PDA

View Full Version : I'll try again.



Ajamil
10th April 10, 02:33 PM
There's new people. And to prove a point. (http://www.sociocide.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1535898&postcount=154) Here's why I believe in God.

Isopanisad (http://www.prabhupada.de/Books/SI.html), the prime Upanishad, invokes with this statement


The Personality of Godhead is perfect and complete, and because He is completely perfect, all emanations from Him, such as this phenomenal world, are perfectly equipped as complete wholes. Whatever is produced of the Complete Whole is also complete in itself. Because He is the Complete Whole, even though so many complete units emanate from Him, He remains the complete balance. In essence, it is agreeing that the known universe - the material universe - would show no signs of a creator; that it would be self-sufficient. It also predicts here and in the Bhagavad-Gita, that there would more than one of these universes, that they would become manifest, expand, contract, and disappear again completely on their own and without direction.

BG 4.14 (http://vedabase.net/bg/4/14/en): There is no work that affects Me; nor do I aspire for the fruits of action. One who understands this truth about Me also does not become entangled in the fruitive reactions of work.

BG 10.41 (http://vedabase.net/bg/10/41/en): Know that all opulent, beautiful and glorious creations spring from but a spark of My splendor.
BG 10.42 (http://vedabase.net/bg/10/42/en): But what need is there, Arjuna, for all this detailed knowledge? With a single fragment of Myself I pervade and support this entire universe.

SFGOON
10th April 10, 02:46 PM
This is why I love your religion. And yes, if there were to be a God, there is no way in heaven or hell we could perceive it in our corporeal form.

At all.

Ever.

Even with a particle accelerator.

Any contact therewith would be entirely subjective.

HappyOldGuy
10th April 10, 02:50 PM
The question becomes, if we have chased god into gaps we can't ever reach, then why do we care if he's there or not?

(not trying to troll btw. If this isn't the direction you want to go with this, I'll shut up)

Keith
10th April 10, 03:09 PM
In essence, it is agreeing that the known universe - the material universe - would show no signs of a creator; that it would be self-sufficient. It also predicts here and in the Bhagavad-Gita, that there would more than one of these universes, that they would become manifest, expand, contract, and disappear again completely on their own and without direction.

This isn't really a reason to believe in any particular god, just a passage from a certain holy book that says that their version of god doesn't contradict the fact that there's no evidence of said god. If this was an attempt to convince me, you've failed. Hard.

jubei33
10th April 10, 04:04 PM
If this was an attempt to convince me, you've failed. Hard.

RAAWWWRRR! your attempt at establishing a dialogue angers the HULK!
http://www.freewebs.com/cartoontimewarp/hulk.jpg

Craigypooh
10th April 10, 05:26 PM
Those quotes could mean pretty much anything you want.

To me they are saying the world is perfect and complete, which doesn't seem to be true as the world/universe is constantly changing and evolving.

SFGOON
10th April 10, 07:53 PM
Never mind Keith. He feel guilty when he thinks of God watching him fuckin' them chickens.

DAYoung
10th April 10, 08:08 PM
Arjuna, I doubt that's why you believe in god. That's an argument for why we can't perceive god sensibly.

You believe in god because you need consolation, comfort or some such thing; because you want your fantasies or reveries to be factual.

partyboy
10th April 10, 09:32 PM
Arjuna, I doubt that's why you believe in god. That's an argument for why we can't perceive god sensibly.

You believe in god because you need consolation, comfort or some such thing; because you want your fantasies or reveries to be factual.


DAY... if I was gay I'd probably have sex with you right now.

Vieux Normand
10th April 10, 09:40 PM
Those quotes could mean pretty much anything you want.

This problem has occurred before in the history of religions. No problem: Arjuna need only formulate some "hadith" which tell his fellow-faithful how to translate his quotes into reasons for--and methods of--identifying and severely punishing transgressors.


To me they are saying the world is perfect and complete, which doesn't seem to be true as the world/universe is constantly changing and evolving.

Why can't the world be perfectly and completely changing and evolving?

Ajamil
10th April 10, 10:45 PM
There was more in the thought, but the longer I let it get the less coherent it was. So I kept it short to see where it led. Honestly I was trying to figure out how to fit in visuals like the end of Ferngully where simply by being present, the fairy was making things grow and come alive. The idea that material nature is simply an undirected emanation - the effulgence - of the Lord.

Then I netted up the image with the idea that universes are splooge drops of God.

I'm glad that didn't make the first post cut.


This is why I love your religion.You can even be an atheist Hindu if you wanna!

And yes, if there were to be a God, there is no way in heaven or hell we could perceive it in our corporeal form.

