Theists and atheists: Reluctant bedfellows

I thought it was clear enough that I was talking about an example that at some point might be true, and that I was expecting you to consider that ...

So I'll put it that way:

I take it you have in the past have go to the doctor - because of some injury or pain or something like that. And then the staff at the clinic or hospital took care of you.

But what if they didn't? What if you would be there, say with a broken leg, yelling at them to help you, yet they would do as if you are not there, and wouldn't help you? Would you be allright with that?
And then go to the next hospital, and the next one etc. - and nobody would take notice of you anywhere. Would you be allright with that?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I thought my questions were clear ... but you seem to have skirted them ... or replied in a manner abstract or diplomatic enough for me not to understand ...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I find the phenomenon of religious debate bewildering, quite frankly.

What to me might look like an act of "well ...... not right now", might be full surety to someone else, and vice versa.

Are preaching and engaging in religious debate also such duties in the hierarchy of duties to God?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Signal

Looking over it, my reply was a bit terse.
In short, issues of sva dharma are narrow and problematic, since the basis of them (one’s own material designation) is ultimately a problem (so everyone tends to have a different dharma, or obligation in a particular circumstance). The issues of sanatana dharma however are a wider umbrella that accommodates all that one could hope to achieve with sva dharma.

For instance you pose the problem of killing for the sake of the palate. There are intricacies of sva dharma that both allow and prohibit such an act , On the platform of sanatana dharma the only acts are acts for the pleasure of god, so there is no scope for doing anything for the sake of one’s own pleasure (much less the pleasure of killing another for one’s own gratification). (IOW the scope for the collective pleasure of living entities is far greater under the pursuit of the pleasure of god, rather than the buzzing nest of "I's" and "mine's" familiar to the hive of conditioned life.

There are also differences in one’s resolution for abiding by issues of sva/sanatana dharma. For sva dharma, one is bound up by rules directed by a sense of obligation – “ I do something because I must do it, even though I don’t like it.” (IOW one tends to be fixated in one's own pleasure, but still have to take recourse to rules and regs for the "greater good"). Whereas with sanatana dharma is characterized by a sense of pleasure that automatically leads to the service of god (IOW one participates in unalloyed service to god since it is takes the path of “ananda”). Of course to be in conditioned life and driven solely by a sense of pleasure is quite dangerous, hence issues of sva dharma take the forefront in most "religious discussions".

At the centre of sva dharma is “all living entities are obliged to perform a duty ” and at the centre of sanatana dharma is “that duty is service to god”

to the degree that they culminate in unalloyed service to god, yes – for instance it’s not uncommon to be possessed of mixed ambitions - part of me wants to serve god and part of me wants to be recognized as very intelligent by others etc etc. The fast track lies not in simply closing down shop until such time as one becomes “perfect”, but rather in continuing on with the service, since it is the nature of such service to purify. IOW if I am an arrogant prick in the service of god, providence will make it clear to me what has to change

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You may not yet know all the details of my existence, but you know that cars are owned by some one and so you know you are stealing some one's car. Knowledge of my existence is implied by your actions. You can't conceive of the situation with out referencing me three time.

What would your delusional beliefs have to do with what I decide as the best course of action?

When the cops get you, will you try to say you took the car because its owner doesn't exist?

Pretty stupid sounding, eh?

Particularly when they've been sent by me.

So judging by human standards is actually ok after all. You just hoisted yourself by your own petard.

So if our understanding of right and wrong can be extrapolated from, and yet god fails to meet even human standards of decency, you seem to have no leg to stand on.

Personally I can think of no act that I would condemn some one to the eternal torture of hell for, so what act are you suggesting any way?

What about the standard one of not believing correctly?

Sorry I fail to see what finding the worship of lesser beings of great power unappealing to me has to do with barbecue. Oh, I have no "god given rights."

Um, I'd not recommend breeding for you if you can envision having fun birthday parties without favoritism.

Maybe you just need a refresher...

favoritism –noun
1. the favoring of one person or group over others with equal claims; partiality

Still a dodge. Can't you answer one simple question... Is your god not at least as good as I am?

