Why Didn't the Universe Always Exist?

[YoursTrue]

I know. I know where your science comes from.

Why do you suppose that they teach you that what obviously is an animal - man- is not that? It's because they want you to believe that you are inherently different and special due to an unseen god creating you in its image and inserting a soul into you but not the beasts. OK. I suppose that's a harmless belief. But what would be the harm in understanding that man is an animal? Do you find that demeaning?

You just keep repeating that and ignoring my responses to it. Are not aware of any happiness or goodness in the world? It's all around you, but since you never mention it, maybe a confirmation bias filters it out for you. It's a kind of blindness. Just as for a literally blind person, it's always as dark as the night, you also don't see light. You don't see beauty. You don't see love. You don't hear laughter. The only things you ever mention are corruption, violence, greed, pollution, suicide, drug overdose, and the like.

It might be useful to you to notice that, ask why it is so, and ask how you can have a bit of that light in your own life. It's there all around you, but you don't seem to see it.

I resent your religion doing that to you on your behalf. It serves them to have you see the world so darkly. It makes you more fearful, less a denizen of our world and more of an alien in it seeking protection and shelter that only it can give you, so you cling tightly to your faith. That's the point. That's how it serves them but costs you.

The same thing is done in the American political arena, where people are indoctrinated into a dark mindset which serves the people disseminating such ideas at the cost of those who hold them - people who are taught to see the world in terms immigrants coming for their jobs, Jews coming to replace them, liberals coming for their precious guns, Marxists and Communists everywhere, and all manner of grievance and complaint including being upset that a biological male wants to be treated as a female.

More of your offensive and presumptuous condescension and hand-waiving without counterargument. You're not nearly as smart as you pretend to be. And if you choose to continue to prop yourself up on my back, expect to read more words like these.

I don't just make things up. You do, like your claim that scientism is a problem. You just say it but can't defend it, and when rebutted, you go into your demeaning mode, generally writing no more than "research it." Look at how often you've done that in just the last two weeks

I realize there are many nice things in this world. Some people are 'nice,' and there is much beauty in nature that can be enjoyed. I appreciate these things. But there is much corruption and misery also in this world. And I believe it will not always be that way.

 

[YoursTrue]

@It Aint Necessarily So I said,

I am saying (1) I do not go along with the notion that humans are animals because that is what I discern from the Bible.

And you said, "I know. I know where your science comes from.

Why do you suppose that they teach you that what obviously is an animal - man- is not that? It's because they want you to believe that you are inherently different and special due to an unseen god creating you in its image and inserting a soul into you but not the beasts. OK. I suppose that's a harmless belief. But what would be the harm in understanding that man is an animal? Do you find that demeaning?"

I am going by the Bible. No longer everything that man believes.

 

[Pogo]

I realize there are many nice things in this world. Some people are 'nice,' and there is much beauty in nature that can be enjoyed. I appreciate these things. But there is much corruption and misery also in this world. And I believe it will not always be that way.

Likewise but it will be us humans that make the difference.

 

[YoursTrue]

Likewise but it will be us humans that make the difference.

Whether you realize it or not, that is impossible. To elucidate, the only way humans can make a difference is by doing what God wants them to do. They (we) cannot do it without God taking the lead and power.

 

[ratiocinator]

I am going by the Bible.

Choosing a book of contradictory myths over solid science.

Why on earth would a God disguise its special creation by making it biologically an animal, with the obvious genetic inheritance from the same ancestors as the other apes?

 

[Pogo]

@It Aint Necessarily So I said,

And you said, "I know. I know where your science comes from.

Why do you suppose that they teach you that what obviously is an animal - man- is not that? It's because they want you to believe that you are inherently different and special due to an unseen god creating you in its image and inserting a soul into you but not the beasts. OK. I suppose that's a harmless belief. But what would be the harm in understanding that man is an animal? Do you find that demeaning?"

I am going by the Bible. No longer everything that man believes.

And why do you think that the obviously true is somehow not the case. What is demeaning is the belief that we are not in control of our actions.

 

[YoursTrue]

And why do you think that the obviously true is somehow not the case. What is demeaning is the belief that we are not in control of our actions.

To an extent we are. For instance, and I am being quite blunt in this, some murderers are considered mentally ill. Thus not in control of their actions. Presumably as ascertained by scientists? And I say that with a question mark, as if psychologists & psychiatrists are considered by science as scientists, or have been trained by scientists.

