a fine personal opinion and doesn't bother me at all. The Creationist insists that there is no support for the idea of evolution -- that it's just so much fluff -- and I give him the same respect as I give you. He is welcome to hold whatever opinion seems right to him.

...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?

You know just to save us some time, maybe you could play a little game and pretend that you've stumbled upon the Buddha Himself. Imagine me as The Awakened One. Then you won't need to waste our time taking me by the hand and trying to lead me through my kindergarten lessons.

I'm sorry for how that may sound. Heck, the average spiritual neophyte may even consider it to be egotistical. But you and I understand that the ego doesn't even exist, so would you mind playing the game with me? I can't bear to waste time.

So. Back to the issue. In my view, the existence of a possible ulterior motive for any particular belief does not stand as proof that the belief is absolutely untrue. That would mean that we'd have to discount all beliefs which happened to look need-based, and such a method would lead us into confusion.

Iraq had oil. The US needs oil. The US attacked Iraq. Does that stand as absolute, unquestionable proof that the US attacked Iraq to steal its oil? No. It's a good piece of evidence to support that conclusions, but our lust for Iraq's oil does not remove all other possibilities behind our attack. Not for the wise, I mean.

But there was no 'afterlife'; their experience occurred in the here and now.

Yo... and you called the other guy a dogmatist. What does 'dogmatist' mean in your usage? In my usage, it means 'a person who is absolutely convinced of his own truth.' You seem unapologetic in your claims that you couldn't possibly be wrong about the afterlife. So why shouldn't that be viewed as dogmatism?

If there were truly an 'afterlife' they would not have returned.

Did God tell you that -- that an afterlife visitor could not return? If not, how do you know it?

For myself, I think that if someone wants to return from the afterlife, you are powerless to stop them. They'll walk right through your personal belief that such a thing is impossible.

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.

Except in some extremely narrow senses, nothing can be proved or disproved. To think otherwise is to suffer some thought and language confusion, I'm pretty sure.

They don't support it, period!

In my experience, only dogmatists append periods to their claims.

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.

K-garten material. Please forgive me for saying so, but I know you can handle the truth.

But here's a question for you: Can you think of any reason why a person might concoct the idea of 'an enlightened state,' in which that person is shed of mere personal opinion and can see things as they really are? I can think of such a reason. Existential angst. The need for certainty.

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.

Indeed. But as The Enlightened One, there's a problem which I encounter from time to time. Ever since my spiritual transformation, I notice that the poor dear averageman will sometimes actually doubt me. I tell him the truth and he'll answer that I am only relating my personal opinion. Sometimes he will even laugh at my Clear Sight and call it mere human arrogance!

If I weren't so enlightened, it might disturb me. How do you handle this problem?

Anyway, in your quote above, you say that the transformed mind can know a thing beyond the shadow of a doubt, so long as that thing isn't doctrinal.

So the afterlife is not a doctrinal issue?

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.

I feel a little lost. You're saying that all who 'have the experience' will agree that there is no afterlife?

But how can you check that? What if a guy claims to have experienced the Infinite, yet still insists there is an afterlife?

You will deny that he actually has experienced the Infinite? Or deny that he really believes in the afterlife?

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?

Why did the US invade Iraq? Does the US lust for oil prove to you, beyond any possible doubt, that the US attacked Iraq so as to get its oil?

For myself, I see the question as more complex.

What evidence?

I've offered it, and you've declared it not to be evidence. I see no reason to post invisible evidence to a person.

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.

Meanwhile you deny any dogmatism. We must define the word differently.

Once again, the key to understanding this is to find out WHY they put such stock in the idea.

As I've instructed you, such a conclusion is rationally flawed. It would mean that every belief is, in actual fact, a delusion, if we can find any self-serving motivation behind it.

That's flawed rationality. I'm sorry. It just is.

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".

I was raised a Christian. If you don't mind I'll trust my personal experiences with Christian theology over yours. Anyway, there is no such thing as Christian theology. There are only individuals, some of whom label themselves as 'Christian' and all of whom think differently about things.

