You can call him Allah, Jesus, or Jehovah. Billions of people around the world believe he is the omnipotent protector in the sky that will always be there to protect you and make you feel safe. (As long as you follow his rules) I am not one of those people. I don’t believe in the fairytales that were written in religious books. I would describe myself as an Atheist – Agnostic – Buddhist – Transhumanist. I believe the power of god is within us. We are god. We have the power to continue living like primitive apes, or we can chose to evolve into a race / entity that is has more control of the space in which we exist. (The molecules and atoms around us, the chemical reactions within our bodies, Ect.) My definition of god is an entity or life form that has full control of the space in which it exists. We may never be in full control of our reality, but it is something to strive for. Our technology evolved from us using sticks and stones to create fire and sharp blades. In the present we are splitting atoms and flying in space. I don’t think any of us can comprehend some of the things that we could be doing in the future.

Unfortunately, the powers that be (religious leaders, dictators, politicians, and a large percentage of the wealthiest people in the world) do not want the majority of the people in the world to think the way that I do. Religion is a tool that the leaders in our cultural hierarchy have been using to control the way that people think and act for thousands of years. It is also a tool that men use to control women. Sometimes I wonder, what percentage of the politicians and religious leaders actually believe in the crap that comes out of their mouths? Do they really believe in god and the words that they quote from religious books, or are they just using religion to control people and put more money in their pockets? Most of the people at the top of our cultural hierarchy do not want the majority (the poor, the working class, and the uneducated) to be enlightened, because they see it as a threat to their privileges. They want obedient voters, workers and worshipers that they can control and manipulate. Most of the underprivileged people in the world don’t have anything but their belief in god and an afterlife. And Americans can’t understand why so many Muslims are willing to blow themselves up to kill their enemies. If I was a poor uneducated Muslim living in a violent environment I would probably be willing to blow myself up also. All I have to do is strap on a bomb and send a couple of infidels to hell and I don’t have to worry about Americans dropping bombs on my head anymore. I don’t have to worry about hunger, disease, or violence anymore. It seems like a good deal to me.

It would be nice if the underprivileged and uneducated were the only people that are deeply religious, because then there would be fewer politicians trying to force their irrational beliefs on people. There would also be no discussions about things like creationism and intelligent design in the science classes of public schools in the U.S.A. I think intelligent design is a theory that was created by intellectuals that refuse to give up their irrational belief in god because it makes them feel safe.

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, let there be light: and there was light. ~ The Holy Bible, Genesis, Chapter 1

I don’t spend a lot of time thinking about creation and infinity because it is beyond our comprehension. (How can something be created from nothing? How could god exist before the beginning of existence? Ect.) I would be more inclined to believe in an intelligent design theory if the bible and other religious books were written a little differently. For example, In the beginning god created an infinite number of strings with eleven different dimensions. Then god decided to make the strings vibrate. Over a period of time the vibrating strings evolved into something that humans will one day call subatomic particles. Genesis could then go on to explain the process of the subatomic particles evolving into atoms, molecules, amino acids, RNA, DNA, Ect. I would definitely be religious if the authors of the bible had some knowledge of the scientific theories and facts that we would learn in the future, but there is no scientific information in the bible.

I believe the reign of humanity will soon come to an end if we don’t rid ourselves of our primitive beliefs and evolve into what some people would call god. Our inevitable extinction could come in the form a large asteroid or a nuclear war. Or it could come in the form of chemical and biological weapons. I am sure that you are use to hearing doomsday scenarios from some religious leaders because it was written at the end of the bible, but unlike most of them I believe that the end could come next year or in a hundred years. I have no way of knowing what will happen in the future, but I do know that the human body is very fragile. We take a lot of things for granted. We have an illusion that the environment on this planet will always be suitable for humans. Everything that we have accomplished during our approximately 100,000 years on this planet could easily come to an end.

The universe or god (what ever you want to believe) gave us the ability to accomplish amazing things. We have the ability to use our technology to eliminate most of the misery that we are living with in the present. Unfortunately we are living in a world with two groups of idiots that have a lot of power in our society. In one group we have the Islamic fundamentalist. And in the other group we have the neo conservative Republicans. One group is constantly saying the solution to all of our problems is more weapons and more Jesus, while the other group is saying the solution to all of our problems is more weapons and more Allah. The end result is a lot of misery, death and destruction.

The point that I am trying to make is that religion and the worshiping of gods has to become a thing of the past. I don’t think there is anything wrong with the belief of a creator or higher power, but most of the religions that are practiced in the present have done more harm than good. There is nothing that I could write to prove or disprove the existence of a higher power, but the belief of an omnipotent man in the sky that thinks and acts like a human is ridiculous. We have to stop hoping that god that we can’t see, touch, or hear, will solve all of our problems. We are god. We created him / her / it. The solution to all of our problems is within us.

It is not god or religion that makes war. It is people. If it were not religion, it would be something else. And it is lack of faith in themselves and in others that lead to distrust and suspicion. Unless you can wave a magic wand, as long as there are diffrences between people, and there is no respect for these differences, people are going to kill each other. They'll just need to find a fresh excuse, that's all.

They'll just need to find a fresh excuse, that's all.
There's always the World Cup.

It is not god or religion that makes war. It is people. If it were not religion, it would be something else. agreed to an extent, however, you show your children how to act by example. so for the religious plebs, their belief in god has not helped.And it is lack of faith in themselves and in others that lead to distrust and suspicion. no it's the faith they have in their leaders, be they gods, preachers or kings, that makes them like that. as long as there are diffrences between people, and there is no respect for these differences, people are going to kill each other.and most of those differences, are due to religion. take that away, and put them under the same banner, a common goal, you will see an amasing change.

agreed to an extent, however, you show your children how to act by example. so for the religious plebs, their belief in god has not helped. no it's the faith they have in their leaders, be they gods, preachers or kings, that makes them like that. and most of those differences, are due to religion. take that away, and put them under the same banner, a common goal, you will see an amasing change.

I wish I had your certainty.
:confused:


WHO’s World Report on Violence and Health defines violence as the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation. Each year, over 1.6. million people worldwide lose their lives to violence. Violence is among the leading causes of death for people aged 15-44 years worldwide, accounting for 14% of deaths among males and 7% of deaths among females. For every person who dies as a result of violence, many more are injured and suffer from a range of physical, sexual, reproductive and mental health problems. Moreover, violence places a massive burden on national economies, costing countries billions of US dollars each year in health care, law enforcement and lost productivity.

World Report on Violence (http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/violence/world_report/chapters/en/index.html)

Abuse of Human rights
Human rights abuse is abuse of people in a way that violates any fundamental human rights. It is a term used when a government violates national or international law related to the protection of human rights.
According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, fundamental human rights are violated when:
A certain race, creed, or group is denied recognition as a "person". (Article 2)
Men and women are not treated as equal. (Article 2)
Different racial or religious groups are not treated as equal. (Article 2)
Life, liberty or security of person are threatened. (Article 3)
A person is sold as or used as a slave. (Article 4)
Cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment is used on a person (such as torture or execution). (Article 5) (See also Prisoners' rights)
Punishments are dealt arbitrarily or unilaterally, without a proper and fair trial. (Article 11)
Arbitrary interference into personal, or private lives by agents of the state. (Article 12)
Citizens are forbidden to leave their country. (Article 13)
Freedom of speech or religion are denied. (Articles 18 & 19)
The right to join a union is denied. (Article 23)
Education is denied. (Article 26)
[edit]
Monitoring
Human rights violations and abuses include those documented by non-governmental organizations such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Freedom House, International Freedom of Expression Exchange and Anti-Slavery International.
Only a very few countries do not violate human rights at all according to Amnesty International. In their 2004 human rights report, (covering 2003,) the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, Iceland and Costa Rica are the only (mappable) countries that did not violate human rights.
Some people believe human rights abuses are more common in dictatorships or theocracies than in democracies because freedom of speech and freedom of the press tend to uncover state orchestrated abuse and expose it. Nonetheless human rights abuses do occur in democracies. For example, the Macpherson report found that the British police had been institutionally racist in the handling of the death of Stephen Lawrence. Amnesty International has called the running of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp by the United States "a human rights scandal" in a series of reports [9]


Death by torture (http://www.amnestyusa.org/stoptorture/document.do?id=A654389053B574ED802569570071DF78)

WHO’s World Report on Violence/Abuse of Human rights
it just shows how evil man came be to man, because of dogma, it's no wonder that plebs kill each they know no better.

we need education and a common goal.
man for man, and not man for a god.

It is not god or religion that makes war. It is people. If it were not religion, it would be something else. And it is lack of faith in themselves and in others that lead to distrust and suspicion. Unless you can wave a magic wand, as long as there are diffrences between people, and there is no respect for these differences, people are going to kill each other. They'll just need to find a fresh excuse, that's all....

It is not god or religion that makes war. It is people. If it were not religion, it would be something else. And it is lack of faith in themselves and in others that lead to distrust and suspicion. Unless you can wave a magic wand, as long as there are diffrences between people, and there is no respect for these differences, people are going to kill each other. They'll just need to find a fresh excuse, that's all.

Are you trying to tell me that if every Muslim woke up tommorrow as atheists, that there would be the same amount of violence?

Give me a break...

It is not god or religion that makes war. It is people. If it were not religion, it would be something else. And it is lack of faith in themselves and in others that lead to distrust and suspicion. Unless you can wave a magic wand, as long as there are diffrences between people, and there is no respect for these differences, people are going to kill each other. They'll just need to find a fresh excuse, that's all.

So,if religion were eradicated and people began getting educated and taking responsibility for their actions, wouldn't that facilitate the need for faith in oneself, each other and ultimately mankind? Could not the differences be dealt with in this context, hence people would stop killing each other?

