US: Donald Trump launches 2024 comeback bid, makes his 'very big announcement'

[Ben Dhyan]

And you imagine that things like spirits, satan and gods exist and assert such to atheists, without being able to provide any evidence at all.
So, yeah. Why should we (or anybody) accept your claims? Because as I said, atheists are just people who aren't convinced that god(s) exist.

So what type of atheist are you, one who believes God does not exist, or do you lack a belief in God (like SZ)?

 

[Stevicus]

So you as an atheist lack belief in God, but do not believe that God does not exist?

So what do you call someone who does believe God does not exist, if not an atheist?

If I may, I think it's more a matter of not wanting to engage in any guessing games. We deal with what we know, with what we can prove to exist. That which can not be proven to exist, those things which are more speculative and doubtful, they might be more in the "remains to be seen" category.

I don't know if it's so much a matter of believing that God "does" or "does not" exist. It's an open-ended question anyway, since "God" can be defined any number of ways.

If one looks at the here and now, and bases one's perceptions of reality on what is known, observable, and evident, then one can simply take it on that level. Maybe there's a God, maybe not, but even if there is a God, it doesn't seem as if that would have any direct relevance on the daily flow of life on Earth or the natural cycles of life. At least in the sense of operating in a practical and reasonable fashion, we have to assume that there is no God - at least none that has any relevance within practical reality. That is, it would be foolish to jump off a cliff in the belief that God would save one from falling to a gruesome death. We have to assume that God (even if there is one) will not do anything in that instance - or any other time for that matter.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

If I may, I think it's more a matter of not wanting to engage in any guessing games. We deal with what we know, with what we can prove to exist. That which can not be proven to exist, those things which are more speculative and doubtful, they might be more in the "remains to be seen" category.

I don't know if it's so much a matter of believing that God "does" or "does not" exist. It's an open-ended question anyway, since "God" can be defined any number of ways.

If one looks at the here and now, and bases one's perceptions of reality on what is known, observable, and evident, then one can simply take it on that level. Maybe there's a God, maybe not, but even if there is a God, it doesn't seem as if that would have any direct relevance on the daily flow of life on Earth or the natural cycles of life. At least in the sense of operating in a practical and reasonable fashion, we have to assume that there is no God - at least none that has any relevance within practical reality. That is, it would be foolish to jump off a cliff in the belief that God would save one from falling to a gruesome death. We have to assume that God (even if there is one) will not do anything in that instance - or any other time for that matter.

Ok, you describe your perception of reality as you personally understand it now, I think you would agree that there is more to it, and that the sum total of all existence, known and unknown, is beyond human conception. But the sum total of all that exists, actually does exist. Over the ages, different times, different cultures, mankind have come up with religious teachings have evolved that are meant to help people find meaning to their life. These religious teachings have a name to represent the source of existence, the creator, the preserver, the destroyer, universal awareness, etc., God, Brahman, Tao, Nirvana, Allah, etc., etc..

Now the name Brahman for example is a concept meant to represent the reality of all that exists, known and unknown, manifest and unmanifest. How does an agnostic doubt that Brahman exists? Now I am not talking about any other aspect in scripture attributed to Brahman, just the reality itself represented by the concept, the universe no less.

 

[Stevicus]

Ok, you describe your perception of reality as you personally understand it now, I think you would agree that there is more to it, and that the sum total of all existence, known and unknown, is beyond human conception. But the sum total of all that exists, actually does exist. Over the ages, different times, different cultures, mankind have come up with religious teachings have evolved that are meant to help people find meaning to their life. These religious teachings have a name to represent the source of existence, the creator, the preserver, the destroyer, universal awareness, etc., God, Brahman, Tao, Nirvana, Allah, etc., etc..

Now the name Brahman for example is a concept meant to represent the reality of all that exists, known and unknown, manifest and unmanifest. How does an agnostic doubt that Brahman exists? Now I am not talking about any other aspect in scripture attributed to Brahman, just the reality itself represented by the concept, the universe no less.

I'm not saying that I believe or disbelieve. I just work within what I know. I accept reality as I perceive it to be. It's not a question of doubting its existence, but I might question its relevance, particularly when it comes to the unknown.

