Do you believe in God and why

[Sunmaster]

Putting faith in science is one thing, but this is beyond ridiculous. 
Of course, the president of the Cryonics Institute will claim all sorts of scientific snake oil, and without any bias at all. ????

And then they make fun of people who believe in God.... ????????????????????

[mauGR1]

1 hour ago, VincentRJ said:

I'm retired with no debts, and have a modest income from a superannuation fund which is below the taxation threshold, so I pay no tax. 

 

"Human corpses frozen by cryogenics could be brought back to life in the next decade, an expert has claimed.
Around 350 people worldwide have had their corpse preserved at low temperatures immediately after death in the hope it can be revived in the future.
Dennis Kowalski, president of the Michigan-based Cryonics Institute - an organisation fronting the human freezing process - has now claimed scientists could reanimate one of these corpses within the next ten years."
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5270257/Cryogenics-corpses-brought-10-years.html

 

Looks like you are the one who should try to 'keep up'. ????

Heard that story long time, it's pathetic if you ask me ????

[Peter Denis]

2 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Heard that story long time, it's pathetic if you ask me ????

Freeze Me Up Scotty ????

[VincentRJ]

12 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

Putting faith in science is one thing, but this is beyond ridiculous. 
Of course, the president of the Cryonics Institute will claim all sorts of scientific snake oil, and without any bias at all. ????

And then they make fun of people who believe in God.... ????????????????????

 

Dear me! You missed the analogy. ????

 

I was responding to your following comment: "Why does he say "almost certainly does not exist"? Does he want to keep the door open just in case he's wrong?"

 

In science, the door is always open, although there are certain issues where the high expense of investigation and confirmation cannot be justified, such as confirming whether or not a child can be born with a 'real' memory of a previous life.

 

The analogy is that the chances of a frozen human being brought back to life after several decades, as medical technology advances, is very slim; but probably not as slim as the discovery of a 'real' God that can be confirmed, so your laughter is almost justified, except that most rational people would think that the chances of finding a God are even more remote than the chances of bringing a frozen human back to life, so you should be really laughing your head off at those who claim to know God. ???? ???? ????

 

Just out of interest, scientists have already succeeded in bringing back to life certain very tiny animals which have been frozen for 30 years, such as the Tardigrade which range in size from 0.5mm to 2mm. Read the story.

 

https://phys.org/news/2016-01-tardigrade-brought-life-frozen-years.html
 

[Sunmaster]

28 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

 

Dear me! You missed the analogy. ????

 

I was responding to your following comment: "Why does he say "almost certainly does not exist"? Does he want to keep the door open just in case he's wrong?"

 

In science, the door is always open, although there are certain issues where the high expense of investigation and confirmation cannot be justified, such as confirming whether or not a child can be born with a 'real' memory of a previous life.

 

The analogy is that the chances of a frozen human being brought back to life after several decades, as medical technology advances, is very slim; but probably not as slim as the discovery of a 'real' God that can be confirmed, so your laughter is almost justified, except that most rational people would think that the chances of finding a God are even more remote than the chances of bringing a frozen human back to life, so you should be really laughing your head off at those who claim to know God. ???? ???? ????

 

Just out of interest, scientists have already succeeded in bringing back to life certain very tiny animals which have been frozen for 30 years, such as the Tardigrade which range in size from 0.5mm to 2mm. Read the story.

 

https://phys.org/news/2016-01-tardigrade-brought-life-frozen-years.html
 

I'm still laughing at your clumsy analogy. ????

 

I think it's quite safe to say that throughout history, there have been more people who have found God than dead frozen people resuscitated after 50 years. You can count me as one, so I already beat your odds. ????

 

Most rational people are not rational at all it seems. ???? 

Edited February 12, 2021 by Sunmaster

[sirineou]

2 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

I'm still laughing at your clumsy analogy. ????

 

I think it's quite safe to say that throughout history, there have been more people who have found God than dead frozen people resuscitated after 50 years. I am one, so I already beat your odds. ????

 

Most rational people are not rational at all it seems. ???? 

You were frozen and then resurrected after 50 years? you must have had a hell of shrinkage case????

[mauGR1]

15 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

those who claim to know God. ???? ???? ????

 

Just out of interest,  who would those be ?

And is really "science " to mess with nature for morally debatable achievements, which are totally useless, except for the enrichment of few deranged individuals?

[Sunmaster]

15 minutes ago, sirineou said:

You were frozen and then resurrected after 50 years? you must have had a hell of shrinkage case????

I don't believe in cryogenic resuscitation. It requires too much blind faith in something without any scientific proof. ????