If all people needed was an excuse, why are you not killing your neighbors, or the guy who cuts you off in traffic?

It is not god or religion that makes war. It is people. If it were not religion, it would be something else. And it is lack of faith in themselves and in others that lead to distrust and suspicion. Unless you can wave a magic wand, as long as there are diffrences between people, and there is no respect for these differences, people are going to kill each other. They'll just need to find a fresh excuse, that's all.
No. You are almost completely mistaken. It is the following that leads to real distrust, suspicion, and violence.

------------------------------------------------------------------
Real sources of violence, based on human survival/nature:

1) Need for resources (food,shelter,territory)
2) Need for mates (male competition for females/females inciting competition among males)
3) Dominance, self-respect, security.
4) Ideologies

If you are well fed, have a comfortable abode, and land to support your food/shelter needs, this goes away as a source of violence. Of course, as your population expands, it comes back.

Males will always compete for mates and females will always choose the male who fits her requirements most closely. The rule of law has reduced this source greatly, but it will always be with us.

Items in #3 are related closely to #1 and #2.

Now, political and nationalistic ideologies are clearly related to numbers 1,2, and 3 above. They also tend to give groups a binding cohesion that helps when times are tough (food is scarce, barbarians are invading, etc.). Religious ideologies can provide a similar function.

So, my question is, if religious ideologies were eliminated from the equation, what other fundamental source of violence would people replace it with that they don't already engage in?

Whay you are saying is that reducing the violence factor from a reference value of 1 to possibly 0.6 by reducing a major driver of avoidable violence, is pointless.

People don't commit violence for no reason. Well fed, well housed, secure people do not risk injury for the fun of it. You may have noticed that many of the recent terrorist/religious-fanatic profiles include well fed, well housed people. Middle to upper class college educated people. Why would they blow themselves up? Guess. If they weren't indoctrinated with a massive dose of R-virus as children, maybe they'd stay at home and watch the game on weekends instead of practicing bomb making techniques.

If you are well fed, have a comfortable abode, and land to support your food/shelter needs, this goes away as a source of violence. Of course, as your population expands, it comes back.

Yes, this is why you never see developed and highly secular countries in conflict. The US by stark contrast, is highly developed, however extremely religious, hence wars.

It is not god or religion that makes war. It is people. If it were not religion, it would be something else. And it is lack of faith in themselves and in others that lead to distrust and suspicion. Unless you can wave a magic wand, as long as there are diffrences between people, and there is no respect for these differences, people are going to kill each other. They'll just need to find a fresh excuse, that's all.

I think it is obvious that violence would exist in our society with or without religion. Our violent instincts existed long before we created organized religion. The problem that I have with most religions is the fact that it prevents us form achieving our full potential. The religious leaders of Christianity (especially Catholicism) have a bad habit of preventing or interfering with the important work of scientists and rational thinkers. In the past you could be jailed or executed for saying that the world is not flat and the sun does not revolve around it. In the present religious politicians are preventing abortions and stem cell research. In the future it will be something else.

Religious people have a common phrase that they like to use. “We don’t have the right to play god.” I think that is exactly what we have to do if we really want to make this world a better place. I believe that we all have to work together towards a common goal. (Complete control of our reality) When I observe the behavior of humanity I see a highly evolved disorganized colony of ants. I believe that our science and technology could bring some order to our colony.

I am not saying that our technology could create a perfect world, but it could definitely eliminate most of the problems that we have to live with. I truly believe that it is possible for us to create a global utopian society where the murder of one person during a 24-hour period would be a tragedy. I am one of those people that believes no limits should be placed on the work of scientists if their discoveries and inventions could make the world a better place for the future generations. Things like nano technology, genetic engineering, and artificial intelligence could have a profound change on the way that we think and live by the end of this century.

Imagine what it would be like to live in a world where everyone’s basic needs are taken care of. Imagine what it would be like to experience anything that you desired in a virtual reality. Imagine what it would be like to live in a world where we had control over every molecule within our bodies. We would have a completely different perception of reality. For example, imagine that you found yourself in a situation where you were being raped and tortured. You could simply turn on an internal switch, and you could be experiencing an objective reality. No pleasure, no pain, just information that your neurons and your futuristic internal computer software would be processing. The nanobots in your body could function like an advanced version of transcranial magnetic stimulation. They could block all of the incoming information from your pain receptors. Your internal software would recognize that your body is being harmed, but you would not be able to feel the pain.

Some of the things that I just wrote may seem like science fiction to some of you, but it is much more plausible than the information in religious books.

I think it is obvious that violence would exist in our society with or without religion. Our violent instincts existed long before we created organized religion.

Welcome to Sciforums!

Are you violent? What was your last act of violence? Have you killed anyone lately or had the urge to do so? Why or why not?

So, perhaps you were correct in that violence existed in our society with or without religion, but we haven't had the opportunity to trial run a society without religion, since theists have controlled the world for centuries and their mindsets and decision making processes were based on religious thought.

By simply substituting religion for education, we could achieve the utopian society you describe.

Welcome to Sciforums!

Are you violent? What was your last act of violence? Have you killed anyone lately or had the urge to do so? Why or why not?

I would not describe myself as a violent person. I do have the potential to be violent and kill a person without mercy, but that is a potential that we all have. I don’t really believe in the concept of good and evil. I believe in logical and illogical behavior. I think evil is really ignorance or an inability to control ones emotions and think rationally.

I would not describe myself as a violent person. I do have the potential to be violent and kill a person without mercy, but that is a potential that we all have.

A potential perhaps, but only within the depths of our imagination. Our own sense of reason and rationale precludes the need to go beyond that. As intelligent beings, we have placed the notion of violence and killing behind us as an evolutionary property of ourselves from which we evolved and moved on.

A thinking man need never resort to violence, and only if violence is presented and is the only means by which to defend oneself. Again, the concept would not materialize if the violence did not present itself in the first place.

So, we must determine where the current violence exists in the world and what makes it predominant. Those who are involved in that violence are primarily theists, who base their decision making processes on religious thought, the same thought that has permeated our society for centuries.

Eradicate religion and the thought processes based on religion dissapear, and eventually, so does the violence.

A potential perhaps, but only within the depths of our imagination. Our own sense of reason and rationale precludes the need to go beyond that. As intelligent beings, we have placed the notion of violence and killing behind us as an evolutionary property of ourselves from which we evolved and moved on.

A thinking man need never resort to violence, and only if violence is presented and is the only means by which to defend oneself. Again, the concept would not materialize if the violence did not present itself in the first place.

So, we must determine where the current violence exists in the world and what makes it predominant. Those who are involved in that violence are primarily theists, who base their decision making processes on religious thought, the same thought that has permeated our society for centuries.

Eradicate religion and the thought processes based on religion dissapear, and eventually, so does the violence.
Oh yeah? Let's see how 'highly evolved' the thinking man is when he confronts the violent man and is met by the business end of an AK-47. Then he pulls the trigger. Natural selection. Mr. Kill You wins, and he lives on to propagate his violent genes to the next generation. The capacity to kill is highly advantageous. Violence will live on regardless of religion because of evolution.

Has anyone actually tried to define God in Its true reality?

G - Generation
O - Operation
D - Destruction

A universal force that exists everywhere in matter, space and energy throughout the universe. NOT some universal monarch that lives in heaven.
God is inside everyone of us, so why can we not realise him? Due to three things: rajas - passion, tamas - lethargy and sattwa - illusion. All of these are created by our minds.

In buddhist meditation we learn to clear the thoughts and feel the true bliss inside oneself - that is what the hindus call atman and what the buddhists call nirvana, what the christians call heaven. Hell is mere suffering, in any shape or form. The mind is Satan, lol Jesuss' disciples failed to understand what Jesus was trying to say and so they thought that some Devil existed. The devil is the mind, which creates attachment to worldly objects and when the objects perish, we suffer, simple buddhist belief. If you tried to split any particle into an even smaller particle, you would eventually end up with an atom, which can be further broken down into components, which can be further broken down and down and down. There is no end to it. This concept of infinity itself is God. Everything you feel, taste, smell, see, hear is just a perception of the world created by the five senses controlled by the mind. All colour is is merely different frequencies of light, all touch senses are just created by simple nerve impulses, as are sounds, sight, smell, and taste. If any of these sense organs did not exist, the perception of the world as it is would not exist as it is. Therefore the world is an illusion created by the five senses and controlled by the mind. By constantly percieving the world through the limited perception of our sense organs, we fail to see the true reality of the universe. We fail to recognise the Godhead that is omni-present and is the atman, soul inside of us. Think about it, it is possible to control your body and it is possible to control your thoughts created by your mind inside your brain, but who is the controller? Close your eyes, meditate on this, ask yourself who am i? Dont call yourself a name, that is once again created by your mind via the five senses, if you had been named differently you would have a different name, one's name only exists via sound and therefore via the sense of hearing and therefore via the mind. Meditate...
shut down your five senses, shut off your thoughts, stop thinking, forget about the world, do not let the mind create a feeling of reality, feel as though you do not exist in the physical world. Who are you now? You are in the state of anhatta, you are feeling the beginning of the true reality beyond the restrictions of the physical dimensions. You come closer to the reality of being, the omnipresent force that pervades all. If you meditate for twelve years, you will be immersed inside this feeling of oneness, you will feel the true happiness. You have become one with Brahman, as the hindus call it. Think about it, what is happiness? When you eat ice cream, you tell me you feel happy. Where does the happiness come from? The ice cream? That remains the same matter throughout the process of swallowing and digesting. The happiness comes from inside you, it is inside you, not in the ice cream. It is always present, but we use outer influences to try and stimulate it. We try and percieve the happiness through the limited perception of our sense organs, governed by the mind. The true happiness can not be percieved by the mind. That true happiness itself can only be realised by meditation. Meditation is not only sitting down cross legged. If you worship Jesus, concentrate on him, think only about him always. This is the same as meditation. The mind is the Satan that prevents us from realising God. The true bliss inside you is God. Everything i have said comes from the philosophy of Vedanta, devised by the ancient Hindu sages. When we worship a god, we are in fact meditating (but only if we concentrate on the Lord, not just make the gestures or roll the beads, one could be praying and thinking about something else, the mind is not controlled and so this is not meditating.

