The Debate of God.

[godnotgod]

I believe in life after death.
I will go on.

Who is it that will go on after death?

 

[Thief]

Who is it that will go on after death?

I hope to do so.
Still thinking you won't make it?

 

[KeeperofSecrets]

My belief about oneness streams along the lines of all that is created including the spiritual force that moves all creations including thoughts. My idea of a one true god is not the same as Christians, because they seperate themselves from their maker and try to make it out like evil is seperate when its not, its apart of. I feel everything is alive and in transformation, that make up our creator. I do not seperate myself from animal nor do I seperate myself from my environment. Everything can have its own unique specialness that does not have to be the same but reflects one another as a whole and yet individual.

 

[godnotgod]

I hope to do so.

...and exactly who is this "I" which hopes to do so?

 

[Prophet]

My belief about oneness streams along the lines of all that is created including the spiritual force that moves all creations including thoughts. My idea of a one true god is not the same as Christians, because they seperate themselves from their maker and try to make it out like evil is seperate when its not, its apart of. I feel everything is alive and in transformation, that make up our creator. I do not seperate myself from animal nor do I seperate myself from my environment. Everything can have its own unique specialness that does not have to be the same but reflects one another as a whole and yet individual.

Do you believe how you "feel" about anything is a solid rational grounds for the forming of beliefs?

 

[Vultar]

Who is it that will go on after death?

Me... a number of times now... I'm sure there must be others, but as of yet, none here have admitted it yet (not even in jest) they must be afraid of being called crazy

 

[godnotgod]

Me...

Who is 'Me', and what makes you believe it goes on after death?

 

[KeeperofSecrets]

Do you believe how you "feel" about anything is a solid rational grounds for the forming of beliefs?

No...I have allowed science, and many other areas of research into the cosmos and our surrounding, including physics and theorists, philosophers, naturalists, spiritualists; to also reflect themselves, and in so doing, myself was reflected back into what can be called rational grounds for forming ones beliefs.

 

[Thief]

My belief about oneness streams along the lines of all that is created including the spiritual force that moves all creations including thoughts. My idea of a one true god is not the same as Christians, because they seperate themselves from their maker and try to make it out like evil is seperate when its not, its apart of. I feel everything is alive and in transformation, that make up our creator. I do not seperate myself from animal nor do I seperate myself from my environment. Everything can have its own unique specialness that does not have to be the same but reflects one another as a whole and yet individual.

All good but that one line.
Your linear existence is headed to and end.
The separation of this world and 'you'... is pending.

You say you believe in one God....so do I...
Does you technique lead to going back?
Are you hoping to retain the 'person' you have become?

Not much point in all of this humanity....if it all becomes dust.

 

[KeeperofSecrets]

All good but that one line.
Your linear existence is headed to and end.
The separation of this world and 'you'... is pending.

You say you believe in one God....so do I...
Does you technique lead to going back?
Are you hoping to retain the 'person' you have become?

Not much point in all of this humanity....if it all becomes dust.

Dust is alive fusion of the whole our cosmos as our we. What all that consist of is still unknown. Since I believe we are inside alive body and are apart of it, I noticed that it is still changing. Past and future flowing in on something that happen in an instant. That force that moves our creator and simply being is the point of humanity, for our individuality is what makes up the whole.

I came across this belief from a belief of ancient people from before b.c. that has been lost. They were a more advanced civilization than of today's.

 

[godnotgod]

My belief about oneness....

No...I have allowed science, and many other areas of research into the cosmos and our surrounding, including physics and theorists, philosophers, naturalists, spiritualists; to also reflect themselves, and in so doing, myself was reflected back into what can be called rational grounds for forming ones beliefs.

Therein lies the problem. The true nature of the universe may not be accessible via Logic and Reason, other than that they can be applied to its outward appearance and behavior, and even that has now been overturned by Quantum Mechanics.

There is the belief about oneness and reality, whether intuitively or rationally-based, then there is oneness and reality itself, which is paradoxically beyond both, but immediately at hand.

"The universe is the Absolute as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation"
Vivikenanda

 

[KeeperofSecrets]

Therein lies the problem. The true nature of the universe may not be accessible via Logic and Reason, other than that they can be applied to its outward appearance and behavior, and even that has now been overturned by Quantum Mechanics.

There is the belief about oneness and reality, whether intuitively or rationally-based, then there is oneness and reality itself, which is paradoxically beyond both, but immediately at hand.

"The universe is the Absolute as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation"
Vivikenanda

I don't believe that Quantum Mechanics over turns anything in respect to oneness or reality. It can put to questions or add more questions to the whole, but than again we are picking apart the whole when talking about quantum.