Red herring. Fideism is the foundation of all faiths. Remove it and you have no gods left.

If you have something specific to propose, make the proposal.

So what?

 

Speculating about made up conundrums concerning hypothetical beings is pointless.

Ok.

They did.

Reality doesn't work like that. Your question is empty.

Real people who are ignoring me aren't actually acting as if I'm really not there. They are just pretending I'm not there and since I am there I can, and have, gotten their attention by asserting my existence more actively.

But since you like speculating...suppose a parallel dimension where you don't exist. All of the people there don't know about you and wholly act as if you don't exist for them, because you don't

Does it really bother you?

An entire universe and you actually act as if they don't exist, because they don't.

Does that bother you?

Don't you have things which are actually real to trouble about?

 

Wow.


Boy, you yet have to meet your Maker. That's all I can say.

 

I take it this is also in reference to BG 2.46 (and everything connected to that)?

Would you say that the attitude of 'I am doing things for the pleasure of God because it pleases me to do them' is an inherently problematic one?

But this is backwards then - someone who preaches or engages in religious debate cannot know in advance whether these activities will culminate in unalloyed service to God or not, and if yes, to what degree.
In hindsight, a theist could say, 'Oh, I did all those things, but they didn't really contribute to my service to God, even though at the time they seemed to.'
IOW, how to prevent mistakes?

I have to say that I find such an attitude rather liberal. Although it is probably more realistic than a perfectionist, make-no-mistakes approach.

I take it you have made mistakes in your service to God, and after finding out what they were, made an effort not to repeat them. My question is: How did you forgive yourself for those mistakes? What is your attitude toward mistakes that helps you see past them and continue with your service (even despite knowing that you might make mistakes again)?




One thing that comes up frequently in theist/atheist debate is related to that, and can be summed up as 'Unless you have perfect knowledge, all you say is worthless, mere speculation, and you should better keep your mouth shut' - and either side may claim that of the other.

If either side says they are 'merely experimenting', 'just having a discussion' or something to that effect, such an attitude implies that they are not really serious about what they are saying, even though they sometimes (or often) make absolute statements about matters relevant in a person's life (such as about the meaning of life or what happens after death and how this affects the way you live today).
IOW, given the content of the discussion, such an attitude toward discussion is downright frivolous!

I take it some theists and atheists recognize this discrepancy between the serious content and the frivolous attitude, and in order to bridge this discrepancy, assume an air of omniscience or resort to making absolute statements - but for which they have no personal realization as backup, and this shows as fanaticism. Or they try to devalue the importance of the content and resort to relativism. Neither is really viable.

So what is the solution? What is the appropriate attitude toward engaging in religious debate, given the imperfection of the participants?

 

No I've known them all my life.

Why are you dodging my questions?

 

swarm

On the contrary - all you know is that I drove off in your car - anything else is speculation

"But officer, its the one issued to me by the car hire company - look I have the papers"

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You haven't established that your best course of action isn't delusion. You could just be some crazy person who goes around harassing people in hire cars

I guess they could always check it out with the hire company

lol

as if you are the "final authority" on issues of your "self" and the consequences of action

I think you miss the point

an understanding of right and wrong is a principle.

A host of often contradictory details can shelter under a single principle according to performer.

For instance, taking the principle of a "order and upkeep is good in society", a garbage collector is working under one set of details and a riot squad another.

In short, god and the living entity are working under different details and to think otherwise is as absurd as calling in the riot squad to pick up your trash (assuming that one isn't referring to their belligerent offspring or something)

erm .... its not clear difference you are making between being burnt in a BBQ and being burnt in hell - at the very least, it probably feels the same...

“

ahhh I see

The terms for a claim being equal on a birthday, is the degree that they are related to you in good standing.

