Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Yeah, India perhaps has more Ph.D.'s in science who believe in existence of God than anywhere else. It is difficult to remove the childhood brain-wash.
-
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!
We are all dust
- Thread starter Mel B
- Start date
Regiomontanus
Eastern Orthodox
Hello. Remove? In my case the opposite happened. There are many examples of scientists who were led to God through science (Francis Collins as one example). IMHO, atheism is not rational. But to each his own.
Peace
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Yeah, as you say, 'to each his own' - "Tunde tunde matih bhinna" (Head to head different views).
Belief in God is rational and atheism is irrational. Could you tell me as to why it lead you particularly to Jesus and not to Mohammad's Allah? Or to Prabhupada's Krishna or to CERN's Shiva?
Last edited:
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
There are numerous similarities between every Christian denomination, and some of these are not as readily visible as others. While it makes no sense to simply ignore the differences between us, I always prefer to look for common ground. I've even thought of starting a thread in the Comparative Religions forum on this subject, but most people seem to not want to acknowledge those things we have in common. I guess it's more fun to tear the other guy's beliefs down.
Jim
Nets of Wonder
If you start that thread, I will post in it.
Regiomontanus
Eastern Orthodox
Hello. Atheism is not rational because it is impossible to know anything like that with certainly. It is certainly not scientific. By CERN do you mean the particle accelerator/lab? What does that have to do with Shiva? I am a follower of the teachings of Jesus, not in the Trinitarian Jesus invented later. Science led me to the conviction (no, not absolute, but nothing is) that there was a creative intelligence behind the origin of the universe. The moral and social gospel of Jesus is what I am all about.
Peace
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Ah, it is impossible to know anything for certain in science and with Bible, you know all things for certain. I had asked you why disenchantment from science take you to Jesus and not to Allah, Krishna or Shiva? Why are you a follower of Jesus and not of them?
Regiomontanus
Eastern Orthodox
Hello.I am not at all disenchanted with science.While I am pretty much retired from research I still teach astronomy a bit. Rather, science pointed me to something more - God. To me it got to the point where the Cosmos did not make sense through the lens of strict materialism. As for Jesus, his teachings really "spoke to me" and I think that following him is the path that can lead to true happiness for me and all of creation. As to Shiva - I see now why you mentioned CERN, that statue was a gift from India according to the CERN website - I think that all creator god traditions point to the same One. God the Father, Shiva...all approximations of the same One. I would never be so presumptuous as to think that our finite minds can ever know the true nature of the One. That is why I find some worth in most religions.
As a "strong atheist" are you are saying that you have it figured out 100%? Agnosticism is a defensible position but not atheism, in my humble opinion.
Peace
Luis Marco
New Member
Please consider this from the URANTIA Revelation, but wait, I'm not spamming here, since URANTIA is already in the international public domain. We all are more than dust even star dust.
And this is just one URANTIA paragraph on this very topic:
12:7:9 ' The love of the Father absolutely individualizes each personality as a unique child of the Universal Father, a child without duplicate in infinity, a will creature irreplaceable in all eternity. The Father's love glorifies each child of God, illuminating each member of the celestial family, sharply silhouetting the unique nature of each personal being against the impersonal levels that lie outside the fraternal circuit of the Father of all. The love of God strikingly portrays the transcendent value of each will creature, unmistakably reveals the high value which the Universal Father has placed upon each and every one of his children from the highest creator personality of Paradise status to the lowest personality of will dignity among the savage tribes of men in the dawn of the human species on some evolutionary world of time and space. '
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
I am not a scientist though I was a science student in my Bachelors. However, science did not point to God in my case, it did exactly the opposite. Your view and mine have 'some' similarities. As an 'advaitist', a believer in non-duality, I accept the existence of one entity constituting all things in the universe. For me it is not a God but something like 'physical energy' with which we started at the time of Big Bang. We call this 'not fully defined' thing as Brahman. Yes, I have it pretty well figured out for myself - and do not need any God for it. Speaking or hearing different tongues is a mental phenomenon.
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
Well, ancient people did not have microscopes, so dust was the smallest thing they could conceive of. We are actually composed of molecules, which are made of atoms, which are made of sub-atomic particles.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
And which is but 'physical energy'. Sub-atomic particles are not rubber balls.
Regiomontanus
Eastern Orthodox
Hello. I appreciate and respect your point of view. I like the 'physical energy' description you gave. I think that the Creator of the universe would have to have some form, obviously, unlike anything we can visualize. The anthropomorphic characterization of God is understandable but unfortunate (while I will allow that such a form could be made manifest). Some sort of 'energy field' makes sense to me (but again that would just be a crude way of describing God).
Peace
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Is that crude? Something closer to truth, aligned with the latest in science, not something set in stone (or in books), always open to improvements, without any anthropomorphic characterization which leads to conflicts. I think anthromorphic characterization with avataras, sons, messengers, prophets, mahdis, manifestations is the one which is crude and not suited to 21st Century. There is no grand-daddy in the sky, no heaven, no hell, no judgment, no rebirth, no resurrection. Why fool ourselves? It is one life that we have, which should be lived wisely. We arise from Brahman and dissolve back again in Brahman. And that is it.
Regiomontanus
Eastern Orthodox
Hello. Sorry, by crude I just meant inadequate, as in a rough approximation. But I think that is an inherent limitation.
Peace
edit: sorry for my quick response earlier, I was in a hurry but wanted to clarify my language so that there was no misunderstanding. As to your other comments above I see that while we obviously disagree on some points, we agree on others. That is always a good thing. Be well.
Last edited:
Mel B
Member
What happens to these molecules when we die?
Mel B
Member
Many Hindus believe in reincarnation.
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
Those that are stable remain as molecules. Others break down and/or combine with other molecules to form different substances. This is high school chemistry.......but I'm amazed you couldn't find this out with a simple Google search.