Reason To be athiest?

[spidergoat]

Taken from the Bhagavad Gita:



Just try to learn the truth by approaching a spiritual master. Inquire from him submissively and render service unto him. The self-realized soul can impart knowledge unto you because he has seen the truth.

And when you have thus learned the truth, you will know that all living beings are but part of Me--and that they are in Me, and are Mine.

jan.

Take it from me, the spiritual master is a fraud and a con-man. Realization, Satori, or enlightenment is awareness of one's own falseness and stupidity. It's also hilarious. If the master does anything but slap some sense into you or ignore you, he's probably after your ass.

 

[kx000]

Take it from me, the spiritual master is a fraud and a con-man. Realization, Satori, or enlightenment is awareness of one's own falseness and stupidity.

One does not need to be false, nor stupid.

 

[Jan Ardena]

spidergoat,

Science, while based on observation, is not limited to human senses. It encompasses all kinds of technological means, telescopes, microscopes, particle accelerators, etc...

And how is the information observed and processed?

The fact that I could not say it's impossible to be paid a visit by Obama.

What reason would cause you think it may be possible in the first place?

I have several approaches to the god question, in order of their elemental philosophical relevance.

1. The idea of God is non-sensical. Not because it's immaterial but because no one can define what it is. Most of the many ideas about it are unfalsifiable and can be logically dismissed immediately.

"Life comes from life" is observed every single moment of existence, a logically consistent truth which cannot be dismissed.

2. If there was a biblical god or one that interacts with people, then it's effects could be observed and even a non-material god could be theoretically detected.

It's effects is the creation, according to the claim, which can be detected.

3. All the arguments in favor of a god are flawed so the default position is no god.

Some arguments in favour of a god aren't flawed, so the default position is god.
Two can play that game.

4. All the sacred texts attributed to god exhibit nothing that could not have been known by people at the time, and do exhibit logical inconsistencies and other flaws.

It's easy to say that in hindsight.

5. The people that are religious aren't better people and aren't favored by circumstances any more than atheists.

Irrelevant.

6. Religion in general sabotages doubt and the power of the human mind to ascertain the nature of it's existence, it is conformist in nature and leads to totalitarianism. When religions are in power, the most innovative thinkers are punished (Galileo) and the gullible are rewarded.
...

Religion isn't as simple as you seem to think. Also ''religion'' is not an institute, but institutes model themselves on religion. Just like ''sex'' isn't an institute, but institutes use it to make profit.


jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Take it from me, the spiritual master is a fraud and a con-man. Realization, Satori, or enlightenment is awareness of one's own falseness and stupidity. It's also hilarious. If the master does anything but slap some sense into you or ignore you, he's probably after your ass.

''Science'' just oozes out of you. Doesn't it?

jan.

 

[spidergoat]

Take it from me, the spiritual master is a fraud and a con-man. Realization, Satori, or enlightenment is awareness of one's own falseness and stupidity. It's also hilarious. If the master does anything but slap some sense into you or ignore you, he's probably after your ass.

It's inherent to the ego, which is an illusion. And I say stupidity because of the foolishness of searching for something that could not be any more close.

 

[spidergoat]

And how is the information observed and processed?

With our senses and brain. But you're changing the parameters now. You were asserting that we are limited by our "base" senses, and I assert that we aren't due to the tools we can create which transcend our limited senses.

What reason would cause you think it may be possible in the first place?

Because it's not impossible.

"Life comes from life" is observed every single moment of existence, a logically consistent truth which cannot be dismissed.

Not every moment. There was a moment in the past when life came from non-life. In fact the transition is largely one of human definition. There is no clear boundary in nature.

It's effects is the creation, according to the claim, which can be detected.

Since we have a natural explanation for the growth of the universe, this observation doesn't support your claim that it was due to a creator.

Some arguments in favour of a god aren't flawed, so the default position is god.
Two can play that game.

Go ahead and list them, then, and I will point out the flaw.

It's easy to say that in hindsight.

Excuse me? Of course we are looking at them in hindsight. At the time they might have been the best explanation for things around. But now we can realize they aren't.

Religion isn't as simple as you seem to think. Also ''religion'' is not an institute, but institutes model themselves on religion. Just like ''sex'' isn't an institute, but institutes use it to make profit.

Religion is inherently an institution. Otherwise it's just one guy and his crazy thoughts. Sociologically, it's not simple, but I know that religions try to hide their basic falseness in a complex and intricate theology.

 

[spidergoat]

''Science'' just oozes out of you. Doesn't it?

jan.

What happened is that mysticism and illusion oozed out of me until there was nothing left.

 

[wynn]

Such as? What, the dogs/wolves/badgers/eagles told them god doesn't actually exist?
Are you actually positing that Feral Children have the concept of god repressed? Ok. But you're seriously going to have to back that up. Paticularly when you consider that many of them are under the care of people who wish to bring it out and have completely failed to do so.