Has anyone actually tried to define God in Its true reality?

G - Generation
O - Operation
D - Destruction

A universal force that exists everywhere in matter, space and energy throughout the universe. NOT some universal monarch that lives in heaven.
God is inside everyone of us, so why can we not realise him? Due to three things: rajas - passion, tamas - lethargy and sattwa - illusion. All of these are created by our minds.

In buddhist meditation we learn to clear the thoughts and feel the true bliss inside oneself - that is what the hindus call atman and what the buddhists call nirvana, what the christians call heaven. Hell is mere suffering, in any shape or form. The mind is Satan, lol Jesuss' disciples failed to understand what Jesus was trying to say and so they thought that some Devil existed. The devil is the mind, which creates attachment to worldly objects and when the objects perish, we suffer, simple buddhist belief. If you tried to split any particle into an even smaller particle, you would eventually end up with an atom, which can be further broken down into components, which can be further broken down and down and down. There is no end to it. This concept of infinity itself is God. Everything you feel, taste, smell, see, hear is just a perception of the world created by the five senses controlled by the mind. All colour is is merely different frequencies of light, all touch senses are just created by simple nerve impulses, as are sounds, sight, smell, and taste. If any of these sense organs did not exist, the perception of the world as it is would not exist as it is. Therefore the world is an illusion created by the five senses and controlled by the mind. By constantly percieving the world through the limited perception of our sense organs, we fail to see the true reality of the universe. We fail to recognise the Godhead that is omni-present and is the atman, soul inside of us. Think about it, it is possible to control your body and it is possible to control your thoughts created by your mind inside your brain, but who is the controller? Close your eyes, meditate on this, ask yourself who am i? Dont call yourself a name, that is once again created by your mind via the five senses, if you had been named differently you would have a different name, one's name only exists via sound and therefore via the sense of hearing and therefore via the mind. Meditate...
shut down your five senses, shut off your thoughts, stop thinking, forget about the world, do not let the mind create a feeling of reality, feel as though you do not exist in the physical world. Who are you now? You are in the state of anhatta, you are feeling the beginning of the true reality beyond the restrictions of the physical dimensions. You come closer to the reality of being, the omnipresent force that pervades all. If you meditate for twelve years, you will be immersed inside this feeling of oneness, you will feel the true happiness. You have become one with Brahman, as the hindus call it. Think about it, what is happiness? When you eat ice cream, you tell me you feel happy. Where does the happiness come from? The ice cream? That remains the same matter throughout the process of swallowing and digesting. The happiness comes from inside you, it is inside you, not in the ice cream. It is always present, but we use outer influences to try and stimulate it. We try and percieve the happiness through the limited perception of our sense organs, governed by the mind. The true happiness can not be percieved by the mind. That true happiness itself can only be realised by meditation. Meditation is not only sitting down cross legged. If you worship Jesus, concentrate on him, think only about him always. This is the same as meditation. The mind is the Satan that prevents us from realising God. The true bliss inside you is God. Everything i have said comes from the philosophy of Vedanta, devised by the ancient Hindu sages. When we worship a god, we are in fact meditating (but only if we concentrate on the Lord, not just make the gestures or roll the beads, one could be praying and thinking about something else, the mind is not controlled and so this is not meditating.


Very nice... I read some parts of the Upanishads and the Bhagvaad Gita, but I've never looked at the Vedantas...

Can you tell me where to start?

Most of my knowledge of Vedanta comes from the book "Vedanta Treatise" by Swami Parthasarathy, http://www.advaita.org.uk/reading/read_general.htm
however most of the knowledge of Vedanta is contained in a nutshell in the Gita, but more completely in the Upanishads and Brahmasutras. The problem is that there are so many Upanishads (definately over 108 but total number unknown) it is difficult to find the right one. Each Upanishad contains a part of Vedanta and each Verse in the Upanishads contains many layers of meaning, as in most poetry and so it is unadvisable to go directly to the scriptures and try to understand them. I would recommend reading commentaries on the Upanishads for example the one by Adi Shankaracharya to help you appreciate the many different meanings. The same goes for the Gita, and any other scripture including the Bible. Those who read the Bible take it for granted word for word, they do not read with humility and hence they find it contradicts itself, for example in the Bible Jesus says that heaven is both small as a seed and gigantic as a mountain. The readers take this literally. They look for only the easily found meaning.
Here are more publications on Vedanta.
http://www.vedanta.com/showcat.cfm?catnum=13a
Vedanta is known as Jnana yoga in the Gita, it is the union with God through using and applying knowledge.

Most of my knowledge of Vedanta comes from the book "Vedanta Treatise" by Swami Parthasarathy, http://www.advaita.org.uk/reading/read_general.htm
however most of the knowledge of Vedanta is contained in a nutshell in the Gita, but more completely in the Upanishads and Brahmasutras. The problem is that there are so many Upanishads (definately over 108 but total number unknown) it is difficult to find the right one. Each Upanishad contains a part of Vedanta and each Verse in the Upanishads contains many layers of meaning, as in most poetry and so it is unadvisable to go directly to the scriptures and try to understand them. I would recommend reading commentaries on the Upanishads for example the one by Adi Shankaracharya to help you appreciate the many different meanings. The same goes for the Gita, and any other scripture including the Bible. Those who read the Bible take it for granted word for word, they do not read with humility and hence they find it contradicts itself. They look for only the easily found meaning.
Here are more publications on Vedanta.
http://www.vedanta.com/showcat.cfm?catnum=13a

thanks

I believe the reign of humanity will soon come to an end if we don’t rid ourselves of our primitive beliefs and evolve into what some people would call god. Our inevitable extinction could come in the form a large asteroid or a nuclear war. Or it could come in the form of chemical and biological weapons. I am sure that you are use to hearing doomsday scenarios from some religious leaders because it was written at the end of the bible, but unlike most of them I believe that the end could come next year or in a hundred years. I have no way of knowing what will happen in the future, but I do know that the human body is very fragile. We take a lot of things for granted. We have an illusion that the environment on this planet will always be suitable for humans. Everything that we have accomplished during our approximately 100,000 years on this planet could easily come to an end.


Well done, you have just summarised the whole point of yoga and Vedanta. The Universe exists and The Universal power (holy Ghost, shakti, Allah etc) is omni-present. The idea of all religion is realise this fact for yourself (not follow blindly but do the method to realise) and become one with it. A process of apotheosis. This can only be done by destroying the mind, which limits your perception of reality. Follow any religious teaching, for example The ten commandments, the Eightfold path and this will be done automatically, however you won't realise you are doing it. But follow Vedanta and you do it consciously. Both these paths lead to the same goal i.e. God realisation and evolution into God ie immortality.

The Universe exists

Well, that's certainly interesting news.

This can only be done by destroying the mind

Far too many have gone down that path already - and it clearly hasn't done any good whatsoever.

Well done, you have just summarised the whole point of yoga and Vedanta. The Universe exists and The Universal power (holy Ghost, shakti, Allah etc) is omni-present. The idea of all religion is realise this fact for yourself (not follow blindly but do the method to realise) and become one with it. A process of apotheosis. This can only be done by destroying the mind, which limits your perception of reality. Follow any religious teaching, for example The ten commandments, the Eightfold path and this will be done automatically, however you won't realise you are doing it. But follow Vedanta and you do it consciously. Both these paths lead to the same goal i.e. God realisation and evolution into God ie immortality.

Evolution in to God? What sort of gods are we that we sucumbed to illusion? Its a crazy idea.
The idea is not to become god but to be dovetailed with god's desire - this is what the vedas ascertain as the goal of life - just consider hanuman's insistance on not accepting a benediction from rama because it would disturb the status quo.
Its just like proclaiming to your general practioner "I want to be my own father." What else could he say but "sorry the position is already taken"

It is said in the Upanishads that every being is in fact part of God.
Check these quotes out:
Soham-That (God) i am.
Tat Twam asi-That (God) thou art.
Aham Brahmaasmi-Brahman (God) i am
Read the Vedantic philosophy, it will answer all your queries.
Also read my posts on the page before.

It is said in the Upanishads that every being is in fact part of God..
Well why are you are saying that we ARE god?

Check these quotes out:
Soham-That (God) i am.
Tat Twam asi-That (God) thou art.
Aham Brahmaasmi-Brahman (God) i am
Read the Vedantic philosophy, it will answer all your queries.
Also read my posts on the page before.

I am familiar with those quotes but it is your translations that I contend - Brahman means spirit - yes we are spirit but no we are not the supreme spirit (param brahma -God) - so aham brahmasmi is more like "I am spirit" as opposed to "I am the supreme spirit"

your view however that we are god is not supported by this quote from the upanisads
nityo nityanam cetanas cetananam
(the singular eternal;of the plural eternals;the singular conscious being;of the plural conscious beings;)
eko bahunam yo vidadhati kaman
(that one;of the many;He who;supplies;all desired necessities of life)

translates as - The Supreme Lord is eternal and the living beings are eternal. The Supreme Lord is cognizant and the living beings are cognizant. The difference is that the Supreme Lord is supplying all the necessities of life for the many other living entities.