Any contact therewith would be entirely subjective. If we start with the idea that God is omnipotent, then there would be a way, but only at His discretion. While I admit it stretches and perhaps breaks the limits of rationality, an omnipotent being could interfere and leave no trace of said interference. But as others have pointed out - this becomes absolutely no different than a completely subjective experience.

Why care about miracles when you have no control over them, and they can never be repeated or accurately documented?


The question becomes, if we have chased god into gaps we can't ever reach, then why do we care if he's there or not?
The Isopanishad follows with this knowledge causes a fundamental change in lifestyle.

Everything animate or inanimate that is within the universe is controlled and owned by the Lord. One should therefore accept only those things necessary for himself, which are set aside as his quota, and one should not accept other things, knowing well to whom they belong.

If this was an attempt to convince me, you've failed. Hard.
More of an attempt to explain why I feel a conscious source is less likely, but not impossible.


Those quotes could mean pretty much anything you want.

To me they are saying the world is perfect and complete, which doesn't seem to be true as the world/universe is constantly changing and evolving. True, which is why I gave the link if anyone wanted to read a very long dissertation on the Isopanishad with correlating scriptural quotes and couched in a much more self-righteous and obviously right attitude.

I find your second comment interesting. Do you feel that perfection must be static? Some things would always be the same if perfect - perfect pitch, the perfect golf drive. But what about knowing the perfect thing to say at any given moment? The perfect day?


Arjuna, I doubt that's why you believe in god. That's an argument for why we can't perceive god sensibly.

You believe in god because you need consolation, comfort or some such thing; because you want your fantasies or reveries to be factual. Hmm. A connection perhaps. I don't feel very connected with humanity. The delusion of a God perhaps gives me a resting place for the unrequited need to feel connected to something.


This problem has occurred before in the history of religions. No problem: Arjuna need only formulate some "hadith" which tell his fellow-faithful how to translate his quotes into reasons for--and methods of--identifying and severely punishing transgressors. That's covered later.

The killer of the soul, whoever he may be, must enter into the planets known as the worlds of the faithless, full of darkness and ignorance.

bob
11th April 10, 12:37 AM
Why do you need a reason for your faith?

DAYoung
11th April 10, 12:58 AM
DAY... if I was gay I'd probably have sex with you right now.

That's very kind, Partyboy - but my breasts aren't nearly large enough for you.

AAAhmed46
11th April 10, 01:01 AM
Arjuna, I doubt that's why you believe in god. That's an argument for why we can't perceive god sensibly.

You believe in god because you need consolation, comfort or some such thing; because you want your fantasies or reveries to be factual.


I know your referring to Arjuna, but i would not be psychologically honest if i did not say this was kind of true for me...to an extent.

Certainly these are the emotional reasons for it all, intellectually its a big mess for myself, some of it very much makes sense and affirms my belief, others i suspect may be emotional. Who knows.

AAAhmed46
11th April 10, 01:02 AM
DAY... if I was gay I'd probably have sex with you right now.

DO IT!!!!!

DAYoung
11th April 10, 01:04 AM
Hmm. A connection perhaps. I don't feel very connected with humanity. The delusion of a God perhaps gives me a resting place for the unrequited need to feel connected to something.

This sounds much more feasible.

Having said this, does anyone really have a connection to 'humanity'? They might have a vision of mankind's higher potential (or villainy), or some sense of common traits - but we feel connections with humans, not with the abstract entity called 'humanity'.

The question is the quality of these connections. Sometimes the god fantasy is an imaginary replacement for intimate human relationships, and the sacrifices and pains they require to flourish. It's easier to envisage a perfect god, and pray to him, than to deal with an imperfect loved-one.

Tyrsmann
11th April 10, 01:33 AM
You believe in god because you need consolation, comfort or some such thing; because you want your fantasies or reveries to be factual.

I've always had a problem with this particular argument. Because not everybody believes in their respective Gods for comfort or consolation. Infact believing in the Aesir and the Vanir causes me discomfort because of the social implications. If I wanted comfort or consolation I could easily become a Christian and go to one of the 5 different megachurches that are within 3 miles of my home.

I myself believe in what I do because the spiritual experiences I've had in my life had led me to my beliefs. Come them delusions all you want. But when I consider the " power" of those experiences I don't consider my beilefs to delusional or fantasy.

Now why do some people have such experiences and others don't I haven't a clue. I'm not going to pretend to understand someone elses subjective conciousness.

DAYoung
11th April 10, 02:04 AM
I've always had a problem with this particular argument. Because not everybody believes in their respective Gods for comfort or consolation. Infact believing in the Aesir and the Vanir causes me discomfort because of the social implications. If I wanted comfort or consolation I could easily become a Christian and go to one of the 5 different megachurches that are within 3 miles of my home.