 

[Awoon]

Let's run with that.
It could be more entertaining than you think.

Humans have been since writing and talking began. They dont know when to give it up.

 

[Thief]

Humans have been since writing and talking began. They dont know when to give it up.

And you would think by now there would be a common thread of thought about whether God does exist or not.

Here at the forum we can't seem to get past this one obstacle...
let alone make discussion about Him.

 

[Awoon]

And you would think by now there would be a common thread of thought about whether God does exist or not.

Here at the forum we can't seem to get past this one obstacle...
let alone make discussion about Him.

The discussions here are not about any God. The discussions are all about images of God.

One image of God needs a God to exist. Another image of God needs a God to not exist but to argue and debate about.

When all the images are dumped then no debate or argument will exist.

 

[godnotgod]

The discussions here are not about any God. The discussions are all about images of God.

One image of God needs a God to exist. Another image of God needs a God to not exist but to argue and debate about.

When all the images are dumped then no debate or argument will exist.

"Think neither God, nor not-God"
Buddha

 

[Thief]

The discussions here are not about any God. The discussions are all about images of God.

One image of God needs a God to exist. Another image of God needs a God to not exist but to argue and debate about.

When all the images are dumped then no debate or argument will exist.

You can dump any image and all images....
and that makes God go away?

You can undo the existence of God by simply making denial?

 

[Awoon]

You can dump any image and all images....
and that makes God go away?

You can undo the existence of God by simply making denial?

The debate goes away. Yer all just debating ancient images from ancient people.

Debate "god" as an essence principle without any images.

 

[Tiberius]

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.

I don't fear death.

What comes after death is the same as what came before my life.

I was dead for billions of years before I was alive and it never bothered me one bit.

 

[waitasec]

As you deal with your fellowman ...so heaven will deal with you.

and???

"Fall upon this stone and you will break.
If this stone falls upon you it will grind you to powder."

Can you follow?....
or did you decide to get off your bike and go back to your stone?

no, i'm coasting on my bike

 

[godnotgod]

That's a fine personal opinion and doesn't bother me at all. The Creationist insists that there is no support for the idea of evolution -- that it's just so much fluff -- and I give him the same respect as I give you. He is welcome to hold whatever opinion seems right to him.

A delusional person also can express an opinion, but it is not equal to that of a sane person. Creationists' opinions are invalid because their premises are erroneous and their logic faulty. Evolution is a fact, not an opinion.

You know just to save us some time, maybe you could play a little game and pretend that you've stumbled upon the Buddha Himself. Imagine me as The Awakened One. Then you won't need to waste our time taking me by the hand and trying to lead me through my kindergarten lessons.

I'm sorry for how that may sound. Heck, the average spiritual neophyte may even consider it to be egotistical. But you and I understand that the ego doesn't even exist, so would you mind playing the game with me? I can't bear to waste time.

If you understood anything about Buddhism, I would have to kill you if I thought I had met the real Buddha in you, and no, I refuse to play your silly game.

So. Back to the issue. In my view, the existence of a possible ulterior motive for any particular belief does not stand as proof that the belief is absolutely untrue. That would mean that we'd have to discount all beliefs which happened to look need-based, and such a method would lead us into confusion.

I think you're missing the point, which is that millions choose to believe in an afterlife with virtually no evidence, while giving no credence whatsoever to the IPU. What makes for the difference?

Yo... and you called the other guy a dogmatist. What does 'dogmatist' mean in your usage? In my usage, it means 'a person who is absolutely convinced of his own truth.' You seem unapologetic in your claims that you couldn't possibly be wrong about the afterlife. So why shouldn't that be viewed as dogmatism?

Dogmatism requires a doctrine. I am not pushing a doctrine of 'No Afterlife'; it is simply a response to the doctrine of an afterlife that is being foisted by others. Understand that the default position is that there is neither an afterlife, nor a not-afterlife. There is just what is right in front of us. The doctrine of an afterlife is first proposed by those who find a need to push one. It is all in their mind, as there is nothing existing in reality to suggest one. As I am one with reality, I also choose not to initiate the idea. You need to look at what the impetus is in the first place for creating such a doctrine. Any clues?