 

[Pogo]

Whether you realize it or not, that is impossible. To elucidate, the only way humans can make a difference is by doing what God wants them to do. They (we) cannot do it without God taking the lead and power.

There is a defeatist attitude.

 

[Pogo]

To an extent we are. For instance, and I am being quite blunt in this, some murderers are considered mentally ill. Thus not in control of their actions. Presumably as ascertained by scientists? And I say that with a question mark, as if psychologists & psychiatrists are considered by science as scientists, or have been trained by scientists.

It is not the mentally ill that are the problem, but the humans who do it because they have not exercised their human abilities, that we have control over.

 

[YoursTrue]

And why do you think that the obviously true is somehow not the case. What is demeaning is the belief that we are not in control of our actions.

Furthermore, there are many things "we" (human beings) cannot control. Such as the wars going on even now. We can control our personal involvement in them and yet still suffer from the powers that be because of our decision. There are other examples, however I will leave it at that now.

 

[YoursTrue]

And why do you think that the obviously true is somehow not the case. What is demeaning is the belief that we are not in control of our actions.

Furthermore, there are many things "we" (human beings) cannot control. Such as the wars going on even now. We can control our personal involvement in them and yet still suffer from the powers that be because of our decision. There are other examples, however I will leave it at that now.

@It Aint Necessarily So I said,

And you said, "I know. I know where your science comes from.

Why do you suppose that they teach you that what obviously is an animal - man- is not that? It's because they want you to believe that you are inherently different and special due to an unseen god creating you in its image and inserting a soul into you but not the beasts. OK. I suppose that's a harmless belief. But what would be the harm in understanding that man is an animal? Do you find that demeaning?"

I am going by the Bible. No longer everything that man believes.

P.S. to @It Aint Necessarily So We ARE "inherently different" from the animals in our cognitive ability and I'm not going to argue that issue. If you don't see it, ok, you don't see it But to me it is so apparent that there is no argument I am going to engage in about that...much...although I have said that gorillas and fish, etc., do not have real estate agents, do not have policies for burials, things like that. While one might make excuses as to why men devised such things (like "civilization"), it is apparent to me that gorillas, etc. monkeys, fish, birds, do NOT have that ability and frankly I am pretty sure they do not worry about these things. As I learned when I was in school (biology class) animals have a "fight or flight" mechanism. Different than figuring which bomb will kill the most people or how to stop plastics from polluting the waterways.

 

[ratiocinator]

Furthermore, there are many things "we" (human beings) cannot control. Such as the wars going on even now. We can control our personal involvement in them and yet still suffer from the powers that be because of our decision. There are other examples, however I will leave it at that now.

Doesn't look like any God is doing very well either, or the people who claim they are doing what any God says. Quite the opposite in some cases.

 

[YoursTrue]

It is not the mentally ill that are the problem, but the humans who do it because they have not exercised their human abilities, that we have control over.

well, well, well, the states and governments are still figuring how to handle "gun control." I was using the mentally ill as an example of lack of reasoning ability, I suppose. I have a feeling the "mentally ill" do have reasoning but their reasoning may not be accepted by the major decision-makers as being valid. Yes, I'm going to say that while there are some good things to enjoy (some like peanut butter cups) in life, the greater influence is greed, leading to many unsavory things performed by mankind on each other and the earth as well.

 

[ratiocinator]

As I learned when I was in school (biology class) animals have a "fight or flight" mechanism.

Animals including humans have a "fight or flight" mechanism. That's not the sum total of any animal's mental abilities.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I realize there are many nice things in this world. Some people are 'nice,' and there is much beauty in nature that can be enjoyed. I appreciate these things.

Do you? Why then does that never appear in your assessment of the world?

there is much corruption and misery also in this world.

THAT's what you write about: greed, violence, corruption, suicide and overdose.

I only bring this to your attention because I think that your religion has taught you that the world is a bad place but not that it can also be paradise on earth and is for many. It is for me and for many if not most of the people living around me and might be for you as well. Life is safe and comfortable for most of my local demographic, and we live in an area where everything grows. The weather is temperate but tropical fruit grows here. We grow mangoes and avocados here. My wife also picks her dill, fennel, serrano peppers, and lemons from her garden.

I'll bet that your life is similar. It's a shame to have so much and go through life not noticing.

I am going by the Bible.

Yes, I know.

You ignored "Why do you suppose that they teach you that what obviously is an animal - man- is not that? It's because they want you to believe that you are inherently different and special due to an unseen god creating you in its image and inserting a soul into you but not the beasts. OK. I suppose that's a harmless belief. But what would be the harm in understanding that man is an animal? Do you find that demeaning?"