And this differs from what is attributed to god in what way?
“

all you are offering is your opinion of how good you are (amidst a variety of ethical hypocrisies involving BBQ's and favoritism)

Its kind of like any regular joes assertion on how great the nation would be if they were calling the shots (IOW it doesn't withstand even a rudimentary examination)

..... yet for some reason it only appeared in europe during post medieval times
:scratchin:

hehe

spend up big fella

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

signal

yes
that's a good call


“

only if you have to really "think" about it for the sake or morale ... perhaps it is necessary as an initial framework. The idea is that we are by nature pleasure seeking (ananda mayo bhyasat)

sravanam and kirtanam
sure
but more is built on these two
”

different types of intelligence

You know - one learns by hearing, another by seeing the experience of others, another by their personal experience and finally someone who still can't get it after the school of hard knocks.

IMHO its not so much about avoiding mistakes (karma abounds) but having the proper intelligence to contextualize such experiences into a successful learning outcome.

I guess it ultimately comes back to what one essentially thinks one is and how one navigates their experience of the world.

If you make a mistake in the pursuit of something that is not essential, you can easily give up and work towards other "more important things". Even if you keep making the same mistake again and again, if you understand it as essential you will keep at it.

There's a difference between perfect knowledge and complete knowledge. For instance if I know that I need to drink water when I am thirsty, that is perfect knowledge. Going into details about water composition only becomes useful if one has this initial foundation.

a big component of any discussion is the people making up the numbers and the values they are composed of. This also helps determine what the discussion is capable of.

In some scenarios, guru, sadhu and sastra are sufficient.

In others, perhaps not.

However what can be obtained in the first given can not be obtained in the later.

I guess one has to first examine what they hope to achieve by a particular discussion.
Then one can see not only whether the hopes are properly entertained but also the "tools" one will need.

 

I am not dodging your questions, I am just in awe of your self-confidence.

 

I've heard far too many opinions on religion, mostly just different versions of my own.

For the moment, here is where I stand:
I do believe in some sort of higher power.
I don't believe that we know half a grain of knowledge on the subject.
Why does man possibly believe he can know EVERYTHING about whatever created our beings, our world, our UNIVERSE?
It would be like teaching calculus to an ant.
I believe in god. I don't believe in religion.

 

I take it these ways of learning are in a hierarchy, going from 'most intelligent' to 'least intelligent'?

And that if a person requires personal experience, they will be classified as 'less intelligent' (and as such avoided, regarded as unworthy)?

Okay. That sounds nice. Books and internet sites on 'productivity' abound with such statements. What they don't say is why it is worth to learn, or the goals they list are ... just not worth striving for, at least not for me.
I suppose some people have an aversion to learning altogether simply because they don't see a worthwhile goal of learning.

Yes, those books and sites say such things too. A lot!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I find this to be a novel understanding of 'perfect'.

I take it a lot comes down to whom or what a person tries to justify themselves to, what the implied standards for what counts as 'knowledge' are. At what point a person feels 'Okay, I think I know enough to proceed from here.'
Surely you have noticed how some people have sky-high standards even for how to make pudding!

Although there are some inconsistencies when it comes to theism:
In the Western culture, much of what we learn in formal situations (such as in schools and with tutors or coaches) is actually learning by hearing, some by seeing the experience of others, and some by personal experience. I would say that learning by hearing is the most prevalent one, actually. For example, we don't question our teachers much when it comes to science.
But on issues of God, learning by hearing is often understood as indoctrination, and doesn't count as knowledge, even by some theists.

Sure.

 

Argument from ignorance. What if scientists had just said, look, we don't know the mechanism of heredity, let's just call it a "higher power" and be done with it, it'll take 2 seconds.

 

And what exactly would be so wrong if they did that?

 

1. It would have been wrong, since the mechanism is DNA.
2. It's lazy.

 

And DNA isn't a higher power somehow, nor was it created by some higher power?

So?

 

I don't think it qualifies as one, it's just chemistry.

If you have to ask...

 

And where did chemistry come from?

Seriously: What is the point of seeking the 'truth' behind heredity (and so many other things)? And what is the point of not being satisfied with 'higher power'?

It looks like 'scientists' not only want to have knowledge, they also want to take pride in it. And threre is no pride in declaring something to be due to higher power ...

 

Stars.

The point is a deeper understanding of these things, to keep searching until we find out the why and how of things. Saying something is a higher power is not understanding, it's the end of searching. It's like saying, "I give up, we are too limited to know", which has been proven false over and over.