Did God tell you that -- that an afterlife visitor could not return? If not, how do you know it?

Excuse me, but they did not experience an afterlife since they did not permanently die, and God has nothing to do with it. An afterlife means just that: after life, meaning you are dead and cannot come back to life. Otherwise you never really died in the first place. The experience in question occurred in this present moment, not in some future as a so-called 'afterlife'. Their experience was still totally in this life. We know of no other life than this one. The rest is poppycock.

For myself, I think that if someone wants to return from the afterlife, you are powerless to stop them. They'll walk right through your personal belief that such a thing is impossible.

Wood, when burned to ash, does not return to wood.

If they had a vision, or even an out of body experience, fine. But to experience an afterlife, they would necessarily need to die and stay that way. After life.

I have had experiences during sleep which are as real as everyday life, yet I was in another world entirely. The mind is a powerful entity.

Except in some extremely narrow senses, nothing can be proved or disproved. To think otherwise is to suffer some thought and language confusion, I'm pretty sure.

The point I'm making here is that, because there is virtually zero evidence to support the idea, it is easy to exploit it as a possibility, no proof required. Simpleton Heaven. Understand that I am referring to belief in the doctrine, and not to an authentic spiritual experience.

In my experience, only dogmatists append periods to their claims.

You can label me as you wish, but there is no evidence. Period. If you have information which does point to such evidence, then perhaps you can produce it. So far, all you have presented is something you called 'lots of stuff', which is equal to 'lots of fluff', or maybe, 'lotth of thtuff', or even 'pure poopycock'.

K-garten material. Please forgive me for saying so, but I know you can handle the truth.

I never seek the truth; I merely seek to cease cherishing opinion

But here's a question for you: Can you think of any reason why a person might concoct the idea of 'an enlightened state,' in which that person is shed of mere personal opinion and can see things as they really are? I can think of such a reason. Existential angst. The need for certainty.

The enlightened state is not an idea; it is a state of being.

Indeed. But as The Enlightened One, there's a problem which I encounter from time to time. Ever since my spiritual transformation, I notice that the poor dear averageman will sometimes actually doubt me. I tell him the truth and he'll answer that I am only relating my personal opinion. Sometimes he will even laugh at my Clear Sight and call it mere human arrogance!

Maybe he's right. After all, it takes seven full years to get over the stink of Enlightenment.

If I weren't so enlightened, it might disturb me. How do you handle this problem?

Sweep the floor.

Anyway, in your quote above, you say that the transformed mind can know a thing beyond the shadow of a doubt, so long as that thing isn't doctrinal.

That's not what I said; I said that the transformed mind knows beyond the shadow of a doubt. You are interjecting an object of knowing.

So the afterlife is not a doctrinal issue?

It is to the ordinary mind.

 

[godnotgod]

Originally Posted by AmbiguousGuy

I feel a little lost. You're saying that all who 'have the experience' will agree that there is no afterlife?

They might, but if they are living fully in the present moment, the idea of an afterlife would not enter into the picture. For the enlightened, it is about being here, now, not entertaining some fantasy about a future realm. For them, this is it.

But how can you check that? What if a guy claims to have experienced the Infinite, yet still insists there is an afterlife?

You will deny that he actually has experienced the Infinite? Or deny that he really believes in the afterlife?

I am assuming that by 'afterlife' you mean another existence beyond death in a future time and place, in linear time. But the experience of the Infinite is outside the constraints of Time, Space, or Causation. There is only this timeless present moment. I strongly suspect that any such reference to an afterlife by someone who has undergone a spiritual transformation is about his new vision, now, which sees death as an illusion. Divine union means that the self is no more, and one's new, ongoing experience in spiritual enlightenment is one of union with the Infinite.

