• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Debate of God.

Lies, you are no atheist, this is typical christian false flag propaganda

Friend,why do you accuse me of lying?You must be able to distinguish betwen propaganda and Quest for truth.I do not like being oblivious or ignorant and that's why I keep on exploring various ideologies.
Besides,let me inform you that I have abandoned christianity 2 yrs ago.When I say that I love and respect Jesus,I sincerely mean it!I believe in him but not in the Bible which people have been tampering with for centuries(that's why it has so many versions). I believe that the original message OF Jesus Christ has been misinterpreted and corrupted by his disciples and those came after him.That's why I left a corrupted scripture and am seeking something that is undefiled and rational-ie the True guidance of God,which I am sure He makes visible to those wish to acquire it!
So,I do not think I would be able to cling to atheism for a long time.:rainbow1:
 

Heathen Hammer

Nope, you're still wrong
Friend,why do you accuse me of lying?You must be able to distinguish betwen propaganda and Quest for truth.I do not like being oblivious or ignorant and that's why I keep on exploring various ideologies.
Besides,let me inform you that I have abandoned christianity 2 yrs ago.When I say that I love and respect Jesus,I sincerely mean it!I believe in him but not in the Bible which people have been tampering with for centuries(that's why it has so many versions). I believe that the original message OF Jesus Christ has been misinterpreted and corrupted by his disciples and those came after him.That's why I left a corrupted scripture and am seeking something that is undefiled and rational-ie the True guidance of God,which I am sure He makes visible to those wish to acquire it!
So,I do not think I would be able to cling to atheism for a long time.:rainbow1:
I accuse you because you made a claim about yourself and then destroyed that claim by continually emphasizing about your One God.

In addition your behavior parrots the stratagem, witnessed many times before, of a monotheist posing as an atheist in order to spread propaganda detrimental to the group under whose flag he is falsely operating, ergo, false flag operation.

If you were an atheist you wouldn't be 'seeking the guidance of God', nor would you be continually spouting tired Christian dogma.

Also, and an aside, your use of familiar terms is creepy and unwelcome.
 

godnotgod

Thou art That
Well, why do you inssit on presuming there is another nature, when there is no factual reason to think so?
And, you're wrong about something: this body of facts DOES tell us something.

What is that 'something'?

It is the body of facts about ourselves that we think add up to what we call "I". That is an illusion. Our true nature is not based on such facts, but on reality, which is not the sum total of any facts.


As for an illusory universe: barring again the total lack of evidence for such, if the entire universe were literally illusory, your feeble efforts would never discern such a 'fact'.

That is due to mental conditioning ala Plato's Cave Allegory, and is why we believe the world to be 'real'. Why, we even have 'facts' to prove it real. Unfortunately, or fortunately, Quantum Physics is overturning all of that.


OK. So what is the true nature of reality that facts reveal? (I am thinking of one single true nature of reality that all facts together reveal.)


The general consensus here seems to be that facts are reality.

I have demonstrated my understanding of it by shredding it, and showing it as meaningless. And I have demonstrated teh meaninglessness of your Tao, by stating how wrong you are about my desires, and my relation to you, and about the self-evident state of 'facts', all of which appear to be some facet of your taoism.

You may have demonstrated all of that in your mind, but I do not accept your arguments and your logic.

It's not 'my Tao'.

Desires and its outcomes work via of principle. It sounds as if you think your pursuit of them is different; that 'you' control and sculpt them to your...well...desire.


No matter what you fabricate in your mind about your being different, you will always be one with everything. Everything is interconnected with everything else, and you are no exception.

You may notice that I am not the only other non-One person who is hounding you and your inability to support what you say. Perhaps you should pay attention to this 'fact'?

I am very aware of it, but you and they are ignoring what I have stated all along: that the view I am presenting does not come from factual knowledge and the thinking mind. There are more of you than I since most people accept the popular views that time is real; that the past creates the present; that facts reveal 'truth', etc.
 
Last edited:

godnotgod

Thou art That
I have abandoned christianity 2 yrs ago.When I say that I love and respect Jesus,I sincerely mean it!I believe in him but not in the Bible which people have been tampering with for centuries(that's why it has so many versions). I believe that the original message OF Jesus Christ has been misinterpreted and corrupted by his disciples and those came after him.That's why I left a corrupted scripture and am seeking something that is undefiled and rational-ie the True guidance of God,which I am sure He makes visible to those wish to acquire it!

There are two things you need to look at: The Pe****ta, which is the Bible written in Aramaic, the language Jesus spoke, and Yeshua the Essene, whose teachings are the original ones, before St. Paul overwrote them with the pagan doctrines of Mithra as a device to lure thousands of pagans into his new religion.