I myself believe in what I do because the spiritual experiences I've had in my life had led me to my beliefs. Come them delusions all you want. But when I consider the " power" of those experiences I don't consider my beilefs to delusional or fantasy.

Now why do some people have such experiences and others don't I haven't a clue. I'm not going to pretend to understand someone elses subjective conciousness.

I take your point, and I don't want to denigrate your faith, or the experiences that've enriched it.

But consolation comes in many forms. For some, being an outsider, or different, or maginalised, is a strong source of identity - they can't be orthodox, and they make a virtue of our their heterodoxy.

For others, guilt prompts them to seek consolation in suffering - their pain, or struggle, or sacrifice is itself a source of keen spiritual consolation. They find a justifiction for their existence in their own daily privations.

I don't know how much this applies to you. But I do know that many of these things are more consoling, spiritually speaking, than a trip to a mainstream Western church.

Tyrsmann
11th April 10, 04:15 AM
I take your point, and I don't want to denigrate your faith, or the experiences that've enriched it.

But consolation comes in many forms. For some, being an outsider, or different, or maginalised, is a strong source of identity - they can't be orthodox, and they make a virtue of our their heterodoxy.

For others, guilt prompts them to seek consolation in suffering - their pain, or struggle, or sacrifice is itself a source of keen spiritual consolation. They find a justifiction for their existence in their own daily privations.

I don't know how much this applies to you. But I do know that many of these things are more consoling, spiritually speaking, than a trip to a mainstream Western church.

I understand what your saying

Excuse me if I came off hostile. I did not mean to say that you meant it in a denigrating way. It's the argument itself that I find rather irritating.

DAYoung as I'm sure your aware many things are involved in what brings someone to their beliefs. Arguments like that to me oversimplify that fact.
When I'm discussing religion Atheists, Agnostics, and Skeptics they often use this argument. They use to dismiss outright what my experiences as a theist are. Which is absolutely infuriating to me.

DAYoung
11th April 10, 04:35 AM
I understand what your saying

Excuse me if I came off hostile. I did not mean to say that you meant it in a denigrating way. It's the argument itself that I find rather irritating.

DAYoung as I'm sure your aware many things are involved in what brings someone to their beliefs. Arguments like that to me oversimplify that fact.
When I'm discussing religion Atheists, Agnostics, and Skeptics they often use this argument. They use to dismiss outright what my experiences as a theist are. Which is absolutely infuriating to me.

Fair enough, too. It's frustrating to be reduced to a single instinct, urge or motive.

I recognise that may forces contribute to the religious experience. But what usually separates religion from secular science or philosophy is that religion places meaning and purpose at the heart of things - the cosmos has some preordained significance or plan. And more often than not, these are good - not morally neutral (let alone bad), but primordially good.

Many philosophies and scientific paradigms do not include this. And this primordial, righteous meaning or purpose is often what's so consoling - when combined with religious experience, it marries one's soul to an inherently valuable and/or rational cosmos.

Hence: what differentiates religion from science or philosophy is what leads me to stress consolation or comfort - the sense that it all matters somehow, and so do I.

But I acknowledge that there's more to it than this.

HappyOldGuy
11th April 10, 12:25 PM
I take your point, and I don't want to denigrate your faith, or the experiences that've enriched it.

But consolation comes in many forms. For some, being an outsider, or different, or maginalised, is a strong source of identity - they can't be orthodox, and they make a virtue of our their heterodoxy.

For others, guilt prompts them to seek consolation in suffering - their pain, or struggle, or sacrifice is itself a source of keen spiritual consolation. They find a justifiction for their existence in their own daily privations.

I don't know how much this applies to you. But I do know that many of these things are more consoling, spiritually speaking, than a trip to a mainstream Western church.

Myths of oppression are a ridiculously common feature of religions. Not only because they are usually intimately tied into the faiths theodicy, but because they reinforce the bonds between group members and the boundaries with people outside of the faith.

Remembering that myth doesn't mean false, just that the truth or falsehood of the story is irrelevant to it's purpose.

Cullion
11th April 10, 01:08 PM
DAYoung's proposition is perfectly reversible; that atheists want God(s) not to exist because they want to be free to flout his/its/their laws.

Craigypooh
11th April 10, 01:14 PM
Why can't the world be perfectly and completely changing and evolving?

Complete (adj) - Finished; ended; concluded; completed; as, the edifice is complete.

Whether it's perfect or not depends on your perspective - I'm sure there's plenty of people that don't think the world is currently perfect. Haiti seems to be a long way from perfect right now.

HappyOldGuy
11th April 10, 01:21 PM
DAYoung's proposition is perfectly reversible; that atheists want God(s) not to exist because they want to be free to flout his/its/their laws.

