Do you believe in God and why

[Tagged]

16 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Well, I have seen a couple of videos from S.and i enjoyed them.

As for religion and cars, if you get hit by a car, in  most çases ii guess you would blame its driver, not the manufacturer, the invention, or the car itself.

Almost everything can be used in a proper, or in an improper way .

He is clear about religions purposes For individuals , but if you want truth, religion is a belief system, where you believe in something thats not proven. Therefor he search for the truth, not a belief. Simplistic explained of course. 

 

Here is some short important lifelessons I have taken up, without knowing it, and I have spent a lot of time to make it simple, and understandable, and here I am 20 years later to discover I have picked up many things from Sadhguru and Osho without thinking about it the later years. They have influenced me greatly, and I am happy I did search up, read, and maybe laugh of them for some parts, nodding at some others, but still not 100% trust in their philosophies. Now today, I can stand by them for most of what they teaching. I have grown, I have matured. Brainwashed? Maybe, but Im comfortable without doubt anymore, and thats ease my life hell of a lot. 

 

 

https://youtu.be/2Xfe2Skwupw

[Sunmaster]

18 minutes ago, Tagged said:

I would like to hear Sadhguru´s answer to these Two absolute statements From you two. ????

 

Got some trouble with my keyboard software when delete a word or letter, its starts with a capital everytime.  Annoying

I don't particularly like Sadhguru, but that's just me, I guess.

 

Most religions and cults originated from one person. This person was most likely very gifted, had great spiritual insights, very charismatic...in short, his light was much stronger than the light of the rest, and others were attracted by it and followed it, like moths to a flame. The person sharing this bright light could only do so much to pass this light on to other seekers.

It should go without saying that being in the presence of such a person is by far not the same as reading a book about this person. As an example, one of the greatest spiritual masters of the 20th century Ramana Maharishi, rarely spoke, but shared his light and teachings by his presence alone, transmitting it directly from person to person.

 

And so, after this extraordinary person died, the seekers lost the direct connection to his light and were limited on reading diluted 3rd party stories about him and his teachings. Without the living, dynamic force behind it, in time the teachings lost their vitality and became rigid structures....actions whose original meaning got lost over time, became empty rituals. Spiritual truths became rigid dogma. From time to time, groups emerged whose goal was to revive the original meaning by practice and direct experience of the teachings. Sadly, most of them perished as 'heretics' at the hands of the much more powerful and unenlightened majority. 

This loss of direct experience then is the point where the religious institution started to be abused by people who had absolutely nothing to do with the original spiritual path: the renunciation of the material in favour of the spiritual. In fact, it was the complete opposite. This is what has to be mercilessly denounced, even today.

Let's try to look at facts with a cool head instead of blurting out shallow generalizations.

[Tagged]

1 hour ago, Sunmaster said:

I don't particularly like Sadhguru, but that's just me, I guess.

 

Most religions and cults originated from one person. This person was most likely very gifted, had great spiritual insights, very charismatic...in short, his light was much stronger than the light of the rest, and others were attracted by it and followed it, like moths to a flame. The person sharing this bright light could only do so much to pass this light on to other seekers.

It should go without saying that being in the presence of such a person is by far not the same as reading a book about this person. As an example, one of the greatest spiritual masters of the 20th century Ramana Maharishi, rarely spoke, but shared his light and teachings by his presence alone, transmitting it directly from person to person.

I think I search different outcome from my sourches than you. Im not that in to the devine experience and meaning, Im searching a bit more understanding of life, and how we interact as well fungction than become the enlightenend. Inspiration and pragmatic understanding. 

 

Every inspirational  teacher and speachers as gurus, who have been followed by Masses, has been misused and exploited trough the times, as abused. Their orign fades for other purposes. 

[Sunmaster]

15 minutes ago, Tagged said:

I think I search different outcome from my sourches than you. Im not that in to the devine experience and meaning, Im searching a bit more understanding of life, and how we interact as well fungction than become the enlightenend. Inspiration and pragmatic understanding. 

 

Every inspirational  teacher and speachers as gurus, who have been followed by Masses, has been misused and exploited trough the times, as abused. Their orign fades for other purposes. 

One doesn't exclude the other.