Here are a couple of links for your study:


Yeshua before 30 CE

History of Aramaic
 

cottage

Well-Known Member
Friend,why do you accuse me of lying?You must be able to distinguish betwen propaganda and Quest for truth.I do not like being oblivious or ignorant and that's why I keep on exploring various ideologies.
Besides,let me inform you that I have abandoned christianity 2 yrs ago.When I say that I love and respect Jesus,I sincerely mean it!I believe in him but not in the Bible which people have been tampering with for centuries(that's why it has so many versions). I believe that the original message OF Jesus Christ has been misinterpreted and corrupted by his disciples and those came after him.That's why I left a corrupted scripture and am seeking something that is undefiled and rational-ie the True guidance of God,which I am sure He makes visible to those wish to acquire it!
So,I do not think I would be able to cling to atheism for a long time.:rainbow1:

I cannot for the life of me see why you should call yourself an atheist when you are talking up theism?

We do, unfortunately, see several cynical attempts of that ilk, and there have been some famously dishonest ploys in the past, such as Dr Greenleaf, who disgracefully presented himself as an unbeliever in order to discover the truth of the Resurrection through the application of Municipal Law (Testimonies of the Evangelists). It goes without saying that he proved the 'truth' to his satisfaction: 'There is no reasonable doubt about [the Apostles'] truth.'

So drop the atheist title; say what you mean and mean what you say. :cool:
Regards, cottage
 

cottage

Well-Known Member
True nature is beyond existence/non-existence. It is non-dual.

When you remove the screen of Time, Space, and Causation from the mind, the universe is then seen as the Absolute. They are one and the same. But because of these conceptual overlays, we see them as separate.

What state of mind do you suppose is in operation which forms doubts about the empirical world? Obviously, something somewhere in our consciousness suspects something is amiss.

The Present Moment is not the fleeting moment of the clock you refer to as compared to a past; it is outside of Time, and therefore, is Timeless.

'We will continue to believe' = 'we will continue to delude ourselves'

re: 'mystical belief systems': there is no such thing. the mystical experience is beyond beliefs, opinions, doctrines, etc. That is why it is a mystical practice; it has left the orthodox belief systems behind.

You're right; mystical systems are not true, one over another. They are non-dual, and so do not propose truth or non-truth, belief or non-belief, etc. An authentic mystical 'system', as you call it, is only a pathway to a spiritual experience via of it pointing its finger. It is the spiritual experience itself that is the important thing, not what leads up to it.

You say ‘True nature is beyond existence/non-existence’. But that makes no sense; something cannot both be and not be. A thing must be intelligible in order for it to be believed or accepted. You can’t say that a thing is, while holding that it might not be! And if special circumstances are pleaded, such as ‘normal analysis doesn’t apply in this case’ then I’m afraid no argument can be made for mystical beliefs. For on that account we can claim anything of anything!

We agree that we see nothing but what we can experience, but all experience is open to doubt, which includes time, space, causation and the universe itself. Timelessness, which is implied by the concept of time, is irrelevant. ‘Now’, or the ‘present time’ is contingent and no different from ‘the universe is contingent.’ Your argument is that experience can doubted, which is true, because the universe is only a fact, while supposing that there is experience concerning the universe that cannot be doubted, and this leads you straight into a contradiction. You say continuing to believe is the equal of delusion. But that must apply to mysticism, since mystics live in the same world of experience as the rest of us. If we are deluded then it is a necessary delusion. Mystics rely on the highly probable truths of induction when they eat bread or drink water, and their expectations lead them to believe fire burns and ice chills. That is the daily reality, whereas mystical beliefs suppose a further reality based on the one that it wants to deny.
 

Heathen Hammer

Nope, you're still wrong
What is that 'something'?

It is the body of facts about ourselves that we think add up to what we call "I". That is an illusion. Our true nature is not based on such facts, but on reality, which is not the sum total of any facts.
Hm, you seem to be mistaken, as if thinking that when I said the word 'body' I was making a reference to 'my body' or 'me', rather than repeating the word you used in 'body of facts'.

Then you just play semantics.
That is due to mental conditioning ala Plato's Cave Allegory, and is why we believe the world to be 'real'. Why, we even have 'facts' to prove it real. Unfortunately, or fortunately, Quantum Physics is overturning all of that.
Yyyyeah.

Unfortunately for you, QM is also being formulated via facts.

OK. So what is the true nature of reality that facts reveal? (I am thinking of one single true nature of reality that all facts together reveal.)
What is the true nature of reality?
Or what is the true nature of what you are thinking reality is?
You can't ask both questions, as they will not coincide; you have shown your version of what true reality is will not correspond to what reality shows, since you find what it shows to be unacceptable to you personally. At least as far as what you have state here.