Alot of bases to religion is through history and belief systems and whom influenced those belief systems to get the resulting belief of god or is there a god.

Claus Dona went over some ancient artifacts and describes some hidden history to man and makes you wonder , what kind of mankinds were in existence. Were there visitors and how would that effect the belief system of todays idea of god and if there is a god , and what is god? Were there just more advancement and advanced civilizations than today during the period 6,000 yrs ? Evidence seems to point to questioning what we have learned of our past and what that means for us today.

What do you base your belief of god on, if you have a belief of a god?

If you do not believe, what do you base it on?

If you do not even believe that you exist, than how can you talk about existence?

If you question reality, than isn't it about questioning reality and whose to say what is real?

Why ask why or how, just be, means not to try and understand what is but to react, and in so doing you would still be on a journey to enlightenment, for you can not seperate yourself from your environment or your creator, for to ask is to be and to be is a creation.

My belief system is that god is our creator of all, and that we apart of that creation. The spirit is the force that moves the intelligence behind that creation. To seperate one self , individuality from the whole seems to be the drive behind the force, and to seperate from the one appears to be life.

 

[godnotgod]

I don't believe that Quantum Mechanics over turns anything in respect to oneness or reality.

I meant that it has overturned our classic scientific view of reality, but not necessarily of oneness. Science has always viewed the world as composed of separate 'things'.

 

[Prophet]

Anyone who speaks of Oneness as it pertains to the material world or universe is likely speaking from feigned knowledge. Oneness is realized by beings who see that the underlying Consciousness is as the great teacher Jesus put it "not of this world".

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Anyone who speaks of Oneness as it pertains to the material world or universe is likely speaking from feigned knowledge. Oneness is realized by beings who see that the underlying Consciousness is as the great teacher Jesus put it "not of this world".

Because everybody knows the best way to educate those who possess feigned knowledge is with feigned knowledge.

 

[Prophet]

Because everybody knows the best way to educate those who possess feigned knowledge is with feigned knowledge.

Prejudice, like you've aptly demonstrated above, is an ironic demonstration of feigned knowledge. Thanks for that, I suppose.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Prejudice, like you've aptly demonstrated above, is an ironic demonstration of feigned knowledge. Thanks for that, I suppose.

What's prejudiced about what I said? In my experience, people who make a claim to some kind of "deeper understanding" never actually have the capacity to present anything other than vague, garbled truisms. Bandying around the word "oneness" doesn't make that term anything more than a nonsensical buzzword. Every spritual leader, self-help guru, psychic, alternative therapist or cult claim to possess some "deeper understanding" that us regular, unenlightened, fact-loving folk don't believe because were either closed-minded or prejudiced or secretly in league with the devil/illuminati/some other ill-defined figure of mass control. When people make claims such as what you have made, that their knowledge is somehow closer to "true" knowledge and that others merely possess "feigned" knowledge, I never get anything out of this supposed "true" knowledge than a collection of poorly conceived, pseudo-spiritual concepts without any factual merit whatsoever. And when I express my disbelief, I am accused of having some "hidden agenda", or being ignorant, or - as you have done - being somehow prejudiced.

It is not "prejudiced" to disbelieve someone when they make an extraordinary claim to knowledge. It is not "prejudiced" to disbelieve someone when they refuse or are unable to support their opinion with any kind of relevant facts. It is not "prejudiced" to brush off anybody who claims to have "true knowledge" out of the millions (if not billions) of people who claim to do so, but this "true knowledge" only ever extends to abstract, metaphysical things which cannot be demonstrated or evidenced in any way.

 

[godnotgod]

..."true knowledge" only ever extends to abstract, metaphysical things which cannot be demonstrated or evidenced in any way.

Not true.

True knowledge includes the everyday ordinary world. It's just that it is seen differently than via ordinary conscious awareness, which is actually an altered state of consciousness. True knowledge is our true state of consciousness, unaltered, unblemished. The ordinary state of consciousness tends to split reality into the illusory 'this and that', while true knowledge sees reality as singular and one.

re: 'true knowledge':

"Buddha-Mind* is none other than Ordinary Mind; Ordinary Mind is none other than Buddha-Mind"
Buddha

*The original state of the mind, prior to social indoctrination.

In other words, to see things via ordinary conscious awareness is to see things as we think them to be, while to see things via true knowledge is to see them as they actually are.

Your allusion to true knowledge as being in the realm of 'metaphysical things' is a philosophical view. To see reality as it is, is not a philosophical view.