Edited February 12, 2021 by Sunmaster

[thaibeachlovers]

15 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

 

Wow! You've been discussing 'God' matters with so many posts in this long thread, yet you don't know who Richard Dawkins is??

 

"Richard Dawkins is a British ethologist, evolutionary biologist, and author. He is an emeritus fellow of New College, Oxford, and was the University of Oxford's Professor for Public Understanding of Science from 1995 until 2008."

 

"Dawkins is known as an atheist. He is well known for his criticism of creationism and intelligent design. In 'The Blind Watchmaker' (1986), he argues against the watchmaker analogy, an argument for the existence of a supernatural creator based upon the complexity of living organisms. Instead, he describes evolutionary processes as analogous to a blind watchmaker, in that reproduction, mutation, and selection are unguided by any designer. In The God Delusion (2006), Dawkins contends that a supernatural creator almost certainly does not exist and that religious faith is a delusion." 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins

 

Get informed! ????

 

Why would I care about someone that doesn't believe? So well known that I didn't know who he is.

 

If he doesn't have anything to add to the conversation that I can believe why should I waste my time on him?

Edited February 12, 2021 by thaibeachlovers

[thaibeachlovers]

15 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

 Because he's a scientist, and those who understand the 'methodology" of science understand that nothing is 100% certain. 'Climate Change Alarmists' should take note, as well as 'God Believers'. ????

A wise man then. Even he understands that atheists may be wrong.

[fredwiggy]

23 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

I don't believe in cryogenic resuscitation. It requires too much blind faith in something without any scientific proof. ????

And if you're a believer, you know that your soul goes to either heaven or hell after you die. If they brought the body back to life, where would that leave the soul? Frankenstein?

[mauGR1]

32 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

And if you're a believer, you know that your soul goes to either heaven or hell after you die. If they brought the body back to life, where would that leave the soul? Frankenstein?

I slightly disagree with your overly dualistic vision of heaven or hell, apparently the spiritual realms are a bit more complex than that, but I quite agree with you on the principle. 

By now the souls of those frozen bodies must be in some serious distress, not even knowing which way to go,  imho. 

[Sunmaster]

Ok, if we want to explore this possibility, here's my take on it.

The soul consciousness takes on a body to go through unresolved desires and life lessons that enter our lives at predestined times/crossroads. With our "free will" we have the choice to either resolve the issues or ignore them. Once we shed the body, the soul consciousness has either progressed on the path to perfection or is still caught up in the same unresolved desires, forcing it to repeat the cycle until those issues are finally dealt with. 

From the point of view of the soul, this body becomes just like an old, worn down flesh coat. The body identification/ego looses its grip on consciousness, who finally experiences its true identity. There is no point for it in prolonging the suffering associated with being incarnated. Many near death experiences come to my mind, where people who had a glimpse of the other side, say they would have gladly embraced the new reality and only returned because they had some unfinished business on earth. 

Cryogenic resuscitation is an attempt to prolong the body identification (ego preservation) out of a deep seated fear and uncertainty of what the other side will look like, and most likely because those people don't believe in an other side in the first place. There's this unfulfilled desire again, to cling to the body at all costs.

Personally, I'm not afraid of dying. While in this body, I try to play the game as best as I can, but I always keep in mind that life is something much bigger than what I'm experiencing right now. Trying to stay in this body as long as possible, even to the extend to freeze it in the hope of somehow coming back to it, is frankly a bit sad. It is exactly that mindset of desire and body identification that will make you come back again and again. It's like that one guy in the Matrix film, who has awoken from the Matrix, but then sold out his friends to go back into it, because he missed the taste of the dream-steak and his worry-free dream-life.
 

 

[Sunmaster]

4 hours ago, fredwiggy said:

And if you're a believer, you know that your soul goes to either heaven or hell after you die. If they brought the body back to life, where would that leave the soul? Frankenstein?

If I were a believer in the Christian dogma, I would believe that, yes. 
But I'm not.

[Tagged]

If there is a soul, it is connected to the "big thing", and we are one. No more individuality.

 

However I believe in DNA memory that we pass on to next generation, if you have kids. If not, you vanish like you never lived! Dust to dust, but we spread our genes every day in other ways, so who knows? A fruit or vegetable or a stake you eat, can contain parts of  my dna ????

 

Its a good story @Sunmaster both parts of hunduism and buddhism as well Matrix, but still something I believe we wish and want to be the truth. Even so many claim to know it is the truth, and also claim to have felt and seen the proof. 

[mauGR1]

1 hour ago, Sunmaster said:

If I were a believer in the Christian dogma, I would believe that, yes. 
But I'm not.