In the real world, the true nature of reality shows that we are made up of atoms, which are themselves are part of the energy=matter dichotomy of everything else. We have a good grasp of the universe's age, an idea of what happened when it was born, and other than that we have a hand on a number of other mechanisms of smaller systems within it.
The general consensus here seems to be that facts are reality.
The general consensus is that facts are descriptions of parts of reality. By accumulating facts you can create a certain a larger description which can be communicated to others [who, much to the chagrin of smart people, many of you choose not to accept anyway].

I would now add towards the general consensus: you have not really fathomed what the general consensus is

You may have demonstrated all of that in your mind, but I do not accept your arguments and your logic.
That is your failure, not mine.


It's not 'my Tao'.
So.. these half-handed ideas are from something else?

Desires and its outcomes work via of principle. It sounds as if you think your pursuit of them is different; that 'you' control and sculpt them to your...well...desire.
it is different. the two things are not one; one precedes the other.

No matter what you fabricate in your mind about your being different, you will always be one with everything. Everything is interconnected with everything else, and you are no exception.
that strategy didn't work when you were a child, and it does not work now.

I am very aware of it, but you and they are ignoring what I have stated all along: that the view I am presenting does not come from factual knowledge and the thinking mind. There are more of you than I since most people accept the popular views that time is real; that the past creates the present; that facts reveal 'truth', etc.
Oh, there's an opening in there that offers such a sweet chance for a punchline, and I'm just not going to take it.
 
Last edited:
Let me inform you all that now I have converted to monotheism.
Previously , I labelled myself as an aetheist for I believed myself to be one though I was a a little confused about that before.I have found out that till date ,Science has not been able to deny the existence of God in fact if we study it in a bit detail,it proves the opposite.That's why we see that almost all great scientists(except a few) do believe in GodI do believe in evolution but do not deny creationism.I believe evolution to be a spontaneous process.Having had believed in Darwinism for sometime,I feel that there are many missing links .Infact it is just a theory and not a fact.So why believe in it blindly.I do not believe that we have been evolved from apes!That is simply ridiculous.
Since nothing happens without a purpose,I do not believe that the universe came into existence without a purpose.Even if we living beings came into existence on our own,then who created death,why do we die when we do not want to?
 
Last edited:

Gjallarhorn

N'yog-Sothep
I have found out that till date ,Science has been able to deny the existence of God in fact if we study it in a bit detail,it proves the opposite.
How?

I do believe in evolution but do not deny creationism.I believe evolution to be a spontaneous process.Having had believed in Darwinism for sometime,I feel that there are many missing links .
Where?

Since nothing happens without a purpose,I do not believe that the universe came into existence without a purpose.
Causality is not intent. Explain please how "everything has a purpose" aside from causality.

Even if we living beings came into existence on our own,then who created death,why do we die when we do not want to?
We do. It's called suicide.
 

Heathen Hammer

Nope, you're still wrong
Let me inform you all that now I have converted to monotheism.
Previously , I labelled myself as an aetheist for I believed myself to be one though I was a a little confused about that before.I have found out that till date ,Science has not been able to deny the existence of God in fact if we study it in a bit detail,it proves the opposite.That's why we see that almost all great scientists(except a few) do believe in GodI do believe in evolution but do not deny creationism.I believe evolution to be a spontaneous process.Having had believed in Darwinism for sometime,I feel that there are many missing links .Infact it is just a theory and not a fact.So why believe in it blindly.I do not believe that we have been evolved from apes!That is simply ridiculous.
Since nothing happens without a purpose,I do not believe that the universe came into existence without a purpose.Even if we living beings came into existence on our own,then who created death,why do we die when we do not want to?>

OH GEE WHAT A SURPRISE

I expect some frubals for this, and whistleblower protection
 

839311

Well-Known Member
Let me inform you all that now I have converted to monotheism.
Previously , I labelled myself as an aetheist for I believed myself to be one though I was a a little confused about that before.I have found out that till date ,Science has not been able to deny the existence of God in fact if we study it in a bit detail,it proves the opposite.That's why we see that almost all great scientists(except a few) do believe in GodI do believe in evolution but do not deny creationism.I believe evolution to be a spontaneous process.Having had believed in Darwinism for sometime,I feel that there are many missing links .Infact it is just a theory and not a fact.So why believe in it blindly.I do not believe that we have been evolved from apes!That is simply ridiculous.
Since nothing happens without a purpose,I do not believe that the universe came into existence without a purpose.Even if we living beings came into existence on our own,then who created death,why do we die when we do not want to?

