18 Feb 11
I see any no.of posts here as well as in Science Forum which make fun of the concept of "God" having various attributes like being omniscient,omnipotent etc.
It is very easy to bash such concepts. But one must bear in mind that such concepts rightfully developed in the earlier history of Mankind when Man was cowering in caves or just after this time when he became a hunter-gatherer etc. Religion as we know it also has developed along similar lines due to the need of Man to conceptualize a Being in his model but having attributes like omniscience etc.
We must not make fun of any believers who believe on these lines because it means that we have egos far too much swollen on a small dose of Science.
Leave the believers alone.Let us turn our attention to issues rather than such petty foibles.
18 Feb 11
Originally posted by rvsakhadeoIt goes beyond mere squabbling over semantics. When the religious extreme elements take that crap to heart and use it as an excuse to kill, I draw the line. There is not a whole lot wrong with the average Joe from attending mass and so forth, he goes to church, does his weekly homage, etc., then goes home and watches the Bears and slogs down a few, that is a totally different affair than Bin Laden types thinking they are saving the universe and such and spending millions to build weapons of mass destruction. How long will it be before a city in Israel or the US is hit with an atomic bomb as dirty as they can make it?
I see any no.of posts here as well as in Science Forum which make fun of the concept of "God" having various attributes like being omniscient,omnipotent etc.
It is very easy to bash such concepts. But one must bear in mind that such concepts rightfully developed in the earlier history of Mankind when Man was cowering in caves or just after this time when ...[text shortened]...
Leave the believers alone.Let us turn our attention to issues rather than such petty foibles.
18 Feb 11
Originally posted by rvsakhadeoAll the gospels and all the sutras of all the religions together cannot hold a candle to the one who has clear mind. But how can you get a clear mind when you have to keep on running here and there? What’s the use of everything you ‘re looking for in your everyday life? And who is the “enlightened one” that is supposed to be followed by the “believers”? And what is the nature of the preachers of the various holy gospels?
I see any no.of posts here as well as in Science Forum which make fun of the concept of "God" having various attributes like being omniscient,omnipotent etc.
It is very easy to bash such concepts. But one must bear in mind that such concepts rightfully developed in the earlier history of Mankind when Man was cowering in caves or just after this time when ...[text shortened]...
Leave the believers alone.Let us turn our attention to issues rather than such petty foibles.
The ones who understand their nature are not obliged to follow nobody, so fear solely your inability to see.
The ones who think that whatever they do not understand is “God”, they do not grasp the void and they are confused. However Zen is easy; the evaluation of the mind is hard, for every fractal of thought and of awareness must be appreciated and cross-checked thoroughly. If one wants to break free from the emanations of the forms, thanks to the evaluation of the mind is able to break free from the emanations of her/ his own preconceptions. So no mind, no nothing.
Mind gives birth to the idea of “God”, but the mind is not created by a “God”. When you see “God” you merely discard your mind -but without your mind there is no “God” and without “God” there is no mind. Methinks (sonhouse heard it before!) that each religion and each “God” are the result of the evolution of the fixed expression of the devastation of the Human before Death together with the fixed expression of the admiration of the Human before Life, mixed with low awareness of the up to date Science, of the up to date Knowlegde and of the real understanding of the Human nature. Created by smart and, in some cases, wise individuals -but anyway by human beings-, each religion in order to expand has different but anyway human-inspired doctrines aiming to conquer the attention of the society of their era. Unfortunately, through the social process and due time all these man-made religions became as twisted and turned as their advocates and their delegates.
So I believe that the inner knowledge -the evaluation of the mind and the awareness of the individual- is the sole ground of the spirituality. When the individual twists and/ or misunderstands spirituality, the result is the birth of a religion.
Thus I have heard:
You ask -this is your mind. I reply -this is my mind. If I were mindless how could I reply? If you were mindless how could you ask?