If I don't know something, then I might have the option of reading up on it and learning something, or maybe it's something I don't care enough about or consider relevant enough in my life to expend the effort in doing so. Or maybe it's something I can't possibly know, even to the point of being able to conceive or define what there is to know.

That puts it into the realm of guessing, and the problem with guessing is that most of the time, we guess wrong. So, that "95% unknown" - that's unknown. We can say that, theoretically, "it exists," but why would we want to do that? What's the point, if we don't know what it is?

 

[F1fan]

Ok, you describe your perception of reality as you personally understand it now, I think you would agree that there is more to it, and that the sum total of all existence, known and unknown, is beyond human conception.

And that includes what anceint and current people conceive will be eventually obsolete, like belief is gods and other non-rational concepts. No longer believing in obsolete religious ideas might be beyond your conception, yes?

But the sum total of all that exists, actually does exist. Over the ages, different times, different cultures, mankind have come up with religious teachings have evolved that are meant to help people find meaning to their life. These religious teachings have a name to represent the source of existence, the creator, the preserver, the destroyer, universal awareness, etc., God, Brahman, Tao, Nirvana, Allah, etc., etc..

First, Nirvana is a mental state, not a supernatural concept. Second, Toa is natural and philosophical approach that actually can work with adequately discilined minds. But the rest are not words that correspond to anything we know of as real. Notice most all these ideas are from ancient times, and none since the age of reason. No one believes in religious ideas except for cultural and social reasons. No one comes to a rational conclusion that a God exists via facts and reasoning.

Now the name Brahman for example is a concept meant to represent the reality of all that exists, known and unknown, manifest and unmanifest. How does an agnostic doubt that Brahman exists?

The symbol exists, as does what the symbol represents. Eastern thought is not easily understood by Western minds. The West tends to think the word is the thing.

Now I am not talking about any other aspect in scripture attributed to Brahman, just the reality itself represented by the concept, the universe no less.

Some words do represent real thngs. Those words are used in certain contexts where they are relevant. The word God does not represent anything that we consider real. It only represents a large set of abstract concepts that humans have created.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I do not understand, I also may lack belief in a god based on the reality meant to represent that god if it is not credible to my understanding, but I can't lack belief in a god for which there is no description, there is no god that I am aware of whose followers do not have some description.

If someone does not describe his god and the evidence for that god then I cannot have any opinion about it at all. And of course I cannot believe in an undefined god.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I'm not saying that I believe or disbelieve. I just work within what I know. I accept reality as I perceive it to be. It's not a question of doubting its existence, but I might question its relevance, particularly when it comes to the unknown.

If I don't know something, then I might have the option of reading up on it and learning something, or maybe it's something I don't care enough about or consider relevant enough in my life to expend the effort in doing so. Or maybe it's something I can't possibly know, even to the point of being able to conceive or define what there is to know.

That puts it into the realm of guessing, and the problem with guessing is that most of the time, we guess wrong. So, that "95% unknown" - that's unknown. We can say that, theoretically, "it exists," but why would we want to do that? What's the point, if we don't know what it is?

Because you are an expression of that. Religion is about finding out what and who you are in the context of absolute existence. The thinking mind process must be transcended to realize what one is, it is not about belief, it is not about thought, religion is about that which the human mind can never conceive of.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

And that includes what anceint and current people conceive will be eventually obsolete, like belief is gods and other non-rational concepts. No longer believing in obsolete religious ideas might be beyond your conception, yes?



First, Nirvana is a mental state, not a supernatural concept. Second, Toa is natural and philosophical approach that actually can work with adequately discilined minds. But the rest are not words that correspond to anything we know of as real. Notice most all these ideas are from ancient times, and none since the age of reason. No one believes in religious ideas except for cultural and social reasons. No one comes to a rational conclusion that a God exists via facts and reasoning.


The symbol exists, as does what the symbol represents. Eastern thought is not easily understood by Western minds. The West tends to think the word is the thing.


Some words do represent real thngs. Those words are used in certain contexts where they are relevant. The word God does not represent anything that we consider real. It only represents a large set of abstract concepts that humans have created.

Nirvana is not a mental state, it is beyond the conception of the human mind. Tao is not a mental state, it is beyond the conception of the human mind. God is not a mental state, it is beyond the conception of the human mind.