 

[Prophet]

What's prejudiced about what I said? In my experience, people who make a claim to some kind of "deeper understanding" never actually have the capacity to present anything other than vague, garbled truisms. Bandying around the word "oneness" doesn't make that term anything more than a nonsensical buzzword. Every spritual leader, self-help guru, psychic, alternative therapist or cult claim to possess some "deeper understanding" that us regular, unenlightened, fact-loving folk don't believe because were either closed-minded or prejudiced or secretly in league with the devil/illuminati/some other ill-defined figure of mass control. When people make claims such as what you have made, that their knowledge is somehow closer to "true" knowledge and that others merely possess "feigned" knowledge, I never get anything out of this supposed "true" knowledge than a collection of poorly conceived, pseudo-spiritual concepts without any factual merit whatsoever. And when I express my disbelief, I am accused of having some "hidden agenda", or being ignorant, or - as you have done - being somehow prejudiced.

It is not "prejudiced" to disbelieve someone when they make an extraordinary claim to knowledge. It is not "prejudiced" to disbelieve someone when they refuse or are unable to support their opinion with any kind of relevant facts. It is not "prejudiced" to brush off anybody who claims to have "true knowledge" out of the millions (if not billions) of people who claim to do so, but this "true knowledge" only ever extends to abstract, metaphysical things which cannot be demonstrated or evidenced in any way.

What is prejudiced about what you say? I will try to demonstrate as clearly and dispassionately as possible.

In my understanding, you say that you have a view against me which is justified because you have encountered others who you see as like me who do nothing but blow unfalsifiable hot air that means nothing. I have highlighted the portion I speak of here in red. This is the initial step of prejudice you take. We commonly refer to this as stereotyping, and it leads to fallacious reasoning present in all prejudice. In doing so, you feign knowledge of what I have to say by assuming what I'll have to offer is as unsatisfying as everything you've heard before.

I'm going to resist really hammering this point home until you've demonstrated that you cannot accept what I have to say here.

P.S. As an added note, I've spoken out against these types you lump me in with in this very thread. In fact, I was speaking out against these very types when you decided to take me on. I find the word games as repugnant as you do.

 

[godnotgod]

..."true knowledge" only ever extends to abstract, metaphysical things which cannot be demonstrated or evidenced in any way.

Here is Alan Watts on the subject:


"The problem arises, however, because the theologians really want to say that God is a fact, a thing albeit the first fact and the first thing, the Being before all beings. Had it been clear that theology was not speaking of facts, the conflict between theology and natural science could never have arisen. But when, during the era ofthe Renaissance, this conflict first arose neither the theologians nor the scientists realized that there might have been any profound difference between the languages they were speaking. Theologians and scientists alike understood themselves to be talking about "objective realities*', which is to say 'things and events'. Yet to add to the confusion the language of St. Thomas, St. Albert the Great, and St.Bonaventure was also metaphysical. They said that God was not in the class of things, that he was not an event in time, that he was not a body, that he had no parts or divisions, that he was eternal, infinite, and all the rest. But it is very clear that with some few possible exceptions, such as Eckhart and Erigena, the scholastics were still trying to talk about a thing, a very great thing, beyond and including all other things.

The confusion has its historical roots in the fact that Christian dogma is a blend of Hebrew mythology and history with Greek metaphysic and science, complicated by the fact that Greek metaphysic was never so clearly formulated as Indian, and was always in danger of being identified with highly abstract thought. Indeed, the Western metaphysicians from Aristotle to Hegel have been above all things the great abstractionists, the thinkers. In this respect they are at the opposite pole from any traditional metaphysic, which is radically empirical and non-conceptual. It is possible, then, that the Greeks derived a number of metaphysical doctrines from India, but, for the most part, mistook their nature and treated them as concepts, as abstractions which have an objective existence on a "higher plane" than material things! It seems to have escaped the Greek mind that a metaphysical term such as "eternity" is not a concept at all. It is the negation of the concept of time. It involves no positive statement. It merely points out that the notion of reality as extended through past, present, and future is a theory and not a real, first/hand experience.

As a result, then, Christian dogma combines a mythological story which is for the most part Hebrew, and a group of metaphysical "concepts" which are Greek, and then proceeds to treat both as statements of fact as information about objective realities inhabiting (a) the world of history, and (b) the "supernatural" world existing parallel to the historical, but on a higher plane. In other words, it talks about mythology and metaphysic in the language of science. The resulting confusion has been so vast, and has so muddled Western thought, that all our current terms, our very language, so partake of the confusion that they can hardly straighten it out."

Myth and Ritual in Christianity, by Alan Watts