I think I too am very pragmatic in my approach to life, hence my repeated posts about yoga and meditation, which is based on practical techniques and first hand experiences, rather than just a second hand intellectual understanding gained from books. 
The only difference I see between our way of thinking is that you consider nature to be the beginning and end of life ("ashes to ashes, dust to dust", as you often said), but for me, nature is only a part of a bigger system or reality.
That's why, even though we tap into the same info sources (Osho, psychology, etc), the outcome seems different. But it's not really different in the end, because my belief system includes nature as you see it, too....it just doesn't finish there.

 

"Every inspirational  teacher and speachers as gurus, who have been followed by Masses, has been misused and exploited trough the times, as abused. Their orign fades for other purposes."

Exactly. But who or what is to blame here? Certainly not the inspirational teacher or guru, or the truths they tried to convey.

[luckyluke]

On a regularly base I feel myself obliged to mention here that there are different paths to access happiness and serenity.

I have my way, however I don't know if my happiness and serenity is less, equal or superior to another one with a different way or/and  approach,

as I  know what I feel, not what another does.

 

[Tagged]

21 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

One doesn't exclude the other.

I think I too am very pragmatic in my approach to life, hence my repeated posts about yoga and meditation, which is based on practical techniques and first hand experiences, rather than just a second hand intellectual understanding gained from books. 
The only difference I see between our way of thinking is that you consider nature to be the beginning and end of life ("ashes to ashes, dust to dust", as you often said), but for me, nature is only a part of a bigger system or reality.
That's why, even though we tap into the same info sources (Osho, psychology, etc), the outcome seems different. But it's not really different in the end, because my belief system includes nature as you see it, too....it just doesn't finish there.

 

"Every inspirational  teacher and speachers as gurus, who have been followed by Masses, has been misused and exploited trough the times, as abused. Their orign fades for other purposes."

Exactly. But who or what is to blame here? Certainly not the inspirational teacher or guru, or the truths they tried to convey.

Please, do not misunderstand my limited explanations. There is more than mother earth, solarsystem, galaxies, universe, but I realize I can understand it, and it gives me relief and peace. I keep what I know and understand, and mother earth is complex enough for me to try to understand. But beauty and love exists right here inside us, and it starts with me, and me to love those araound me, love mother earth. Can not blaim nature when chatastrophe happens, but you can and are allowed to blaim god if he punish us which seems unfair. 
 

warning: no spell check and made on iphone 6. Small <deleted> 

[Sunmaster]

32 minutes ago, Tagged said:

Please, do not misunderstand my limited explanations. There is more than mother earth, solarsystem, galaxies, universe, but I realize I can understand it, and it gives me relief and peace. I keep what I know and understand, and mother earth is complex enough for me to try to understand. But beauty and love exists right here inside us, and it starts with me, and me to love those araound me, love mother earth. Can not blaim nature when chatastrophe happens, but you can and are allowed to blaim god if he punish us which seems unfair. 
 

warning: no spell check and made on iphone 6. Small <deleted> 

To be honest, it is not easy to define your way of thinking through a few posts on a forum. Every time I think I found a post to hold on to, you knock it over and move the fence post somewhere else. ???? 
But no worries, it's all fun.

[Tagged]

18 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

To be honest, it is not easy to define your way of thinking through a few posts on a forum. Every time I think I found a post to hold on to, you knock it over and move the fence post somewhere else. ???? 
But no worries, it's all fun.

There is no absolute truth, right here right now, but we have the physical laws to rely on here on planet earth! 
 

is that clear enough? and two excellent quotes at last
 

"no ethics, no morals, no conscience, no guilt" 

 

 

Im Afraid I Can Not Explain Myself, sir. Because I  Am myself, you see!

[Sunmaster]

3 minutes ago, Tagged said:

There is no absolute truth, right here right now, but we have the physical laws to rely on here on planet earth! 
 

is that clear enough? and two excellent quotes at last
 

"no ethics, no morals, no conscience, no guilt" 

 

 

Im Afraid I Can Not Explain Myself, sir. Because I  Am myself, you see!

Quite clear.

Although the statement "there is no absolute truth" is a quite absolute in itself, don't you think? Meaning, every truth is relative, apart from this statement/truth. 

[Tagged]

4 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

Quite clear.