It sounds like you have a really poor understanding of evolution. Your confusion about death and evolution from our ancestral hominid species is a clear give away. The best book Ive read which explains evolution is 'The Greatest Show on Earth' by Richard Dawkins. Even if your a theist now, I highly recommend the book. Its going to greatly improve your understanding of evolution, which might even come in handy if your going to debate the issue from the perspective of a theist.
 
It sounds like you have a really poor understanding of evolution. Your confusion about death and evolution from our ancestral hominid species is a clear give away. The best book Ive read which explains evolution is 'The Greatest Show on Earth' by Richard Dawkins. Even if your a theist now, I highly recommend the book. Its going to greatly improve your understanding of evolution, which might even come in handy if your going to debate the issue from the perspective of a theist.

Alright friend I would read the book u ve recommended.I am not afraid of seeking knowledge!Let me tell you thatI do not believe my knowledge of evolution to be weak.In fact I have studied a lot on this subject .I said I do believe in evolution but do not deny creationism.I believe that evolution takes place according to the laws that have been set by God.

When I was an atheist ,my muslim friend(former name-George Fernandes;present name-Eesa Fernandes)recommended this site to me that has several articles and documentaries about evolution and creationism.:
WWW.harunyahya.com.
Though,I am not a muslim,but I really liked the site very much as it really has a very valuable material about evolution.You can't afford to miss it!


I earnestly recommend this site to you.:candle:
 

godnotgod

Thou art That
You say ‘True nature is beyond existence/non-existence’. But that makes no sense; something cannot both be and not be. A thing must be intelligible in order for it to be believed or accepted. You can’t say that a thing is, while holding that it might not be! And if special circumstances are pleaded, such as ‘normal analysis doesn’t apply in this case’ then I’m afraid no argument can be made for mystical beliefs. For on that account we can claim anything of anything!

Existence/non-existence are an inseparable duality. To say that one is so is to say the other is so as well. If one claims existence, he is also claiming non-existence, for to exist, one must also not-exist. I know this sounds like a contradiction, but existence can only occur against the background, or field,of non-existence. Otherwise, you would have no way of discerning existence, would you? Existence/non-existence are relative values, and are conceptual only, because they entail the presence of a self. True nature, on the other hand, is selfless and non-dual. It is the universal nature of all things, and therefore, of Reality itself, which is non-dual, and therefore Absolute, and that means that true nature has no opposite. It is beyond the relative duality of existence and non-existence. Our ordinary, conditioned mind dwells in duality, and the self so formed by it is thought to exist, in contrast to not-existing. When one experiences awakening, this condition dissolves, and one experiences his true nature, which is the process of awakening from delusion into the enlightened state. The 'contradiction' you pose is only a seeming one.

We agree that we see nothing but what we can experience, but all experience is open to doubt, which includes time, space, causation and the universe itself. Timelessness, which is implied by the concept of time, is irrelevant. ‘Now’, or the ‘present time’ is contingent and no different from ‘the universe is contingent.’ Your argument is that experience can doubted, which is true, because the universe is only a fact, while supposing that there is experience concerning the universe that cannot be doubted, and this leads you straight into a contradiction. You say continuing to believe is the equal of delusion. But that must apply to mysticism, since mystics live in the same world of experience as the rest of us. If we are deluded then it is a necessary delusion. Mystics rely on the highly probable truths of induction when they eat bread or drink water, and their expectations lead them to believe fire burns and ice chills. That is the daily reality, whereas mystical beliefs suppose a further reality based on the one that it wants to deny.[/QUOTE]

No. The daily reality is one and the same as the mystical experience. It is the mystical experience which transforms the mind that sees reality through a conceptual framework into seeing it the way it actually is. Reality has not changed at all. Seeing reality the way it is cannot involve belief, since belief is the product of thought. While it is precisely true that mystics live in the same world as does the ordinary man, the ordinary man is not awakened, and so sees the world through the conceptual filters of time, space, and causation, while the mystic does not. Because he does not, he sees the world as one. Hence:

"I chop wood and carry water. How miraculous!"

or...

"Before Enlightenment, sweeping the floor;
after Enlightenment, sweeping the floor."
 

godnotgod

Thou art That
When we SEE Reality for what it is, we can't pretend to play the games of reaching, striving, or arriving anymore. You can't get to SEEING. When you are fully engaged in this moment, THIS is seeing. Here there isn't any doubt, there isn't any fear, there isn't any existential angst. There are no overwhelming questions such as 'Where do I go after I die?' because it becomes clear that such questions, doubts, fears, and anxieties are based on buying into an illusion: the self.