There are stacks of other slokas I could bring up but to say that the upanisads indicate that the living entity becomes god is not very authoratative. (even just the first two words - nityo nityanam - indicate the idea is not in line)

The actual view of the upanisads is that the living entity is one with god in quality (eternal primeval ever existing etc) but not quality (fully independant, the creator maintainer and destroyer of everything etc) - the example is there that a drop of sea water tastes the same as the ocean but the drop doesn't contain the variety that the ocean offers

Well why are you are saying that we ARE god?

This depends in your interpretation of god. We are gods, to many other creatures of this planet, we decide their fate, some are food, some we save from extinction, and some we can care less. To an ant I'm god, to bugs, microbes, etc. We are the last of the food chain, unless we enter a lions den. :)

Are gods all powerfull, we have been all powerfull as a group, we've built and destroyes civilizations, such as the biblical gods, we have decided moral issues, such as biblical gods, though some of those moral issues are covered in the scriptures, others we just don't abide by. i.e. stoning women to death of adultery amongs others..So ultimately we decide which moral issues of scriptures we follow, and which are basically not moral at all.

Do we posses supernatural powers? Try explaining a nuclear explosion to a 3rd century person. 'this imposible i know' but the knowledge aquired from then till now, would render our technological advance, like "supernatural phenomenon to them".


Religion:

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/NonSequitur_Religion.gif


Godless

Well why are you are saying that we ARE god?

Check these quotes out:


I am familiar with those quotes but it is your translations that I contend - Brahman means spirit - yes we are spirit but no we are not the supreme spirit (param brahma -God) - so aham brahmasmi is more like "I am spirit" as opposed to "I am the supreme spirit"

your view however that we are god is not supported by this quote from the upanisads
nityo nityanam cetanas cetananam
(the singular eternal;of the plural eternals;the singular conscious being;of the plural conscious beings;)
eko bahunam yo vidadhati kaman
(that one;of the many;He who;supplies;all desired necessities of life)

translates as - The Supreme Lord is eternal and the living beings are eternal. The Supreme Lord is cognizant and the living beings are cognizant. The difference is that the Supreme Lord is supplying all the necessities of life for the many other living entities.


There are stacks of other slokas I could bring up but to say that the upanisads indicate that the living entity becomes god is not very authoratative. (even just the first two words - nityo nityanam - indicate the idea is not in line)

The actual view of the upanisads is that the living entity is one with god in quality (eternal primeval ever existing etc) but not quality (fully independant, the creator maintainer and destroyer of everything etc) - the example is there that a drop of sea water tastes the same as the ocean but the drop doesn't contain the variety that the ocean offers

So what happens to the one who attains liberation? Who is he? The Lord no longer supports him by giving to him the necessities of life. He is like the drop of water that has travelled via the rivers and entered into the ocean. That drop thinks he is different to the ocean, but when he enters into the ocean, he becomes part of the ocean. He is one with the Atman, nay he is the Atman himself. Study the Mandukya Upanishad; it will show you the definition of the Atman.

Do we posses supernatural powers?
Godless

Not once have i talked about supernatural power. Is power what makes one God? I dont think so. He who has risen above the ego is also considered to be God.

So what happens to the one who attains liberation? Who is he? The Lord no longer supports him by giving to him the necessities of life. He is like the drop of water that has travelled via the rivers and entered into the ocean. That drop thinks he is different to the ocean, but when he enters into the ocean, he becomes part of the ocean. He is one with the Atman, nay he is the Atman himself. Study the Mandukya Upanishad; it will show you the definition of the Atman.

Mundaka upanisad 3.1.1
dva suparna sayuja sakhayah
samanam vrksam parisasvajate
tayor anyah pippalam svadv atty
anasnann anyo 'bhicakasiti
The Lord and the living entity are compared to two birds sitting in a tree. While the illusioned living entity eats the fruits of the material world, the Lord as Supersoul and best friend witnesses these activities.

Your right it does - it shows the distinction between the atma and paramatama.
A particle of water that goes in to the ocean remains a particle of water and if it get removed it still remains a particle - it is only due to imperfect knowledge that it appears to have lost its individuality

As for liberation, liberation innvolves being reinstated into one's proper identity as opposed to working under the influence of one's body etc that is defined by the three gunas (sattva, rajas and tamas)

The living entity is never fully independant (Full Independence, svarat, is a quality of parambrahma, and not brahma) , its just that their independence becomes a source of anxiety in material life and a source of ananda in spiritual life

Not once have i talked about supernatural power.

The very second you mention "god" in your sentence, you invoke "supernaturalism" :rolleyes:

Americans can’t understand why so many Muslims are willing to blow themselves up to kill their enemies. If I was a poor uneducated Muslim living in a violent environment I would probably be willing to blow myself up also. All I have to do is strap on a bomb and send a couple of infidels to hell and I don’t have to worry about Americans dropping bombs on my head anymore. I don’t have to worry about hunger, disease, or violence anymore. It seems like a good deal to me. Actually, the scary thing is, many of the suicide bombers in Iraq come from middle class families living in KSA (a brainwashers mecca).
The poor and destitute Iraqis, for the most part, continue to choose life in Iraq-hell with a dream of making the place better - for their tribe anyhow.

I find it even scarier that the teachings in Islam can motivate a person living in a decent family in KSA to travel to Iraq to commit suicide in the hopes of getting virgins in heaven

Good on em :p


Maybe Islam will be the ultimate key to the majority of people realizing monotheism is evil brainwashing? Muslim communities in America and Europe are set to grow exponentially over the near future. Maybe some day we infidels en masse will stop and think there is something wrong with letting a monotheist religion be taught that preaches the evils of Jews and Xians? Then maybe we'll think - hey that's just about like Xiantiy - minus the Xian part :p Maybe people will connect the dots? Then there will be an education campaign on the history of religion and how it is a bunch of BS.

Fat Chance of that happening!
:D
Michael

If they weren't indoctrinated with a massive dose of R-virus as children, maybe they'd stay at home and watch the game on weekends instead of practicing bomb making techniques.Maybe it's a choice of which Religious-meme one is inoculated with.? While I’m an Atheist, I think that societies may benefit from the Buddhism-meme.
Most people need some sort of philosophical approach give meaning to their lives.
Maybe that is why the well-fed KSA boys keep killing themselves. It seems (to me anyhow) that without conquest driving Muslims forward, Islam as a life-philosophy really falls flat on its face. Perhaps success is Islam’s greatest enemy?

MII

The very second you mention "god" in your sentence, you invoke "supernaturalism" :rolleyes:

Supernaturalism to who? maybe you perhaps but that by be to your lack of knowledge? Like for instance the word thermodynamics sounds surcharged with the mysticism of science to a person who is not familiar with science.

Here is an oxford definition of god - it refers to nothing as mystical but a being - supernatural is YOUR connatation to god

.....although that said god is a pretty surcharged word - you just have to mentionthe word god and watch people go off about so many things that have nothing to do with him - forums like these are prime examples :D

god / Ñ gQd; NAmE Ñ gA;d/ noun 1God [sing.] (not used with the) (in Christianity, Islam and Judaism) the being or spirit that is worshipped and is believed to have created the universe:
Do you believe in God? Ç Good luck and God bless you. Ç the Son of God (= Christ)2[C] (in some religions) a being or spirit who is believed to have power over a particular part of nature or who is believed to represent a particular quality:
Mars was the Roman god of war. Ç the rain god Ç Greek gods
—see also goddess3[C] a person who is loved or admired very much by other people:
To her fans she’s a god.
—see also goddess4[C] something to which too much importance or attention is given:
Money is his god.

Maybe it's a choice of which Religious-meme one is inoculated with.? While I’m an Atheists, I think that societies may benefit from the Buddhism-meme.
Most people need some sort of philosophical approach to being long lasting meaning to their lives.
Maybe that is why the well-fed KSA boys keep killing themselves. It seems (to me anyhow) that without conquest driving Muslims forward, Islam as a life-philosophy really falls flat on its face. Perhaps success is Islam’s greatest enemy?

MII
It could well be. And yes, I think many societies could benefit from a dose of zen buddhism.

Supernaturalism to who? maybe you perhaps but that by be to your lack of knowledge? Like for instance the word thermodynamics sounds surcharged with the mysticism of science to a person who is not familiar with science.

Science is not mysticism. :rolleyes:

The word "god" is. READ your own fucking damn defenition.


(in Christianity, Islam and Judaism) the being or spirit that is worshipped and is believed to have created the universe:

Supernaturalism:

The supernatural (Latin: super- "exceeding" + nature) refers to forces and phenomena which are beyond ordinary scientific measurement. Concepts in the supernatural domain are closely related to concepts in religious spirituality, metaphysics and Schizotypy. click (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernatural)

Have a nice day.

Godless

Science is not mysticism. :rolleyes:

The word "god" is. READ your own fucking damn defenition.




Science is mysticism to someone who has no knowledge of it - In the same way god is supernatural to one who is ignorant in the same fashion

The point of the definition is that it refers to a being and something sepcific. Many people may not have met god, but that doesn't invalidate his position - after all, many people have not met the owner of the ferrari company either - it seems to be the trend that the more exalted you are the more qualified you have to be to see them directly

Science is mysticism to someone who has no knowledge of it

Theistic idiots! Yea I can relate.


In the same way god is supernatural to one who is ignorant in the same fashion

Doubt it. Were's the fucking evidence for this entity? :rolleyes: Mysticism, believing bs is there with out any evidence. yea I can relate with that stupidity also.