It is my knowledge that, seeking for transformation apart from your own mind, is futile. You appear to think that enlightenment through religion is a quality that exists somewhere out of your mind, but such a place exists not. So right now, when you are looking for transformation/ enlightenment somewhere out of your own mind, you just try to catch the Space. But you cannot catch the Space, for it is shapeless and thus unconceivable. All the religions are based on blind beliefs, therefore the various theories of reality that are created on the basis of religious speculations do not hold. Transformation/ enlightenment is merely a projection of your mind.
What is the nature of your mind?
May All Beings Be Happy
😵
18 Feb 11
Originally posted by rvsakhadeo"But one must bear in mind that such concepts rightfully developed in the earlier history of Mankind when Man was cowering in caves or just after this time when he became a hunter-gatherer etc."
I see any no.of posts here as well as in Science Forum which make fun of the concept of "God" having various attributes like being omniscient,omnipotent etc.
It is very easy to bash such concepts. But one must bear in mind that such concepts rightfully developed in the earlier history of Mankind when Man was cowering in caves or just after this time when ...[text shortened]...
Leave the believers alone.Let us turn our attention to issues rather than such petty foibles.
That's what you've been told. The real truth is, and evidence for, is the sudden emergence of civilization.
The crap about man cowering in caves is a concept developed by modern day neanderthal atheist scientists cowering in laboratories trying in vain to learn ways of deceiving believers into believing a lie.
18 Feb 11
Originally posted by rvsakhadeoMost of them don't 'make fun of' but rather question the logic and implications of such concepts.
I see any no.of posts here as well as in Science Forum which make fun of the concept of "God" having various attributes like being omniscient,omnipotent etc.
It is very easy to bash such concepts. But one must bear in mind that such concepts rightfully developed in the earlier history of Mankind when Man was cowering in caves or just after this time when he became a hunter-gatherer etc.
And what does that have to do with anything (even if it is correct - which I seriously doubt)? Is that some sort of lame attempt at being an apologist?
Religion as we know it also has developed along similar lines due to the need of Man to conceptualize a Being in his model but having attributes like omniscience etc.
I don't believe 'man' has any such 'need'.
We must not make fun of any believers who believe on these lines because it means that we have egos far too much swollen on a small dose of Science.
Why should we not make fun of them? Its not such a small dose of science either: Science is responsible for almost everything you use in your daily life - I think that entitles us to a bit of an ego.
Leave the believers alone.Let us turn our attention to issues rather than such petty foibles.
The concept of God and key attributes like omniscience and omnipotence are very important issues not 'petty foibles'.
Or are you just trolling to start a discussion the opposite of what you claim to want?
18 Feb 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhat is point of bashing the faithful when you know that Omniscience et al were simply attempts of the then beleagured humanity trying to think of a higher Self modelled on themselves but immensely more powerful. Organised Religion everywhere comes wrapped in Superstition. Which is why wherever there is a rise of Science,organised Religion has retreated. That does not mean our spiritual needs are not genuine. We should take the questions raised by Philosophy and Spiritualism far more seriously.That was my point. As regards Ego,the more one knows ,the humbler one becomes because it is only the that one knows that a lot remains unknown.
Most of them don't 'make fun of' but rather question the logic and implications of such concepts.
[b]It is very easy to bash such concepts. But one must bear in mind that such concepts rightfully developed in the earlier history of Mankind when Man was cowering in caves or just after this time when he became a hunter-gatherer etc.
And what does th ...[text shortened]... Or are you just trolling to start a discussion the opposite of what you claim to want?[/b]
18 Feb 11
Originally posted by rvsakhadeoIf Omniscience et al were simply attempts of the then beleagured humanity trying to think of a higher Self modelled on themselves but immensely more powerful, then why do we have 'faithful' today? Surely the fact that someone today believes in the results of said 'attempts' which you are essentially admitting were not successful means we should at a minimum help them to realize their error? Or we can just make fun of them.
What is point of bashing the faithful when you know that Omniscience et al were simply attempts of the then beleagured humanity trying to think of a higher Self modelled on themselves but immensely more powerful.