Religion is about realizing that which you really are in the context of absolute reality, not what the mortal body ego mind thinks you are.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

If someone does not describe his god and the evidence for that god then I cannot have any opinion about it at all. And of course I cannot believe in an undefined god.

The actual reality represented by such concepts as God, Nirvana, Tao, etc is beyond the conception of the human mind, but for the purposes of providing a human conceptualization as to what it is, it is all that exists, iow., the known universe and the unknown, the manifest universe and the unmanifest, the 5% and the 95%,

 

[Subduction Zone]

The actual reality represented by such concepts as God, Nirvana, Tao, etc is beyond the conception of the human mind, but for the purposes of providing a human conceptualization as to what it is, it is all that exists, iow., the known universe and the unknown, the manifest universe and the unmanifest, the 5% and the 95%,

Cool story. What is your evidence for it? How is this story any different from countless other god stories that you disagree with?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Cool story. What is your evidence for it? How is this story any different from countless other god stories that you disagree with?

The universe, known and unknown is the reality represented by the concept of God in my religious practice and realization. It would be an absurd absolute reality if there existed another reality separate.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The universe, known and unknown is the reality represented by the concept of God in my religious practice and realization. It would be an absurd absolute reality if there existed another reality separate.

That is just a claim. Anyone can make a claim. That does not make it correct. Your religion could be wrong. How would you test it?

 

[F1fan]

Nirvana is not a mental state, it is beyond the conception of the human mind.

Really, then how did Siddartha conceive of it? How do monks achieve the state?

Tao is not a mental state, it is beyond the conception of the human mind.

I didn't say is was a mental state, I said it was a philosophical approach, and if you are correct how do so many understand the Tao. I suggest it's you that has a problem understanding, not others. Your limitations don't apply to others more capable that you.

God is not a mental state, it is beyond the conception of the human mind.

Gods are a huge set of abstractions that humans conjured in their minds, so you are wrong yet again.

Religion is about realizing that which you really are in the context of absolute reality, not what the mortal body ego mind thinks you are.

Your posts suggest the contrary. Religions are very much about how humans see themselves.

The universe, known and unknown is the reality represented by the concept of God in my religious practice and realization. It would be an absurd absolute reality if there existed another reality separate.

This is really odd, why do you need a representation in your mind of things that are real? Why not just acknowldge the real?

Are you aware that the word "god" is misleading and carries with it ll sorts of assumptions that are NOT part of reality? Those who are honest refer to all that exists as the "universe".

If anything this discussion should help you REALIZE that the beliefs you adopted from religious lore are not completely revresentative of reality and include alot of imaginary ideas. Why? Because it helps the ego feel secure in a universe where it isn't significant.

Because you are an expression of that. Religion is about finding out what and who you are in the context of absolute existence.

Who you are? That is ego at work. Religion only builds an illusion of the self AS a religious person. It doesn't offer any means to understand the essence of who a person is. I suggest it is stripping away of belief that allows a person the freedom to know the self. Religion only suffocates the self with layers of concepts and imagery.

And what is "absolute existence" and how is it better than mere existence? Just more of your Chopra nonsense that you never care to explain?

The thinking mind process must be transcended to realize what one is, it is not about belief, it is not about thought, religion is about that which the human mind can never conceive of.

What transcends the "thinking mind"? Illusions? Self-deception? Confusion? Belief? A person can be confused and fit your description here, and I suggest that fits you very well, but do you realize it?

Religion is about concepts and illusions, and those are thoughts. And if human minds can't conceive of religion then why are people adopting the concepts as if they are true?

 

[metis]

Not really, if there was no beginning, God did not come from nothing, God/Existence is eternal, no beginning and no end, it is perfectly logical.

If God is eternal then you do accept that some effect(s) may not have a cause. However, one simply cannot provide objective evidence that God(s) had no cause thus, as the Buddha seems to imply, it appears to be irrelevant.

What is illogical is to imagine there was a beginning to existence. All manifest things have beginnings, but the unmanifested spirit that is the cause of all creation, preservation, and destruction in time, always existed.

Again, see above.

However, what you are basically implying is infinity likely exists, which is interesting since it does work out and is occasionally used in some mathematical formulas. If infinity was illogical, then we'd expect it would work out in some formulas.