The point of the definition is that it refers to a being and something sepcific. Many people may not have met god,nobody has met a god. but that doesn't invalidate his positionit has no possition to invalidate after all, many people have not met the owner of the ferrari company either but they can find out he exists, in millions of evidential ways, the same cannot be said for a god, hence why, it's deemed supernatural, and the ferrari boss is'nt.

nobody has met a god. it has no possition to invalidate but they can find out he exists, in millions of evidential ways, the same cannot be said for a god, hence why, it's deemed supernatural, and the ferrari boss is'nt.

Nobody has met god? That might be true of your experience but not others - what logic do you apply to arrive at the conclusion that noone has met god?

What are some examples of the evidential ways that you say the ferrari boss exists and god doesn't?

Theistic idiots! Yea I can relate.




Doubt it. Were's the fucking evidence for this entity? :rolleyes: Mysticism, believing bs is there with out any evidence. yea I can relate with that stupidity also.

Does that mean we can also reject other mystical entities like electrons and people's minds?

Nobody has met god? That might be true of your experience but not others - what logic do you apply to arrive at the conclusion that noone has met god?you are having a laugh, "HALLO" no f**king evidence.
What are some examples of the evidential ways that you say the ferrari boss exists and god doesn't?you most definitely are having a laugh, shall we ask his new wife or should we ask the camera man or journalist, or should we ask the mechanics at ferrari or even the drivers, if they believe Jean Todt exists. http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-01/05/content_406014.htm.
http://www.f1racing.net/en/news.php?newsID=120921

The last person who met God was a person called Swami Vivekananda.
I suggest you try and find out more about him

Nobody has met god? That might be true of your experience but not others - what logic do you apply to arrive at the conclusion that noone has met god?

I think what you are asking for is two impossabilities:-

1) A living intelligent creator exists
2) It is possible for a human being to meet this intelligent creator

I do not exaggerate in saying that I am more likely to give birth to Popeye the Sailor Man. There is no evidence that says I will never give birth to Popeye the Sailor Man, but you'd still have to be a fucking idiot to say I will.

you are having a laugh, "HALLO" no f**king evidence.you most definitely are having a laugh, shall we ask his new wife or should we ask the camera man or journalist, or should we ask the mechanics at ferrari or even the drivers, if they believe Jean Todt exists. http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-01/05/content_406014.htm.
http://www.f1racing.net/en/news.php?newsID=120921

Well the links you provided are as authoratative as scripture in the sense of god - like there are stacks of scriptures or scriptural commentaries or philosophical treatises that attest to the existence of god and there are also heaps of newspaper articles and the like that attest to the existence of the ferrari boss.

In other words the evidence that the ferrari actually has a designer/manufacturer are dependant on the direct perception of someone else. You have never personally met the ferrari boss - and nor are you likely to in the immediate future because you are not qualified - The same is true of god. Just as most people have never met someone who has personally met the ferrari manufacturer, most people have never met god - and inboth cases there are very good reasons why not everyone and anyone can directly see them.

Regarding the mechanics, they can point to the ferrari and say it must have a designer. Someone can point to any aspect of the universe (which is a million times more complex than a ferrari) and say the same thing.

I think what you are asking for is two impossabilities:-

1) A living intelligent creator exists
2) It is possible for a human being to meet this intelligent creator

I do not exaggerate in saying that I am more likely to give birth to Popeye the Sailor Man. There is no evidence that says I will never give birth to Popeye the Sailor Man, but you'd still have to be a fucking idiot to say I will.

Ok so now you have stated your opinion so it behooves you to follow with a logical explanation - otherwise on what grounds should I respond to this?
Is it just about displaying willpower and charismsa to get a point through?

Student,

The last person who met God was a person called Swami Vivekananda.
I suggest you try and find out more about him Very funny. You aren't serious, are you?

otherwise on what grounds should I respond to this?

You can respond to it however you wish, so long as you don't give merit to dimwit theists who hold such ancient fantasies.

Well the links you provided are as authoratative as scripture in the sense of godI dont know why I'm responding as it quite clear your blinkered, with a sky daddy fixation, like there are stacks of scriptures or scriptural commentaries or philosophical treatises that attest to the existence of godall of it is refutable, every microbe of it can be argued, it only take one microbe of a thing to prove it exist. your sky daddy does'nt even have that much. and there are also heaps of newspaper articles and the like that attest to the existence of the ferrari boss. this is irrefutable evidence that jean todt exists.

In other words the evidence that the ferrari actually has a designer/manufacturer are dependant on the direct perception of someone else. not necessarily so. You have never personally met the ferrari boss - and nor are you likely to in the immediate future because you are not qualified and how in the hell would you know that, I've actually been at the same table as the man. wtf are you talking about.(qualified) The same is true of god. not so Just as most people have never met someone who has personally met the ferrari manufacturer, most people have never met god - and inboth cases there are very good reasons why not everyone and anyone can directly see them. if only one person in the whole of jean todts life had ever objectively met him, thats one more person than a god, has objectively met.

Regarding the mechanics, they can point to the ferrari and say it must have a designer. Someone can point to any aspect of the universe (which is a million times more complex than a ferrari) and say the same thing.how so. why would a god did it, scenario be more likely.

I dont know why I'm responding as it quite clear your blinkered, with a sky daddy fixation, all of it is refutable, every microbe of it can be argued, it only take one microbe of a thing to prove it exist. your sky daddy does'nt even have that much. this is irrefutable evidence that jean todt exists.
not necessarily so. and how in the hell would you know that, I've actually been at the same table as the man. wtf are you talking about.(qualified) not so if only one person in the whole of jean todts life had ever objectively met him, thats one more person than a god, has objectively met.
how so. why would a god did it, scenario be more likely.

The point is that just as most people do not directly perceive the ferrari boss because they are not qualified (they couldn't make it past the first of his 10 000 secretaries) most people perceive the truth of his existence due to the direct perception of someone one else - in other words they accept the truth through the medium of newspapers, tv etc.

In the same way perception of god is gained rarely through direct perception - your statement that no one has seen god obviously indicates that you haven't done much research in the field - because the face of the globe is jam packed with religions that have numerous claims to perceiving the presence of god.

You may say you have not perceived god, but if you want to use your experience as a yardstick for determining what others have seen your statement falls short -

Now you claim that you have met the ferrari owner - I have not - does the fact that I have not met him detract from your claim that you have?

LG,

This is interesting. I hate to bring this up but, do you believe in the easter bunny and santa? What is the qualitative and quantitative difference between these entities and god? Or the fferrari boss? Let's think about this...

light,

Does that mean we can also reject other mystical entities like electrons and people's minds? Neither are mystical. These are merely labels for demonstrable phenomena.

Light,

The point is that just as most people do not directly perceive the ferrari boss because they are not qualified (they couldn't make it past the first of his 10 000 secretaries) most people perceive the truth of his existence due to the direct perception of someone one else - in other words they accept the truth through the medium of newspapers, tv etc.No not true. It is demonstrable that such corporations have a clear management structure, there is extensive precedent. This provides a very strong inductive argument that there is a Ferrari boss.

In the same way perception of god is gained rarely through direct perception - your statement that no one has seen god obviously indicates that you haven't done much research in the field - because the face of the globe is jam packed with religions that have numerous claims to perceiving the presence of god.Yet there is absolutely no precedent for gods to have actually existed. You neither have a deductive or inductive argument for the existence of gods.

LG,

This is interesting. I hate to bring this up but, do you believe in the easter bunny and santa? What is the qualitative and quantitative difference between these entities and god? Or the fferrari boss? Let's think about this...

Well say santa claus - The evidence for him is that there are some presents that appear under a christmas tree - no w obviously the presents didn't come from nowhere, so we assume that perhaps it was santa claus - later on however it is revealed that one's parents actually placed the presents there - thus santa claus doesn't exist -

The presents however don't just spontaneously appear from nowhere - they are dependant on a sentient creature - we were wrong in our perception of the exact sentient person who laid them there - we were not mistaken that the presents were laid down by a sentient being.

Similarly to advocate that the universe appeared from nothing is like advocating that the christmas presents appeared from nowhere .

LG,

This is interesting. I hate to bring this up but, do you believe in the easter bunny and santa? What is the qualitative and quantitative difference between these entities and god? Or the fferrari boss? Let's think about this...

How do you demonstrate an electron and how do you demonstrate a person's mind?

Light,

No not true. It is demonstrable that such corporations have a clear management structure, there is extensive precedent. This provides a very strong inductive argument that there is a Ferrari boss. .

Its only inductive if you are the accountant or on the managing board - otherwise you just perceive the reality of the ferrari business by via media like everyone else -

Yet there is absolutely no precedent for gods to have actually existed. You neither have a deductive or inductive argument for the existence of gods.

You are saying that there is no precedent for gods to exist - but on the basis of what body of enquiry do you make that statement?

For example if I say "No germans have manufactured a spacecraft" you would hope that I was familiar with space craft as a field of knowledge and that I was in a position to perceive whether any germans had actually made any spacecraft. If there were some evidence that germans had created spacecrafts you would also expect that I was able to dismantle such statements by my superior position of knowledge if in fact I wanted to maintain my statement "No germans have created spacecraft"

So in other words you say that there is no precedent for gods to exist and there are numerous philosophers, etc that state there is - How do you reconcile that clash? Did they imagine it? Were they all victim of some global propaganda campaign?

Light,

Its only inductive if you are the accountant or on the managing board - otherwise you just perceive the reality of the ferrari business by via media like everyone else –And likewise there is ample precedent to show that our media is sufficiently accurate about things to create a strong inductive conclusion.

You are saying that there is no precedent for gods to exist - but on the basis of what body of enquiry do you make that statement? Total absence of any credible demonstration. Notice I am not saying that gods do not exist only that there exists no precedent to show they exist.