At the close of the second millennium, it's becoming harder and harder for us to find meaning in our lives. We've seen through too many of our old stories. Religion does'nt grip most people as it once did. Though a lot of people mouth it, and still desperately cling to it, underneath it all 'God' doesn't seem to be the final answer for many of us.

We don't really live as if we believe in God. Still, in desperation, we swing between the twin perils of cynicism and dogmatism. We continue to run to this or that to inject meaning into our lives.

We don't easily understand that we create this problem of meaninglessnes ourselves through our deluded thinking. If we could JUST SEE this moment for what it is, meaninglessness would never arise in the first place. It's in our very trying to arrange things for ourselves -- trying to identify and assign meanings to things -- that we end up creating a world that is ultimately meaningless.

Whatever we hold up as 'the meaning of life' will ultimately show itself to be hollow, or false, or contradictory. Yet we keep digging in that same bag, continuing to search fruitlessly for a conceptual explanation. Either that or we fall down in despair.

We've tried this, we've tried that, we've tried the next thing, and the next. We've become sophisticated, jaded. After all our searching, all the philosophy and science that we've labored on for centuries, it's becoming very hard to find a story we can buy.

Liberation of mind is realizing that we don't need to buy any story at all. It's realizing that before our confused thought, there actually is Reality. We can SEE it. All we have to do is fully engage in this moment as it has come to be.

The deep hollow ache of the heart arises from a life in search of meaning. But it's by our very desire to find meaning that we create meaninglessness. The very idea of looking for purpose and meaning arises from our deluded thought. When we actually SEE Reality for what it is, all questions of meaning are transcended, and we're free to engage the world as it actually is.
*****

excerpted from: 'Buddhism, Plain and Simple', by Steve Hagen
 

cottage

Well-Known Member
Existence/non-existence are an inseparable duality. To say that one is so is to say the other is so as well. If one claims existence, he is also claiming non-existence, for to exist, one must also not-exist. I know this sounds like a contradiction, but existence can only occur against the background, or field,of non-existence. Otherwise, you would have no way of discerning existence, would you? Existence/non-existence are relative values, and are conceptual only, because they entail the presence of a self. True nature, on the other hand, is selfless and non-dual. It is the universal nature of all things, and therefore, of Reality itself, which is non-dual, and therefore Absolute, and that means that true nature has no opposite. It is beyond the relative duality of existence and non-existence. Our ordinary, conditioned mind dwells in duality, and the self so formed by it is thought to exist, in contrast to not-existing. When one experiences awakening, this condition dissolves, and one experiences his true nature, which is the process of awakening from delusion into the enlightened state. The 'contradiction' you pose is only a seeming one.
No. The daily reality is one and the same as the mystical experience. It is the mystical experience which transforms the mind that sees reality through a conceptual framework into seeing it the way it actually is. Reality has not changed at all. Seeing reality the way it is cannot involve belief, since belief is the product of thought. While it is precisely true that mystics live in the same world as does the ordinary man, the ordinary man is not awakened, and so sees the world through the conceptual filters of time, space, and causation, while the mystic does not. Because he does not, he sees the world as one. Hence:

"I chop wood and carry water. How miraculous!"

or...

"Before Enlightenment, sweeping the floor;
after Enlightenment, sweeping the floor."

Existence and non-existence are relative values in that instantiating the one negates its opposite; and so it goes without saying that both terms are necessary to the principle, but the point still being overlooked here is that a thing cannot be and not be at the same time. If you are making the case for something (which you certainly are) then you are saying it is. Thus it is unintelligible (and unintelligent) to advocate for a thing that is when at the same time you are saying it isn’t! And keeping with overall metaphysic, the concept of self (as with time and causation etc) is irrelevant. It is the mystics who necessarily cling to the notion of a self. Logically there has to be a prior-self in order for the ‘awakened ones’ to supposedly transcend it, and this we see confirmed by use of terms such as ‘ordinary man’, and even the term ‘mystics’ implies personal identity. N.B. I think you may have missed one of my replies to you (post 1117)? Please could you give me your response to that before I continue to explore this theme?
To say there is a filter through which we experience the world, and this filter can be by-passed enabling us to see ‘True reality’, the ‘Absolute’ or the ‘miraculous world of the infinite’, makes a glaring assumption. If I may reiterate what I said previously, which is that there is only experience and all experience can be doubted. You’re saying one experience transforms another experience. Well, if it follows that if the first experience can be doubted then so can the second, and therefore the argument that there is some experience that underpins experience is self-evidently incoherent.

PS. Something weird going on with the quote facility.

 
Top