I reverse it differently. I think DAYoungs position is that atheists enjoy being miserable.

Craigypooh
11th April 10, 01:34 PM
I reverse it differently. I think DAYoungs position is that atheists enjoy being miserable.

You haven't met many Presbyterians have you?

AAAhmed46
11th April 10, 02:37 PM
I take your point, and I don't want to denigrate your faith, or the experiences that've enriched it.

But consolation comes in many forms. For some, being an outsider, or different, or maginalised, is a strong source of identity - they can't be orthodox, and they make a virtue of our their heterodoxy.

For others, guilt prompts them to seek consolation in suffering - their pain, or struggle, or sacrifice is itself a source of keen spiritual consolation. They find a justifiction for their existence in their own daily privations.

I don't know how much this applies to you. But I do know that many of these things are more consoling, spiritually speaking, than a trip to a mainstream Western church.

You obviously have more of a secular lean in your personal view. But it lacks the GRAWERAWRWRWRWR of the Dawkin's/Hitchen's crowd.

Is it possible to assert that due to your background in philosophy, you examined the subject matter in a different way that a biologist and a journalist would neglect?

DAYoung
11th April 10, 02:58 PM
You obviously have more of a secular lean in your personal view. But it lacks the GRAWERAWRWRWRWR of the Dawkin's/Hitchen's crowd.

Is it possible to assert that due to your background in philosophy, you examined the subject matter in a different way that a biologist and a journalist would neglect?

No, plenty of philosophers are GRAWERAWRWRWRWR too. I think it's a matter of personal predisposition.

Sometimes religious folks annoy the hell ouf of me (tee hee), but on the whole I'm very comfortable with the religious worldview. I just don't share it - for now (you never know).

Zendetta
11th April 10, 03:09 PM
...on the whole I'm very comfortable with the religious worldview. I just don't share it - for now (you never know).

You once had the guts/pluck/pretentiousness to list "reverential atheist" in your religion field (maybe that field should be revamped into "beliefs"?).

I enjoy allowing myself the fun and freedom of multiple belief systems, to be shifted as the situation demands. Well, maybe "operational models" might be a better term than "belief systems", but you get the idea.

Anyhow, I think I know what you mean by "reverential atheist", as its a good description of the mindset I'm in when I'm in my "natural scientist" character.

Nevertheless, I'd love to hear you describe what you meant by that very evocative term. Please.

DAYoung
11th April 10, 03:13 PM
DAYoung's proposition is perfectly reversible; that atheists want God(s) not to exist because they want to be free to flout his/its/their laws.

It is reversible in abstract. But in the context of a world without manifest gods, it's not quite so. Prima facie, it looks like religious folks are inventing something we can't see, as opposed to atheists denying something we can see.

SoulMechanic
11th April 10, 04:25 PM
Arjuna, I doubt that's why you believe in god. That's an argument for why we can't perceive god sensibly.

You believe in god because you need consolation, comfort or some such thing; because you want your fantasies or reveries to be factual.
Well, it indeed gives a simple minded man like myself a great sense of comfort and
solace for my 29 years of poor life choices.

DAYoung
11th April 10, 04:49 PM
You once had the guts/pluck/pretentiousness to list "reverential atheist" in your religion field (maybe that field should be revamped into "beliefs"?).

I enjoy allowing myself the fun and freedom of multiple belief systems, to be shifted as the situation demands. Well, maybe "operational models" might be a better term than "belief systems", but you get the idea.

Anyhow, I think I know what you mean by "reverential atheist", as its a good description of the mindset I'm in when I'm in my "natural scientist" character.

Nevertheless, I'd love to hear you describe what you meant by that very evocative term. Please.

I can't remember why I changed it. But it's no less true now than it was then.

Now, this is shorthand - I think this warrants more elaboration. But...

By 'reverential atheist', I mean this: the cosmos might not have deities in it, or be a deity, but I see it as sacred, i.e. worthy of reverence. The mere fact of existence strikes me as astonishing and beautiful. And I often find myself revering striking, poignant or fragile manifestations of its principles, e.g. flowers, animals, physiology, consciousness.

I'm grateful for existing, in other words. This is a kind of reverence.

That's it for me today - it's Monday morning here, and I need to get back to work.

Let's keep this running, if we can.

Cullion
11th April 10, 05:00 PM
It is reversible in abstract. But in the context of a world without manifest gods, it's not quite so. Prima facie, it looks like religious folks are inventing something we can't see, as opposed to atheists denying something we can see.

Hmm.. not when the anthropic principle is consistently invoked to explain improbable occurrences with 'but lots of other universes!'.