For example if I say "No germans have manufactured a spacecraft" you would hope that I was familiar with space craft as a field of knowledge and that I was in a position to perceive whether any germans had actually made any spacecraft. If there were some evidence that germans had created spacecrafts you would also expect that I was able to dismantle such statements by my superior position of knowledge if in fact I wanted to maintain my statement "No germans have created spacecraft"You are arguing from the perspective of having knowledge I am arguing from the perspective that no one has demonstrated any such knowledge.

So in other words you say that there is no precedent for gods to exist and there are numerous philosophers, etc that state there is - How do you reconcile that clash? Did they imagine it? Were they all victim of some global propaganda campaign?You’ve missed the point. It is irrelevant what they say, the issue is that no one has demonstrated that what they believe has any truth.

Light,

And likewise there is ample precedent to show that our media is sufficiently accurate about things to create a strong inductive conclusion.

Total absence of any credible demonstration. Notice I am not saying that gods do not exist only that there exists no precedent to show they exist.

You are arguing from the perspective of having knowledge I am arguing from the perspective that no one has demonstrated any such knowledge.

You’ve missed the point. It is irrelevant what they say, the issue is that no one has demonstrated that what they believe has any truth.

:) Chris,

let's take this issue up in the other thread (God is real) because you seem to be applying the same general principles in both

Well say santa claus - The evidence for him is that there are some presents that appear under a christmas tree - no w obviously the presents didn't come from nowhere, so we assume that perhaps it was santa claus - later on however it is revealed that one's parents actually placed the presents there - thus santa claus doesn't exist -

The presents however don't just spontaneously appear from nowhere - they are dependant on a sentient creature - we were wrong in our perception of the exact sentient person who laid them there - we were not mistaken that the presents were laid down by a sentient being.

Similarly to advocate that the universe appeared from nothing is like advocating that the christmas presents appeared from nowhere .
Ok LG. This argument of the universe being "designed" by a "sentient being" because we now, as a species, design "things" is not very convincing. Before humans designed "things" this argument could not even exist. It also always begs the question "who designed the designer?". Your response may be "no one. He/she/it was the 'uncaused cause' ". The response, as you well know, is "if god can be 'uncaused' why not the universe itself, and just dispense with the extra step of having a 'being' be the cause". This argument has been shown to be basically useless in the defense of god.

How do you demonstrate an electron and how do you demonstrate a person's mind?
1) Photoelectric effect, Millikan oil drop experiment, Electron microscopes, etc.

2) I do not understand this.

Ok LG. This argument of the universe being "designed" by a "sentient being" because we now, as a species, design "things" is not very convincing. Before humans designed "things" this argument could not even exist. .
What do birds do when they make a nest? Actually you are begging the question because you start on the principle that matter created life, which is an intrinsically atheistic proposal. Design is intrinsic to sentient thought - not necessarily human

It also always begs the question "who designed the designer?". Your response may be "no one. He/she/it was the 'uncaused cause' ". The response, as you well know, is "if god can be 'uncaused' why not the universe itself,.

Because the universe is not god .... If a universe can create itself why not a ferrari? Why can't christmas presents self manifest under christmas trees ?- as you can see if we apply the general principles that you are advocating to other situations we end up with a funny picture of reality


and just dispense with the extra step of having a 'being' be the cause". This argument has been shown to be basically useless in the defense of god.

Your error is to assume that god is a mundane creature just like ourselves - if you begin with the assumption that no one can be of greater intelligence and capacity than myself you limit yourself from the onset.

1) Photoelectric effect, Millikan oil drop experiment, Electron microscopes, etc.

2) I do not understand this.

the point is that electrons and people's minds are phenomena that are perceivable only by their symptoms. You cannot actually "see" an electron or a persons mind, and when the question of perceiving these phenomena is raised it becomes a question of "perceivable to whom?"

It is not like everyone on the street or even everyone in the field of science has completed the necessary requirements to directly perceive the symptoms that denote the reality of an electron.

In other words if you want to say "I don't see it" your statement only becomes credible if you are capable in that field of knowledge.

What do birds do when they make a nest? Actually you are begging the question because you start on the principle that matter created life, which is an intrinsically atheistic proposal. Design is intrinsic to sentient thought - not necessarily human
I did no such thing. Only theists invoke the "matter created life" dogma to oppose non-theists.

Because the universe is not god .... If a universe can create itself why not a ferrari? Why can't christmas presents self manifest under christmas trees ?- as you can see if we apply the general principles that you are advocating to other situations we end up with a funny picture of reality
Which is why I don't rediculously set up strawmen as you do, in an attempt to support your position. Again, no atheist uses the word "created" to describe the origins of the universe. Strawmen unite!

Your error is to assume that god is a mundane creature just like ourselves - if you begin with the assumption that no one can be of greater intelligence and capacity than myself you limit yourself from the onset.
I'm sorry. This makes no sense at all. What exactly are you trying to argue here? I make NO assumptions regarding god(s). And what does any of this have to do with my statement of the fallacy of the "first cause" argument? You have done nothing here but ramble pointlessly.

the point is that electrons and people's minds are phenomena that are perceivable only by their symptoms. You cannot actually "see" an electron or a persons mind, and when the question of perceiving these phenomena is raised it becomes a question of "perceivable to whom?"

It is not like everyone on the street or even everyone in the field of science has completed the necessary requirements to directly perceive the symptoms that denote the reality of an electron.

In other words if you want to say "I don't see it" your statement only becomes credible if you are capable in that field of knowledge.
So you are saying that only people trained in godness can percieve god based on gods "symptoms" as you put it? Just like only trained scientists can percieve electrons based on their symptoms? All right. Here's the difference.

Electrons, as we define them, have repeatable, testable, observable characteristics. They really do (whatever their "true" nature is) affect the objective world. Anyone with the right training and equipment, such as a CRT based TV and a convienient remote control, can percieve the regular effects of electrons on phosphors, in the form of "I Love Lucy" reruns.

I am at a loss however to see any repeatable, testable, observable characteristics of "god". Can you be specific in responding with some instances of verifiable characteristics of "god" that conclusively demonstrate god?

Because the universe is not god ....

God is omnipresent. Doesn't it mean that he is everything?

If a universe can create itself why not a ferrari?

The universe, humans and a ferrari are all the same thing: matter. In this sense, "ferraris" created themselves.

Created beings can't really create anything, they can only transform the created things (matter) to something different.

c7,

God is omnipresent. Doesn't it mean that he is everything?If so then we can simply call everything what it is and eliminate the redundant god label.

The universe, humans and a ferrari are all the same thing: matter. In this sense, "ferraris" created themselves.While they are formed from the same type of building blocks they are not the same building blocks. And I see nothing that leads to a conclusion that anything created itself.

Created beings can't really create anything, they can only transform the created things (matter) to something different. Don't know of anything that was created, but the concept of transformation has solid foundations in physics.

If so then we can simply call everything what it is and eliminate the redundant god label.

It's not redundant when talking about religions and such things. If we know what God is we can make sense of ancient myths. Our higher self is called God in ancient myths. But there are infinite gods, because God is everything and nothing at the same time.

God is omnipresent. Doesn't it mean that he is everything?.

It means everything is in him but he remains indepenent of everything, otherwise even a light bulb could be god



The universe, humans and a ferrari are all the same thing: matter. In this sense, "ferraris" created themselves. .

This is just like saying there is absolutely no difference between a ball of wool and a woolen jumper - if thats the case why do people see special qualities in a woolen jumper that they don't see in a ball of wool?

I did no such thing. Only theists invoke the "matter created life" dogma to oppose non-theists. .

If this isn't the matter created life dogma I don't know what is :

Originally Posted by superluminal
Ok LG. This argument of the universe being "designed" by a "sentient being" because we now, as a species, design "things" is not very convincing. Before humans designed "things" this argument could not even exist. .

You seem to be saying that whole process of design is only something new that came on the scene with life and before that there was just matter - so how ar e you not saying matter created life?


Which is why I don't rediculously set up strawmen as you do, in an attempt to support your position. Again, no atheist uses the word "created" to describe the origins of the universe. Strawmen unite! .

No , instead they say that the complex design structures that we see in the universe don't have a creator - which amounts to the same thing


I'm sorry. This makes no sense at all. What exactly are you trying to argue here? I make NO assumptions regarding god(s). And what does any of this have to do with my statement of the fallacy of the "first cause" argument? You have done nothing here but ramble pointlessly.

The point was that if you want to work the idea that god is the cause of all causes you have to apply the proper definition of god and not a definition of a mundane creature

So you are saying that only people trained in godness can percieve god based on gods "symptoms" as you put it? Just like only trained scientists can percieve electrons based on their symptoms? All right. Here's the difference.

Electrons, as we define them, have repeatable, testable, observable characteristics. They really do (whatever their "true" nature is) affect the objective world. Anyone with the right training and equipment, such as a CRT based TV and a convienient remote control, can percieve the regular effects of electrons on phosphors, in the form of "I Love Lucy" reruns.


They may perceive the effects but they may not perceive the cause - try and explain what an electron is to someone watching "I love Lucy" they will only believe you on the strength of your credibility and not their direct perception

I am at a loss however to see any repeatable, testable, observable characteristics of "god". Can you be specific in responding with some instances of verifiable characteristics of "god" that conclusively demonstrate god?

The difference between knowing god and knowing something mundane is that god is a person - suppose you want to know the owner of the ferrari company - basically you can only know him if he desires to know you (its a mundane example - after all you could be a nosey journalist and escape the definition) - in other words the empirical process doesn't yield results when investigating a superior person simply because the person to be investigated is superior - so god can only be known by one whom he chooses to reveal himself to.
There are other symptoms which can be looked for to determine whether a person has actually perceived god, just as there are symptoms by which you can judge whether a person is qualified or unqualified in a field but this is the process of how to see god - act in such a way that he is interested to see you.