I believe that the dogma of the eternal damnation is false, and gullible anyone who believes it.

The parable of the prodigal son, which I consider one of the milestones of real Christianity is very clear... you can do many mistakes,  but the Father will forgive all,  and give you another chance.

Another parable about the shepherd going out in the night to recover the lost sheep has the same meaning. 

I wish that some self-proclaimed Christian's would read the holy texts with more attention,  instead of repeating "bible, bible" like parrots. 

God gave us the precious  gift of inquisitive mind, let's not  waste it.

[VincentRJ]

On 2/13/2021 at 1:51 PM, Sunmaster said:

Ok, if we want to explore this possibility, here's my take on it.

Cryogenic resuscitation is an attempt to prolong the body identification (ego preservation) out of a deep seated fear and uncertainty of what the other side will look like, and most likely because those people don't believe in an other side in the first place. There's this unfulfilled desire again, to cling to the body at all costs.
 

That might be the motive for some people, but how is that different from spending thousands of dollars on hospitalization and expensive operations such as kidney or heart transplants in order to prolong one's life?

 

Some of us, including me, have a natural curiosity and interest in the progress of life, the progress of science and technology, our history on this planet, and the state of affairs that could exist in the future.

 

I would find it fascinating to wake up in a couple of hundred years time and observe how the organization of human activity had changed during that period, and that perhaps people were frequently going on holiday to the planet Mars, or circling the Earth in a 5 star satellite-hotel, taking photos with their gigapixel cameras and lightweight, nanotechnology, 5,000 mm telephoto lenses. ????

 

The following article provides an overview of the current Cryonic systems. What is particularly relevant is the claim that the current state of the technology is able to cryopreserve the body for 'thousands of years'. If that's true, that leaves plenty of time for the development of medical techniques to successfully rejuvenate the frozen brain without causing irreparable damage.

 

https://www.jscisociety.com/article.asp?issn=0974-5009;year=2017;volume=44;issue=2;spage=63;epage=66;aulast=Shanbhag#ft10
 

"....existing cryonics systems have arrangements to cryopreserve the body for as long as thousands of years to wait for the emergence of advanced technology to revive the cryopreserved body.
Although physical damage may occur to cadavers during the preserving process, due to extreme low temperature and toxic chemicals, cryonicists believe that future advances in the science and technology can nullify this adverse effect. Through cryopreservation, a reversible and stable biological state can be achieved in animals and humans."

 

"Conclusion
Cryonics is nothing but a 'science based on extension of the current science and technology'. Although it speculates and heavily depends on success of future science and medical advances, it does seem to have some value of benefit of continued living in the future. At present, the alternative to cryonics after death is burial or cremation, which obviously is useless. Cryonics should be considered, appreciated, and viewed as a form of life support to prolong life and fight death. More support and research opportunities should be offered to the field of cryonics to realize its full potential."

[Peter Denis]

32 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

That might be the motive for some people, but how is that different from spending thousands of dollars on hospitalization and expensive operations such as kidney or heart transplants in order to prolong one's life?

...

I am entirely with @Sunmaster on this issue.

Cryogenic resuscitation is an attempt to prolong the body identification (ego preservation) out of a deep seated fear and uncertainty of what the other side will look like, and most likely because those people don't believe in an other side in the first place. There's this unfulfilled desire again, to cling to the body at all costs.

But this does not mean that you should not take good care of your body.  After all your body is the temple of your soul, and you need it on your earthly journey.  

= = = = =

The issue of organ transplants is also an interesting one from an esoteric point of view.  As your 'I' is reflected in every part of your body (your ears, iris, feet, hands, ...), also your organs are totally unique for you.  So transplanting a part of another person's 'I' in your own body (or a blood transfusion) will have 'soul' consequences and create a deep connection.

Note that that many allegorical events described in the Bible are taken literally by the Believers (e.g. the Genesis book of creation), and vice versa.  The New Testament describes how Jesus during the Last Supper offered the Apostles his 'body and blood'.  Of course, this is 'explained' by the scribes as a metaphorical act, while it is - from a spiritual point of view - far more plausible that this is what happened literally.  E.g. also the 'blood-exchange' rituals conducted by many tribes to create a blood-brother band.

[VincentRJ]

3 hours ago, Peter Denis said:

I am entirely with @Sunmaster on this issue.

But this does not mean that you should not take good care of your body.  After all your body is the temple of your soul, and you need it on your earthly journey.  