What I don't get is your reasoning for not making fun of them. If I believed the easter Rabbit was real wouldn't you make fun of me? Why not?
Organised Religion everywhere comes wrapped in Superstition. Which is why wherever there is a rise of Science,organised Religion has retreated.
Agreed.
That does not mean our spiritual needs are not genuine. We should take the questions raised by Philosophy and Spiritualism far more seriously.That was my point.
Well I really cant see how apologizing for religious people by calling their beliefs stone-age remnants furthers your point. It seems at once insulting to the believers you are trying to apologize for and seems to show a remarkable lack of thought on your part - or possibly just serious over simplification.
As regards Ego,the more one knows ,the humbler one becomes because it is only the that one knows that a lot remains unknown.
Not necessarily. Many knowledgeable people get big egos.
18 Feb 11
Originally posted by rvsakhadeoI'll leave the God Squadders alone when they leave me alone. They keep putting people into government though which freaks me out.
I see any no.of posts here as well as in Science Forum which make fun of the concept of "God" having various attributes like being omniscient,omnipotent etc.
It is very easy to bash such concepts. But one must bear in mind that such concepts rightfully developed in the earlier history of Mankind when Man was cowering in caves or just after this time when ...[text shortened]...
Leave the believers alone.Let us turn our attention to issues rather than such petty foibles.
19 Feb 11
Originally posted by sonhouseThe Bin Laden types deserve bashing and much more.
It goes beyond mere squabbling over semantics. When the religious extreme elements take that crap to heart and use it as an excuse to kill, I draw the line. There is not a whole lot wrong with the average Joe from attending mass and so forth, he goes to church, does his weekly homage, etc., then goes home and watches the Bears and slogs down a few, that is ...[text shortened]... it be before a city in Israel or the US is hit with an atomic bomb as dirty as they can make it?
19 Feb 11
Originally posted by josephw“...The crap about man COWERING in caves is a concept developed by modern day ...” (my emphasis)
[b]"But one must bear in mind that such concepts rightfully developed in the earlier history of Mankind when Man was cowering in caves or just after this time when he became a hunter-gatherer etc."
That's what you've been told. The real truth is, and evidence for, is the sudden emergence of civilization.
The crap about man cowering in caves is a ...[text shortened]... ng in laboratories trying in vain to learn ways of deceiving believers into believing a lie.[/b]
To you and rvsakhadeo
obviously scientists and atheists are NOT saying man was “COWERING” in caves 😛
why specifically “COWERING” in caves? Why not “calmly living” in caves ? Is is YOU and rvsakhadeo who is making up “crap about man COWERING in caves “.
20 Feb 11
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonIf you are comfortable with making up " calmly living in caves ", that variety of "crap" is acceptable,provided you see my point. Thanks in advance.
“...The crap about man COWERING in caves is a concept developed by modern day ...” (my emphasis)
To you and rvsakhadeo
obviously scientists and atheists are NOT saying man was “COWERING” in caves 😛
why specifically “COWERING” in caves? Why not “calmly living” in caves ? Is is YOU and rvsakhadeo who is making up “crap about man COWERING in caves “.
20 Feb 11
Originally posted by rvsakhadeoNobody has 'made up' the idea that our ancestors (or at least some of them) lived in caves. It is based on evidence that some people did live in caves. However, the phrase 'cowering in caves' was probably made up (not based on evidence) with the intent of ridiculing the Theory of Evolution.
If you are comfortable with making up " calmly living in caves ", that variety of "crap" is acceptable,provided you see my point. Thanks in advance.
20 Feb 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadThat's right. Obviously, there is no evidence that cavemen were “scared” in particular just because they were living in caves.
Nobody has 'made up' the idea that our ancestors (or at least some of them) lived in caves. It is based on evidence that some people did live in caves. However, the phrase 'cowering in caves' was probably made up (not based on evidence) with the intent of ridiculing the Theory of Evolution.