It means everything is in him but he remains indepenent of everything, otherwise even a light bulb could be god

How could he remain independent of everything if he is in everything?

This is just like saying there is absolutely no difference between a ball of wool and a woolen jumper - if thats the case why do people see special qualities in a woolen jumper that they don't see in a ball of wool?

There is apparent (illusional) difference, but not real difference.

If a universe can create itself why not a ferrari? Why can't christmas presents self manifest under christmas trees ?- as you can see if we apply the general principles that you are advocating to other situations we end up with a funny picture of reality

If a god can create it self, why not the universe? From were did god create itself? How did it aquire knowledge without experience? Define the word "god"

God is love
God is salvation
God is omnipotent
God is omniscient
God is omnipresent
God is unidentifiable
God is omnibenevolent
God is NON EXISTENT

It's all in your head, the voices grew silent, and yet you quible to bring back ignorance..

Do not even try and define God. Just live your life and forget about him-only those who have achieved viveka (discrimination between real and unreal) know the true meaning of God - and its not likely that any of you will get that in this lifetime. (Unless you've studied the scriptures and reflected on it.)

Student,

Do not even try and define God. Just live your life and forget about him-only those who have achieved viveka (discrimination between real and unreal) know the true meaning of God - and its not likely that any of you will get that in this lifetime. (Unless you've studied the scriptures and reflected on it.) LOL. Nonsense. Sounds like condescending arrogance. Umm, no I'm wrong, it is condescending arrogance.

I have a question for those of you that are religious. If a god or some kind of creator does exists, why would he / she / it want to be worshiped by primitive life forms like us? What make us so special? Would an omnipotent being really care about us?

If a god or some kind of creator does exists, why would he / she / it want to be worshiped by primitive life forms like us? What make us so special?

God doesn't want or need anything because he already has all he wants, he is complete, he is what he is, he is not a male or female, he is not separated from oneness.

Everything is special, so nothing is special. Everyone but humans follow God. See animals. They follow all laws of nature/God.

Would an omnipotent being really care about us?

He cares because he's impersonal. Things aren't less important just because they are primitive. Humans aren't primitive, but God sees everything from a universal viewpoint. He doesn't favor anyone or anything. That's why some people die in natural disasters.

God doesn't interfere with our business. He lets us be free. We should try to be like God, and let other people have their free will and personal beliefs.

How could he remain independent of everything if he is in everything?

even there is a mundane example that a factory plant owner is independent of the factory (he has the capacity - at least in knowledge - to set up another factory somewhere else) yet at the same time he is deeply familiar with the ins and outs of the factory. Its called simultaneous oneness and difference



There is apparent (illusional) difference, but not real difference.
If that's the case why do you submit to the "illusion" of buying a woolen jumper and not a ball of wool in the winter - you could save yourself $100 :D

The difference between knowing god and knowing something mundane is that god is a person - suppose you want to know the owner of the ferrari company - basically you can only know him if he desires to know you (its a mundane example - after all you could be a nosey journalist and escape the definition) - in other words the empirical process doesn't yield results when investigating a superior person simply because the person to be investigated is superior - so god can only be known by one whom he chooses to reveal himself to.

... - act in such a way that he is interested to see you.

This is almost incomprehensible to me. You are saying that the success or failure of an investigation into god is based on his whim as to whether or not he reveals himself to you. I, as an atheist, need god to reveal himself far more than other, less heathenist, people, wouldn't you say?

I sense an underlying thread in your approach. You seem to be basing your arguments on the idea that only those "trained" in a praticular field can benefit from the "proofs" or "perceptions" made in that field. This is a faulty position. It ignores the fact that once the detailed work is done in a field, the chain of logic and evidence can almost always be followed by educated and interested laymen, and either accepted or rejected on it's merits.

LG,

What is the difference between "mundane" as you are using it, and "godness"?

If a god can create it self, why not the universe? From were did god create itself?
If the universe can create itself why can't a ferrari?


How did it aquire knowledge without experience?

He has an eternal identity that is not overcome by ignorance (since ignorance is one of his seperated potencies)- "acquiring" knowledge is only an issue when you are in ignorance - in the day there is no need for acquiring a torch, only at night time


Define the word "god"

God is love
God is salvation
God is omnipotent
God is omniscient
God is omnipresent
God is unidentifiable
God is omnibenevolent
God is NON EXISTENT

[QUOTE=Godless]It's all in your head, the voices grew silent, and yet you quible to bring back ignorance..

Actually if you want to define god you have to consult either scripture or qualified saintly persons otherwise you just run the risk of compiling speculative definitions like this

I have a question for those of you that are religious. If a god or some kind of creator does exists, why would he / she / it want to be worshiped by primitive life forms like us? What make us so special? Would an omnipotent being really care about us?


Actually god doesn't require our worship or submissiveness - the material creation is an opportunity to express independence from god - with or without the worship of god the activities of the material and spiritual worlds go on unheeded

Student,

LOL. Nonsense. Sounds like condescending arrogance. Umm, no I'm wrong, it is condescending arrogance.

Lol - Something we can agree on Chris :p

Actually Vivekananda was more of a political figure than a saintly person - even academics in the field of indian religion will declare that he has no knowledge of scriptures - some even say that he did more damage to the spiritual fabric of india than 1000 years of muslim and british rulership

God doesn't want or need anything because he already has all he wants, he is complete, he is what he is, he is not a male or female, he is not separated from oneness.

Everything is special, so nothing is special. Everyone but humans follow God. See animals. They follow all laws of nature/God..

Everything is special so nothing is special? Do you lock your car when you park it? If nothing is special what is so special about God?



He cares because he's impersonal. .
Excuse me!?! Impersonal care - is that something like sinful purity or miserable happiness?

Things aren't less important just because they are primitive. Humans aren't primitive, but God sees everything from a universal viewpoint. He doesn't favor anyone or anything. That's why some people die in natural disasters.

God doesn't interfere with our business. He lets us be free. We should try to be like God, .
How can we be like god if he is impersonal?

and let other people have their free will and personal beliefs.

This is almost incomprehensible to me. You are saying that the success or failure of an investigation into god is based on his whim as to whether or not he reveals himself to you.
Essentially yes - There are other ways - like for example you could examine the nature of ferraris and follow the proceedure of their construction by examining the nature of the cars and build a general picture of the ferrari manufacturer as an entity that must logically exist - in the same way you can examine the phenomenal world and arrive at the conclusion it seems to indicate a designer - but if you want to actually meet them in person, god or the ferrari manufacturer, it depends on the whim of the person.

I, as an atheist, need god to reveal himself far more than other, less heathenist, people, wouldn't you say?

But just like you cannot place demands on the ferrari manager or george bush or anyone superior to you you cannot place demands on them, particularly if its just to prove that you exist - I mean suppose you wanted to get george bush to see you just to prove he exists to you? Do you think george bush would bother? Important people generally only associat e with people who are convinced of their existence, and because they are important, whether you believe in them or not doesn't affect their activities.

I sense an underlying thread in your approach. You seem to be basing your arguments on the idea that only those "trained" in a praticular field can benefit from the "proofs" or "perceptions" made in that field.
yes

This is a faulty position. It ignores the fact that once the detailed work is done in a field, the chain of logic and evidence can almost always be followed by educated and interested laymen, and either accepted or rejected on it's merits.

Well actually no
There was an incident where einstein had just discovered something in outer space that seemed to confirm his theory of relativity - the british astronomy association released to the media that this was the greatest discovery of the century and that all the books would have to be re-written etc etc - So naturally the media was very eager to understand what he had actually discovered and the significance of it - the spokesman told the press reporters however that there was no way to explain it to someone who was not qualified in the field. The reporters insisted for at least a hint but the spokesman was adamant that there was no way to explain it to the joe on the street. And the newsreporters accepted that - In other words they perceived the credibility and authority of science as a means for belief as opposed to logic and empirical evidence gathered by their own endeavour.

To apply logic and evidence to an established field of knowledge depends on being qualified (the more complex the field of knowledge the more requirement there is for qualification)

LG,

What is the difference between "mundane" as you are using it, and "godness"?
Provide me with an incident where I used it and I will tell you

Provide me with an incident where I used it and I will tell you
Any of your last haf-dozen or so posts. Pick one. I don't mind which.

So, light, cutting through all the claptrap, why do you insist on a god with no evidence? You use an awful lot of words to dance around a pretty simple idea.

So, light, cutting through all the claptrap, why do you insist on a god with no evidence? You use an awful lot of words to dance around a pretty simple idea.

lol - I could ask you the same question in regard to your stance on atheism

lol - I could ask you the same question in regard to your stance on atheism
No, you can't. I have mountains of evidence for a non-supernatural cosmos. You have none for a supernatural cosmos (god).

lol - I could ask you the same question in regard to your stance on atheism
I also must note that you are extremely frustrating to deal with. You don't address anything directly. That makes one not trust your motives.

You have indications of how the material phenomena works thats all - if science had such a tight grasp on universal affairs by dint of their knowledge there would be no drought, no sickness, etc etc.

I don't doubt that there are a multitude of ways to extract results from this world but I doubt whether the evidences that go behind that extracting indicate the absence of god.

If that's the case why do you submit to the "illusion" of buying a woolen jumper and not a ball of wool in the winter - you could save yourself $100 :D

Yes, but there is still illusional difference, and the things we see are real as long as we live in the illusion.

Everything is special so nothing is special?

Always remember, you are unique, just like everyone else.

Do you lock your car when you park it?

I would, if I had a car.

If nothing is special what is so special about God?

God is nothing.

Excuse me!?! Impersonal care - is that something like sinful purity or miserable happiness?