Although the statement "there is no absolute truth" is a quite absolute in itself, don't you think? Meaning, every truth is relative, apart from this statement/truth. 

Its up for discussion, but afraid it will be the same as who came first, the egg or the chicken? I like the abstract truth if possible!

Edited September 4, 2020 by Tagged

[Sujo]

Do you believe in god, and why?

No, because my brain has evolved past the age of fairy tales.

[Sunmaster]

5 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Do you believe in god, and why?

No, because my brain has evolved past the age of fairy tales.

But not much further than that. ????

 

Sorry, couldn't resist.

[mauGR1]

3 hours ago, luckyluke said:

On a regularly base I feel myself obliged to mention here that there are different paths to access happiness and serenity.

I have my way, however I don't know if my happiness and serenity is less, equal or superior to another one with a different way or/and  approach,

as I  know what I feel, not what another does.

 

That's just your opinion, and as any other opinion, is worth exactly like any other opinion ????

[mauGR1]

1 hour ago, Tagged said:

Its up for discussion, but afraid it will be the same as who came first, the egg or the chicken? I like the abstract truth if possible!

I like the non-abstract truth, now finally we can start a real discussion.

Warning : it has been debated for aeons, but the truth hasn't been found yet.

[transam]

1 hour ago, Sunmaster said:

But not much further than that. ????

 

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Not so sure, I mean, why did "God" give me, you, and all males 2 nipples that do sod all. 

Strange that, BUT, not strange to believers because they will come back with a reason....????

[Tagged]

2 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

I like the non-abstract truth, now finally we can start a real discussion.

Warning : it has been debated for aeons, but the truth hasn't been found yet.

The non abstract works to ????????

[luckyluke]

1 hour ago, mauGR1 said:

That's just your opinion, and as any other opinion, is worth exactly like any other opinion ????

Exactly,

I, I am aware of it. 

However not sure every poster here is agree with what you state here above, being that ones opinion has the same value like anyone else opinion. 

[mauGR1]

38 minutes ago, luckyluke said:

Exactly,

I, I am aware of it. 

However not sure every postxer here is agree with what you state here above, being that ones opinion has the same value like anyone else opinion. 

Well, here we go again..

Although is fair to say that we can gain precious knowledge from the rocks, the plants, the insects, I am of the opinion that I'm more interested in the opinions of humans than in the opinions of the invertebrates, and among humans, I'm more interested in the opinions of certain humans than in the opinions of other humans, but that's very much in general, and it's just my opinion.

[luckyluke]

1 minute ago, mauGR1 said:

and it's just my opinion

Thanks, an  opinion is always interesting to read. 

[VincentRJ]

4 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

Quite clear.

Although the statement "there is no absolute truth" is a quite absolute in itself, don't you think? Meaning, every truth is relative, apart from this statement/truth. 

That's an interesting paradox. ????

 

Perhaps we should say: "It's rational and logical that everything we think, observe, feel, hear, taste, smell, and so on, represents an interpretation which is dependent upon, and influenced by the characteristics of our species, Homo Sapiens Sapiens,  and also dependent on the individual variations within our species.

 

Absolute reality, independent of human perception and interpretation, therefore cannot logically and rationally be known. The best we can do is 'understand' that a particular theory works for us and appears true enough from our perspective.

 

The so-called 'Laws of Physics' are human-constructed laws, not absolute truths. The laws are always being modified as we gather more data and/or re-interpret the data in different ways. An absolute truth would be 'settled science', that is, nothing more to investigate. Is there any truly settled science?

 

I think I mentioned something similar a few thousand posts ago. ????
 

[Sunmaster]

5 hours ago, transam said:

Not so sure, I mean, why did "God" give me, you, and all males 2 nipples that do sod all. 

Strange that, BUT, not strange to believers because they will come back with a reason....????

I have no <deleted> clue and I honestly don't care...

[Sunmaster]

2 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

That's an interesting paradox. ????

 

Perhaps we should say: "It's rational and logical that everything we think, observe, feel, hear, taste, smell, and so on, represents an interpretation which is dependent upon, and influenced by the characteristics of our species, Homo Sapiens Sapiens,  and also dependent on the individual variations within our species.

 

Absolute reality, independent of human perception and interpretation, therefore cannot logically and rationally be known. The best we can do is 'understand' that a particular theory works for us and appears true enough from our perspective.