Please recognize that I'm playing "devil's advocate" here as I do believe there is likely "Something" behind the scenes, not because I can supposedly prove it but what I experienced that shook me up several years ago.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

That is just a claim. Anyone can make a claim. That does not make it correct. Your religion could be wrong. How would you test it?

You test it by practicing the religious teaching.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You test it by practicing the religious teaching.

That hardly sounds like a legitimate test. It is far too prone to confirmation bias. And that is shown by the countless religions with extremely different messages that all say that is how one proves their religion.

If you cannot properly test your beliefs then you do not have any rational, reliable evidence.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

If God is eternal then you do accept that some effect(s) may not have a cause. However, one simply cannot provide objective evidence that God(s) had no cause thus, as the Buddha seems to imply, it appears to be irrelevant.

Again, see above.

However, what you are basically implying is infinity likely exists, which is interesting since it does work out and is occasionally used in some mathematical formulas. If infinity was illogical, then we'd expect it would work out in some formulas.

Please recognize that I'm playing "devil's advocate" here as I do believe there is likely "Something" behind the scenes, not because I can supposedly prove it but what I experienced that shook me up several years ago.

Certainly, the reality represented by the concept of God is without cause. God obviously is causeless since there was no beginning. Now the human mind can not imagine that existence itself had no beginning, but this is due to the inbuilt limitation of the human being's personal mind to apprehend absolute reality. 1 Corinthians 2:9. What the human eye has never seen, the human ear has never heard, and what the human mind can never conceive of, That is what awaits those who love God. The reality represented by the Nirvana of the Buddha had the same object for the religious aspirants of his day as the 1 Corintians 2:9 statement had for aspirants of Paul's day, that conceptualization of God is not God, the aspirant must transcend the duality of belief in Deity, and unite with it. Nirvana represents the non-dual mind state, the seeker and that sought are one.

Yes, I understand you to be religious, as Jesus taught, the straight and narrow path to truth is very difficult, and few succeed, the broad path that leads to destruction is easy and most favor it. It is my understanding that the straight path leads to a mind in a state of non-duality realization, while the wide path is the normal human mind state of conceptualizing reality, a state of duality separating the thinker from the object of the thought.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

That hardly sounds like a legitimate test. It is far too prone to confirmation bias. And that is shown by the countless religions with extremely different messages that all say that is how one proves their religion.

If you cannot properly test your beliefs then you do not have any rational, reliable evidence.

Understanding what and who one is in the context of existence is not a part time exercise, and it certainly does not mean believing what others believe. One may listen to others, but the onus is on each individual to live their life in a manner of their own choosing. You will only ever know what you know in the here and now, if you do not 'grow' as time goes by, you will always only continue to know what is already known.

Live a live striving to find out exactly what and who one is in the context of existence is difficult, going along with the cultural norms of human society and its beliefs and culture, ie., work, play, entertainment, family, church, politics, etc., is so very easy, almost everyone does it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Understanding what and who one is in the context of existence is not a part time exercise, and it certainly does not mean believing what others believe. One may listen to others, but the onus is on each individual to live their life in a manner of their own choosing. You will only ever know what you know in the here and now, if you do not 'grow' as time goes by, you will always only continue to know what is already known.

Live a live striving to find out exactly what and who one is in the context of existence is difficult, going along with the cultural norms of human society and its beliefs and culture, ie., work, play, entertainment, family, church, politics, etc., is so very easy, almost everyone does it.

That does not mean that your understanding of the world is any better than that of any atheist. You make all of these claims of superiority, how are you going to support them?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

That does not mean that your understanding of the world is any better than that of any atheist. You make all of these claims of superiority, how are you going to support them?

My understanding though is not a conceptual one, conceptual implies duality, the one who conceptualizes and that which is conceptualized. Conceptual reality is what modern human civilization is based on, business, politics, religion, sport, family, entertainment, that is not my life except as when interacting with and within this human civilization as a matter of day to day life. My life when alone is spent in stilling the mind and being one with what is, there is no conceptualization taking place except for the ego mind's frequent attempts to interrupt the oneness and establish a state of duality, ie. conceptualizing.

Superiority is a concept, it has no place in a mind in a state of non-duality.