I'm not sure if I quite understand, but it's non-being (absolute being/existence).

How can we be like god if he is impersonal?

All religions teach us to love other people which means to be impersonal (selfless). Personal means egoistic. Buddha said that the person is an illusion, it does not exist, and it's the cause of misery. A person is a mask, it's not me, it's my creation. I have no personality because I have them all, I create all of them. Right personality in the right place and time is divine.

God is nothing.

BINGO!!!

You've hit the nail on the freaking head. God is nothing, therefore NONEXISTENT!!. :rolleyes:

You have indications of how the material phenomena works thats all - if science had such a tight grasp on universal affairs by dint of their knowledge there would be no drought, no sickness, etc etc.
This is naieve.

I don't doubt that there are are a multitude of ways to extract results from this world but I doubt whether the evidences that go behind that extracting indicate the absence of god.
No one claims they do.

BINGO!!!

You've hit the nail on the freaking head. God is nothing, therefore NONEXISTENT!!. :rolleyes:

LOL - c7ityi_ you had that coming - actually the philosophy you advocate is not theism but veiled atheism

I also must note that you are extremely frustrating to deal with. You don't address anything directly. That makes one not trust your motives.


Well I just adressed what religion is how one can know religion - and how one who does not know religion and passing an opinion is like any other person passing a comment in a field of knowledge they are not familiar with - you don't get more direct than that!!

As for defining godliness and mundane you will have to provide an example becasue, like your question was suggesting, sometimes the terms can be diametrically opposed or sometimes it can be used in the sense of mundane godliness or a mundane sense of godly :)

“ I don't doubt that there are are a multitude of ways to extract results from this world but I doubt whether the evidences that go behind that extracting indicate the absence of god. ”


to which you replied "No one claims they do."

Then why did you post "No, you can't. I have mountains of evidence for a non-supernatural cosmos. You have none for a supernatural cosmos (god)."

What happened to the mountains?

Well I just adressed what religion is how one can know religion - and how one who does not know religion and passing an opinion is like any other person passing a comment in a field of knowledge they are not familiar with - you don't get more direct than that!!

As for defining godliness and mundane you will have to provide an example becasue, like your question was suggesting, sometimes the terms can be diametrically opposed or sometimes it can be used in the sense of mundane godliness or a mundane sense of godly :)

“ I don't doubt that there are are a multitude of ways to extract results from this world but I doubt whether the evidences that go behind that extracting indicate the absence of god. ”


to which you replied "No one claims they do."

Then why did you post "No, you can't. I have mountains of evidence for a non-supernatural cosmos. You have none for a supernatural cosmos (god)."

What happened to the mountains?
Please read the statement. No one claims to have evidence of the absence of god. We just have no evidence that indicates the presence of a god.

Please read the statement. No one claims to have evidence of the absence of god. We just have no evidence that indicates the presence of a god.


then why did you state you were an atheist

Originally Posted by superluminal
I, as an atheist, need god to reveal himself far more than other, less heathenist, people, wouldn't you say? ”

An atheist believes god doesn't exist. A theist believes god exists. An agnostic believes he doesn't know whether god exists or not.

If you are an atheist where is your proof?

then why did you state you were an atheist

Originally Posted by superluminal
I, as an atheist, need god to reveal himself far more than other, less heathenist, people, wouldn't you say? ”

An atheist believes god doesn't exist. A theist believes god exists. An agnostic believes he doesn't know whether god exists or not.

If you are an atheist where is your proof?
No, you're wrong. There are conflicting definitions of 'atheist' that include either a positive assertion that there is no god, or simple lack of any reason to postulate one. I have a strong sense that there is no god. But proof? Of course not. You are twisting and turning words in a completely disingenuous way to suit your own needs.

No, you're wrong. There are conflicting definitions of 'atheist' that include either a positive assertion that there is no god, or simple lack of any reason to postulate one. I have a strong sense that there is no god. But proof? Of course not. You are twisting and turning words in a completely disingenuous way to suit your own needs.


LOL - So in otherwords you are saying that you believe you are an agnostic atheist -

What's the difference between that and a run of the mill agnostic? Or is that also an article of contention? :D

then why did you state you were an atheist



If you are an atheist where is your proof?what a complete and utter moron you are.

an atheist has a lack of belief in a god, this does not say that there could not be one, that would be infantile in the extreme, as we have not checked under every nook and crannie, in the universe, to see if it's hiding somewhere.
however we have no evidence for a god, so we can be 99.999999999999999% recuring that there is'nt one.
the burden of proof must always remain with the asserter, namely you.

Proving Existence or Non-Existence.

The existence of a thing can be conclusively proved by producing one single instance of the thing.

To put that another way: -
When the existence of a thing is denied, This can be proven wrong by producing one single instance of the thing said not to exist

The non-existence of a thing can never be conclusively proved because there is always the theoretical assumption that the thing exists but has not been seen yet or it exists in a place that can not be visited. Unless all places in the universe have been visited and are being constantly observed, we can not be absolutely certain.

From this we can say that there are only two possible statements we can make about the existence of a thing:


The thing exists.

It is unknown if the thing exists or not.

It is not possible to prove that a thing "does not exist" without further qualifying criteria.

If a thing does NOT exist it can not leave any evidence of it's non-existence. Only things that DO exist can leave evidence. From this we can derive that conclusive proof can only come from the person that claims that a thing exists. It is nonsensical to demand proof of non-existence.

what a complete and utter moron you are.

an atheist has a lack of belief in a god, this does not say that there could not be one, that would be infantile in the extreme, as we have not checked under every nook and crannie, in the universe, to see if it's hiding somewhere.
however we have no evidence for a god, so we can be 99.999999999999999% recuring that there is'nt one.
the burden of proof must always remain with the asserter, namely you.

Proving Existence or Non-Existence.

The existence of a thing can be conclusively proved by producing one single instance of the thing.

To put that another way: -
When the existence of a thing is denied, This can be proven wrong by producing one single instance of the thing said not to exist

The non-existence of a thing can never be conclusively proved because there is always the theoretical assumption that the thing exists but has not been seen yet or it exists in a place that can not be visited. Unless all places in the universe have been visited and are being constantly observed, we can not be absolutely certain.

From this we can say that there are only two possible statements we can make about the existence of a thing:


The thing exists.

It is unknown if the thing exists or not.

It is not possible to prove that a thing "does not exist" without further qualifying criteria.

If a thing does NOT exist it can not leave any evidence of it's non-existence. Only things that DO exist can leave evidence. From this we can derive that conclusive proof can only come from the person that claims that a thing exists. It is nonsensical to demand proof of non-existence.

The point is that action follows belief

For instance take three people and a river

One person believes there are crocodiles in the river
One person believes he doesn't know whether crococdiles exist in the river
One person believes there are no crocodiles in the river

All three people display different activities according to their beliefs

In otherwords you cannot expect to get away with steam rolling everything presented in the way of theism and get away with the footnote "Well actually god may exist - we don't logically deny it". Activity denotes the quality of belief and it is from the perception of activity that one can determine whether one is an atheist, agnostic or theist.

Actually it is just a spurious device because an atheist doesn't want to get caught in the logical tabernacle of making absolute statements about the nonexistence of god, which would be a contradiction.

what a complete and utter moron you are.

an atheist has a lack of belief in a god, this does not say that there could not be one, that would be infantile in the extreme, as we have not checked under every nook and crannie, in the universe, to see if it's hiding somewhere.
however we have no evidence for a god, so we can be 99.999999999999999% recuring that there is'nt one.
the burden of proof must always remain with the asserter, namely you.

Proving Existence or Non-Existence.

The existence of a thing can be conclusively proved by producing one single instance of the thing.

To put that another way: -
When the existence of a thing is denied, This can be proven wrong by producing one single instance of the thing said not to exist

The non-existence of a thing can never be conclusively proved because there is always the theoretical assumption that the thing exists but has not been seen yet or it exists in a place that can not be visited. Unless all places in the universe have been visited and are being constantly observed, we can not be absolutely certain.

From this we can say that there are only two possible statements we can make about the existence of a thing:


The thing exists.

It is unknown if the thing exists or not.

It is not possible to prove that a thing "does not exist" without further qualifying criteria.

If a thing does NOT exist it can not leave any evidence of it's non-existence. Only things that DO exist can leave evidence. From this we can derive that conclusive proof can only come from the person that claims that a thing exists. It is nonsensical to demand proof of non-existence.

The point is that action follows belief

For instance take three people and a river

One person believes there are crocodiles in the river
One person believes he doesn't know whether crococdiles exist in the river
One person believes there are no crocodiles in the river

All three people display different activities according to their beliefs

In otherwords you cannot expect to get away with steam rolling everything presented in the way of theism and get away with the footnote "Well actually god may exist - we don't logically deny it". Activity denotes the quality of belief and it is from the perception of activity that one can determine whether one is an atheist, agnostic or theist.

Actually it is just a spurious device because an atheist doesn't want to get caught in the logical tabernacle of making absolute statements about the nonexistence of god, which would be a contradiction. You can use the same argument to theoretically prove that the term "atheist" is only a conceptual ideal

One person believes there are crocodiles in the river
One person believes he doesn't know whether crococdiles exist in the river
One person believes there are no crocodiles in the river

One person is unsure as to whether there are crocodiles in the river and so collects evidence to determine the answer. Two jump in head first, one never moves and the man who bothered to collect the evidence is the only one that makes it across safely.

One person is unsure as to whether there are crocodiles in the river and so collects evidence to determine the answer. Two jump in head first, one never moves and the man who bothered to collect the evidence is the only one that makes it across safely.

Specious argument:

Assumptions:

1. One does not move.
2. Two jumps in headfirst.
3. Three can recognize crocodiles or evidence thereof.