 

The issue of organ transplants is also an interesting one from an esoteric point of view.  As your 'I' is reflected in every part of your body (your ears, iris, feet, hands, ...), also your organs are totally unique for you.  So transplanting a part of another person's 'I' in your own body (or a blood transfusion) will have 'soul' consequences and create a deep connection.

 

I take good care of my body and health in order to reduce the risk of future discomfort, immobility and suffering due to usually preventable disorders that, for many people, result from an unhealthy lifestyle.

 

Just like the Buddha, I don't believe in a permanent 'I', 'soul' or 'self'. I have no fear whatsoever of what might happen to 'me' after I die because I understand there is no real 'I', 'self' or 'Ego'. How to avoid fear, worry, anxiety, and suffering was the core teaching of the Buddha.

 

If I were to agree to have my body cryogenically frozen upon my death, I would want a privacy agreement so that I would not be bombarded by journalists when successfully brought back to life. ????

[Sunmaster]

13 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

I take good care of my body and health in order to reduce the risk of future discomfort, immobility and suffering due to usually preventable disorders that, for many people, result from an unhealthy lifestyle.

 

Just like the Buddha, I don't believe in a permanent 'I', 'soul' or 'self'. I have no fear whatsoever of what might happen to 'me' after I die because I understand there is no real 'I', 'self' or 'Ego'. How to avoid fear, worry, anxiety, and suffering was the core teaching of the Buddha.

 

If I were to agree to have my body cryogenically frozen upon my death, I would want a privacy agreement so that I would not be bombarded by journalists when successfully brought back to life. ????

“There is no self” is the granddaddy of fake Buddhist quotes. It has survived so long because of its superficial resemblance to the teaching on anatta, or not-self, which was one of the Buddha’s tools for putting an end to clinging. Even though he neither affirmed nor denied the existence of a self, he did talk of the process by which the mind creates many senses of self—what he called “I-making” and “my-making”—as it pursues its desires.

In other words, he focused on the karma of selfing. Because clinging lies at the heart of suffering, and because there’s clinging in each sense of self, he advised using the perception of not-self as a strategy to dismantle that clinging. Whenever you see yourself identifying with anything stressful and inconstant, you remind yourself that it’s not-self: not worth clinging to, not worth calling your self (SN 22.59). This helps you let go of it. When you do this thoroughly enough, it can lead to awakening. In this way, the not-self teaching is an answer—not to the question of whether there’s a self, but to the question that the Buddha said lies at the heart of discernment: “What, when I do it, will lead to my long-term welfare and happiness?” (MN 135). You find true happiness by letting go. 

https://tricycle.org/magazine/there-no-self/

[Peter Denis]

19 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

...

Just like the Buddha, I don't believe in a permanent 'I', 'soul' or 'self'. I have no fear whatsoever of what might happen to 'me' after I die because I understand there is no real 'I', 'self' or 'Ego'. How to avoid fear, worry, anxiety, and suffering was the core teaching of the Buddha.

...

Is there an Eternal Soul?

According to the Venerable K. Sri Dhammananda Maha Thera belief in an eternal soul is a misconception of the human consciousness.

Those who believe in the existence of a soul are not in a position to explain what and where it is. The Buddha's advice is not to waste our time over this unnecessary speculation and devote our time to strive for our salvation. When we have attained perfection then we will be able to realize whether there is a soul or not.

A story to illustrate this point:

 

A wandering ascetic named Vacchagotta asked the Buddha whether there was an Atman (self) or not. 

Vacchagotta comes to the Buddha and asks:

'Venerable Gotama, is there an Atman?

The Buddha is silent.

'Then Venerable Gotama, is there no Atman?

Again the Buddha is silent.

Vacchagotta gets up and goes away.

After the ascetic has left, Ananda asks the Buddha why He did not answer Vacchagotta's question. The Buddha explains His position:

'Ananda, when asked by Vacchagotta, the Wanderer: 'Is there a Self?, if I had answered: 'There is a Self'. Then, Ananda, that would be siding with those recluses and brahmanas who hold the eternalist theory (sassata-vada).'

'And Ananda, when asked by the Wanderer: 'Is there no Self?, if I had answered: 'There is no Self', then that would be siding with those recluses and brahmanas who hold the annihilationist theory (uccedavada)'.

'Again, Ananda, when asked by Vacchagotta: 'Is there a Self? If I had answered: 'There is a Self', would that be in accordance with my knowledge that all dhammas are without Self?

'Surely not, Sir.'

'And again, Ananda, when asked by the Wanderer: 'Is there no Self?', if I had answered: 'There is no Self', then that would have created a greater confusion in the already confused Vacchagotta. For he would have thought: Formerly indeed I had an Atman (Self), but now I haven't got one.' (Samyutta Nikaya).