Like the other poster noted, I think arguments about the feral child are tricky - as to what exactly is "instinct" and what is "merely learned."

It seems to me that feral children would have the same kind of "problem with God" as those people have who don't grow up in a religious family/setting and who are later (as young adults or older) preached to to believe in God.
This is simply because there are concepts which, if not internalized early enough, are next to impossible to internalize later in life. God, karma, reincarnation are such concepts, for example. There are also more prosaic concepts, such as about the acceptability of cheating and some other moral issues, that, unless a person internalizes them early on, are next to impossible to internalize later.

So I'd conclude that the feral child's absence of a faith in God that would be communicable in some usual way to other humans, is not yet proof that there is no God.

 

[Jan Ardena]

spidergoat,

With our senses and brain.

Well done!

But you're changing the parameters now. You were asserting that we are limited by our "base" senses, and I assert that we aren't due to the tools we can create which transcend our limited senses.

I asserted nothing.

And here you go again. How exactly does a microscope or telescope ''trancend our limited senses?

because it's not impossible.

You miss my point.
Why would you think about it in the first place?

Not every moment. There was a moment in the past when life came from non-life. In fact the transition is largely one of human definition. There is no clear boundary in nature.

How do you know that life at some point, came from non life?

Since we have a natural explanation for the growth of the universe, this observation doesn't support your claim that it was due to a creator.

This explains nothing.
If you're going to address the point then give a proper answer. Here is the point again.

It's effects is the creation, according to the claim, which can be detected.

Go ahead and list them, then, and I will point out the flaw.

Okay big man, read above.

Religion is inherently an institution. Otherwise it's just one guy and his crazy thoughts. Sociologically, it's not simple, but I know that religions try to hide their basic falseness in a complex and intricate theology.

Religion isn't an institute, but there are religious institutes.
As for the rest of your babble........


jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

What happened is that mysticism and illusion oozed out of me until there was nothing left.

Let me see.
Life and the universe just popped into existence out of nothing.
And out ultimate ancestor is a cell, which somehow created itself.

jan.

 

[SciWriter]

Let me see.
Life and the universe just popped into existence out of nothing.
And out ultimate ancestor is a cell, which somehow created itself.

jan.

Now you're getting somewhere.

Nothing to make anything of. True and for sure.

The cell came together. Yes. (It didn't make itself, as 'itself' wasn't there before it was.)

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Let me see.
Life and the universe just popped into existence out of nothing.

"Out of nothing"? Why do you think that *nothing* is real?

And out ultimate ancestor is a cell, which somehow created itself.

jan.

It might be something akin to a virus, but it didn't "create" itself or anything for that matter.

 

[SciWriter]

The problem with life having to come from Life (God?) is that Life would then have to come from LIFE (?). So, your great template has but one usage, but therafter it is not so 'great' at all, for it is immediately thrown away. You have 'complex' and 'simple' completely reversed, Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

SciWriter,;2957126]Now you're getting somewhere.

Nothing to make anything of. True and for sure.[/QUOTE]


You mean, just believe? :m:

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Crunchy Cat,


"Out of nothing"? Why do you think that *nothing* is real?

Nothing? Something? Either or either.
Where/what did they come from?


jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

The problem with life having to come from Life (God?) is that Life would then have to come from LIFE (?). So, your great template has but one usage, but therafter it is not so 'great' at all, for it is immediately thrown away. You have 'complex' and 'simple' completely reversed, Jan.

Why would Life itself need to come from something that isn't Life itself.
You're not making any sense?

jan.

 

[gmilam]

Why would Life itself need to come from something that isn't Life itself.
You're not making any sense?

jan.

Hmmm, you apparently don't see the gaping hole in your own logic. Why doesn't that surprise me?

 

[kx000]

The problem with life having to come from Life (God?) is that Life would then have to come from LIFE (?). So, your great template has but one usage, but therafter it is not so 'great' at all, for it is immediately thrown away. You have 'complex' and 'simple' completely reversed, Jan.

Life coming from other life is no stretch at all. Ever heard of Octamom?

 

[SciWriter]

Why would Life itself need to come from something that isn't Life itself.
You're not making any sense?

jan.

It has to. Otherwise, there is an endless chain, with 'God' not able to be First. Nor does it make sense to have a template and then abandon it.

Life is of organs from cells from molecules from atoms from stars from particles from inflation letting them be stable in a larger space. That's life. So, beings cannot be first, for their parts are much more so. All the more for Beings. The question has been begged, not answered.

 

[kx000]

It has to. Otherwise, there is an endless chain, with 'God' not able to be First. Nor does it make sense to have a template and then abandon it.

Life is of organs from cells from molecules from atoms from stars from particles from inflation letting them be stable in a larger space. That's life.

And you know the genetic make up of God?