I guess that you had no disagreement with my suggested answer.

There is nothing embarrassing or demeaning about being an animal or an ape unless some religion or other ism tells you otherwise. Are you embarrassed that you literally once were an infant that tantrummed and soiled her diaper?

Probably not, nor should you be. But isn't that an even more negative depiction of you than calling you an ape or n animal?

the only way humans can make a difference is by doing what God wants them to do.

Disagree emphatically. I don't do that, yet I have and still do make a difference. I spent three years in the Army. I was a physician for decades with great success healing and grateful patients. I played live music for people that came to hear it. I have been a bridge mentor and teacher. I have been a good husband. And we have cared for many rescue dogs including the two who live very safe and happy lives like we do.

And I hope and think that I make a difference on RF. I've tried to do that for you and your psychological state, but it looks like in vain.

Why? Because I'm a humanist and hold humanist values. I believe in the potential for dignity and nobility in human beings. Many distracted by toxic isms and don't achieve that, but many others avoid those ideologies and do.

We ARE "inherently different" from the animals in our cognitive ability and I'm not going to argue that issue. If you don't see it, ok, you don't see it

We are different form the beasts, but that doesn't make us not apes or animals.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I know that is your belief. That is not mine. I don't believe in a (non-material) soul.

Absolutely. Good for concentration.

Part of my point is that *no* experience is self-justifying. No matter how powerful the experience or how 'real' it seems, there is *always* the possibility of misinterpretation. And, with religious experiences, I think that is primarily what happens: people have these powerful internal experiences because their brains are in unusual sates and they interpret those experiences as being about a supernatural or a 'reality' beyond.

My belief is that is simply self-delusion.

I know that's your belief, but it is far from reality.

Experience is experience, religious or nor, it is not thought. One can interpret and reflect on it for as long as you like, but it inevitably will become a part of your psyche, it can't be erased. However, brief experiences will not have a lasting impact on your personal evolution, whereas religious practice as properly understood is not brief, it goes on for years. For example, if you sincerely set out to discover whether or not there is such a thing as a samadhi experience, ie., a transcendence of the ego self, it would, depending on the starting point of the individual, probably take years of daily still mind meditation practice. To dismiss the reality of such an egoless state of mind without actually doing and experiencing the years of meditation practice is a misunderstanding of what constitutes a religious experience.

Without doubt, your belief that spiritual reality is delusion, is itself delusion.

 

[Pogo]

I know that's your belief, but it is far from reality.

Experience is experience, religious or nor, it is not thought. One can interpret and reflect on it for as long as you like, but it inevitably will become a part of your psyche, it can't be erased. However, brief experiences will not have a lasting impact on your personal evolution, whereas religious practice as properly understood is not brief, it goes on for years. For example, if you sincerely set out to discover whether or not there is such a thing as a samadhi experience, ie., a transcendence of the ego self, it would, depending on the starting point of the individual, probably take years of daily still mind meditation practice. To dismiss the reality of such an egoless state of mind without actually doing and experiencing the years of meditation practice is a misunderstanding of what constitutes a religious experience.

Without doubt, your belief that spiritual reality is delusion, is itself delusion.

Any time you want to look at yourself and realize that you are the only one who claims to know what reality really is without question, might be a good start.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Any time you want to look at yourself and realize that you are the only one who claims to know what reality really is without question, might be a good start.

The thing is, you do not understand the difference between duality, ie., the common non-religious state of mind, and the non-dual state
"To look at yourself" implies duality, the looker and that looked at. In the non-dual state of mind, the seer and the seen are one, ie,, the mind is in a non-dual state. The one that sees is that which is seen, and the one that is seen is this which sees.

And since it generally takes years of daily religious practice to realize this transcendent non-dual state of mind, so long as you are happy with your present understanding of what and who you are in the context of all that is, you will not in this life get to experience non-duality.

 

[Pogo]

The thing is, you do not understand the difference between duality, ie., the common non-religious state of mind, and the non-dual state
"To look at yourself" implies duality, the looker and that looked at. In the non-dual state of mind, the seer and the seen are one, ie,, the mind is in a non-dual state. The one that sees is that which is seen, and the one that is seen is this which sees.

And since it generally takes years of daily religious practice to realize this transcendent non-dual state of mind, so long as you are happy with your present understanding of what and who you are in the context of all that is, you will not in this life get to experience non-duality.

And you do. QED

 

[Jimmy]

… because it must be cycled through me.