The wave-form returns as undifferentiated water to the sea.

Why did the US invade Iraq? Does the US lust for oil prove to you, beyond any possible doubt, that the US attacked Iraq so as to get its oil?

For myself, I see the question as more complex.

Question re-phrased: What is it about the afterlife compared to the IPU that makes people take it far more seriously? Both are beliefs in something that cannot be demonstrated as true.

I've offered it, and you've declared it not to be evidence. I see no reason to post invisible evidence to a person.

You've presented zero evidence. "Lots of stuff" will not do.

Meanwhile you deny any dogmatism. We must define the word differently.

Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, or a particular group or organization. It is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted, or diverged from, by the practitioners or believers. Although it generally refers to religious beliefs that are accepted without evidence, they can refer to acceptable opinions of philosophers or philosophical schools, public decrees, or issued decisions of political authorities.

Wikipedia
*****

Please produce the DOCTRINE or BELIEF that I am presenting that is DOGMA. If my mind dwells in a neutral place, where the idea of an afterlife, or a not-afterlife never comes into play, but is presented to the idea by others, I would simply ask them to show me exactly what they are basing their idea upon.

I cannot create a doctrine about something that does not exist.

As I've instructed you,

Uh, excuse me, but you are doing what? Instru...what? :biglaugh:

I am not taking any such 'instruction' from you. Go wag your finger at someone else.

.. such a conclusion is rationally flawed.

Now look at my statement again:

"...the key to understanding this is to find out WHY they put such stock in the idea."

To ask 'why?' is to approach the issue rationally.

It would mean that every belief is, in actual fact, a delusion, if we can find any self-serving motivation behind it.

Now it is YOUR conclusion that is illogical. The belief in an afterlife is delusional because there is nothing to support it. It just SEEMS like it should be so. The ego, in its fear of coming to an end, does everything possible to perpetuate itself, even creating an after-death scenario in which it goes to a heaven and continues on in perpetuity. The problem is in seeing death as a termination, when, in reality, it is only a transformational state, and so, the ego clings to itself as an idea of going on forever.

That's flawed rationality. I'm sorry. It just is.

Sounds like dogma to me.

If it is flawed then it cannot be rational, can it?

I was raised a Christian. If you don't mind I'll trust my personal experiences with Christian theology over yours. Anyway, there is no such thing as Christian theology. There are only individuals, some of whom label themselves as 'Christian' and all of whom think differently about things.

Maybe they need to quiet their monkey minds and learn to see things as they are, rather than how their fears tell them they are, which causes them to 'think differently about things'. My experience in discussions with Christians is that, superficially, they all 'agree' with each other, but when the discussion gets just under the surface, they begin to argue amongst themselves, hurling accusations against one another that they are not 'true' Christians, or only 'lukewarm' ones, in their silly game of spiritual one-upsmanship, in which Jesus favors them more than their opponent. It's the old game of egoic spiritual pride that got them into trouble in the first place.

I recall an exchange between two Christians once about a certain 'Mary' whom they were referring to as 'lukewarm'. When the 'discussion' was over, they had both come to the conclusion that Mary needed to be stood up against a wall and machine-gunned to death. These two buttheads celebrated with high-fives and lusty indulgence in cheeseburgers, fries, and milkshakes as reward for their self-congratulatory brilliance in solving one for their idol, 'Jesus'.

Sorry, but I, too was raised a Christian, but my statement/observation still stands: Christianity is ultimately about the flesh. Why? because Christianity is a religion in the child stage of development, as an orthodox belief system. It is only when Christianity leaves its pagan superstitious roots and becomes mystical Christianity that it matures.

 

[godnotgod]

I don't fear death.

What comes after death is the same as what came before my life.

I was dead for billions of years before I was alive and it never bothered me one bit.

Clever. If you're dead, how can death bother you?

The real question is: who is it that lives? who is it that dies?

 

[Heathen Hammer]

who is it that lives? who is it that dies?

Not sure, but I definitely want to be the one making the decisions