 

The so-called 'Laws of Physics' are human-constructed laws, not absolute truths. The laws are always being modified as we gather more data and/or re-interpret the data in different ways. An absolute truth would be 'settled science', that is, nothing more to investigate. Is there any truly settled science?

 

I think I mentioned something similar a few thousand posts ago. ????
 

I completely agree. 

 

TRUTH can not be defined only by what is rational or logical. Those are human attributes that only restrict Truth into easily digestible portions. 

 

Like you say, absolute reality can not be rationally and logically be known. It can be experienced though. Is it less real because of that? Personally, I don't think so. 

 

 

Edited September 4, 2020 by Sunmaster

[thaibeachlovers]

5 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

I have no <deleted> clue and I honestly don't care...

Why do non believers keep coming up with silly questions that they know can't be answered? If they don't believe I don't know why they even come on here given the topic is "do you believe ......................", and not "how many off topic silly questions can you come up with".

[VincentRJ]

5 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

I completely agree. 

 

TRUTH can not be defined only by what is rational or logical. Those are human attributes that only restrict Truth into easily digestible portions. 

 

Like you say, absolute reality can not be rationally and logically be known. It can be experienced though. Is it less real because of that? Personally, I don't think so. 

 

Ah! I missed out an essential word in my comment. Here's what I should have written.

 

"It's rational and logical that everything we think, observe, feel, hear, taste, smell, and experience, represents an interpretation which is dependent upon, and influenced by the characteristics of our species, Homo Sapiens Sapiens,  and also dependent on the individual variations within our species."

 

Do you still completely agree? ????

[mauGR1]

7 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Ah! I missed out an essential word in my comment. Here's what I should have written.

 

"It's rational and logical that everything we think, observe, feel, hear, taste, smell, and experience, represents an interpretation which is dependent upon, and influenced by the characteristics of our species, Homo Sapiens Sapiens,  and also dependent on the individual variations within our species."

 

Do you still completely agree? ????

I am confident that 2 plus 2 equals 4 in other worlds and for other more or less evolved species, absolute truths exist.

[Tagged]

10 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

I am confident that 2 plus 2 equals 4 in other worlds and for other more or less evolved species, absolute truths exist.

Yes, physics in nature is a law of the nature ???????? A tree needs water if not it die, and so on. 

 

thats an absolute truth, and you are right. when I say there is no absolute truth Im talking more about abstract truth, where our beliefs become a truth. 

 

There is no god, and there is a god is an example of abstract truth. 

[Tagged]

36 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Why do non believers keep coming up with silly questions that they know can't be answered? If they don't believe I don't know why they even come on here given the topic is "do you believe ......................", and not "how many off topic silly questions can you come up with".

There is an open thread where also non believers is invited I believe? Why you so annoyed all the time? 

[mauGR1]

9 minutes ago, Tagged said:

Yes, physics in nature is a law of the nature ???????? A tree needs water if not it die, and so on. 

 

thats an absolute truth, and you are right. when I say there is no absolute truth Im talking more about abstract truth, where our beliefs become a truth. 

 

There is no god, and there is a god is an example of abstract truth. 

 Although we quite agree on principle, I would say "relative" truths, or "temporary" truths.

I hope i don't sound pedantic here, it's just for the sake of clarity of speech ????

[mauGR1]

51 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Why do non believers keep coming up with silly questions that they know can't be answered? If they don't believe I don't know why they even come on here given the topic is "do you believe ......................", and not "how many off topic silly questions can you come up with".

Most of the times I have the same feeling about non-believers and silly questions and arguments, but this time, @transam's question is not so silly.

According to theosophists and anthroposophists we have been created as sexless being, ant the gender divide came as a latter evolution.

Just don't ask me for any evidence ????

[Mike Teavee]

13 hours ago, transam said:

Not so sure, I mean, why did "God" give me, you, and all males 2 nipples that do sod all. 

Strange that, BUT, not strange to believers because they will come back with a reason....????

Agnostic/Negative Atheist here but that's an easy one...

 

Men have nipples because they develop in the womb before the Y chromosome starts to change the way our bodies develop.

 

Or to put it another way... At the point nipples start to develop we're neither male or female... a bit like Tran Sam (Sorry, I couldn't resist ????)