The Buddha regarded soul-speculation as useless and illusory. He once said, 'Only through ignorance and delusion do men indulge in the dream that their souls are separate and self-existing entities. Their heart still clings to Self. They are anxious about heaven and they seek the pleasure of Self in heaven. Thus they cannot see the bliss of righteousness and the immortality of truth.' Selfish ideas appear in man's mind due to his conception of Self and craving for existence.

[VincentRJ]

5 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

“There is no self” is the granddaddy of fake Buddhist quotes. 

Wow! What a response from both you and Peter Denis, all apparently based on a 'complete ignoring' of one crucial word in my post. ????

 

This is what I wrote: 'I don't believe in a permanent 'I', 'soul' or 'self'. Do you get the significance of the word 'permanent'? A major Buddhist precept is that 'nothing is permanent'.

 

Of course there has to be a sense of 'self' in order for normal, everyday activities to occur.
The 'Self' is a mental construct that, at a basic level, enables us to identify with other people and be certain that the arm, for example, which is attached to our body, is our arm and not someone else's arm.

 

However, the problem with 'mental constructs' is that they often diverge from reality and result in fictitious problems. For example, some people have an unjustified low 'self esteem' and confidence, which is described as an Inferiority Complex, and others can have an exaggerated sense of self confidence and insight, described as a Superiority Complex, which is sometimes so great that they believe they actually know 'God'. ????

 

However, I would agree that it is difficult to be certain about many Buddhist views on many issues because there are so many different interpretations of the many texts. The Pali Canon, for example, is as large as, or even larger than, a 24 volume set of the Britannica Encyclopedia.

 

Tibetan Buddhism, or Mahayana, has many interpretations that differ from Hinayana (the Pali Canon). Zen Buddhism and Chinese Buddhism also differ on many aspects.

 

Ultimately, one should only accept what makes sense. At least, that's my advice.

[pedro01]

Like everyone else on planet earth, I don't know what happens when we die and I dont know how the universe was created. 

 

I am fine with the big bang, not sure about evolution but it beats 'dinosaurs were put there to test our faith'. I've read the blind watchmaker but the issue with Dawkins and Stephen Fry is that they both think they have the answers and they don't. Evolution theory can be wrong at the same time God doesn't exist and vice-versa. 

 

Anyway, all this stuff in the unuverse got here somehow and it's convenient to say God did it - but then who made God? Was he not here 1 day but was the next? Of course, you could say that God exists outside of time but his atoms still come from somewhere.

 

Whatever you say created something must have been created itself. Nobody seems to be able to answer that. 

 

So, I am agnostic. Unlike Dawkins and Fry, I don't look down on anyone for their beliefs and I also don't beleive that any of the worlds major religions have it right. I would guess that if there was a creator, we couldn't possibly comprehend its form or function 

[sirineou]

1 hour ago, pedro01 said:

Like everyone else on planet earth, I don't know what happens when we die and I dont know how the universe was created. 

 

I am fine with the big bang, not sure about evolution but it beats 'dinosaurs were put there to test our faith'. I've read the blind watchmaker but the issue with Dawkins and Stephen Fry is that they both think they have the answers and they don't. Evolution theory can be wrong at the same time God doesn't exist and vice-versa. 

 

Anyway, all this stuff in the unuverse got here somehow and it's convenient to say God did it - but then who made God? Was he not here 1 day but was the next? Of course, you could say that God exists outside of time but his atoms still come from somewhere.

 

Whatever you say created something must have been created itself. Nobody seems to be able to answer that. 

 

So, I am agnostic. Unlike Dawkins and Fry, I don't look down on anyone for their beliefs and I also don't beleive that any of the worlds major religions have it right. I would guess that if there was a creator, we couldn't possibly comprehend its form or function 

Of course we know what happens when we die. First we become somewhat sensatory,  don't smell too good, and become unpopular at parties, then a political disagreement develops between all the components  of your body and they develop a strong secessionist movement resulting in all of them going their separate way. Eventually all this components rejoin  other unions and form different political parties. 

[pedro01]

14 minutes ago, sirineou said:

Of course we know what happens when we die. First we become somewhat sensatory,  don't smell too good, and become unpopular at parties, then a political disagreement develops between all the components  of your body and they develop a strong secessionist movement resulting in all of them going their separate way. Eventually all this components rejoin  other unions and form different political parties. 

lol. Indeed. 

 

In fact, you inspired me to coin a phrase for this... 

 

'The war of spoils' 

 

Well that's how it feels in my family. Its not unusual to be requiring police and/or medical assistance (sometimes of the intensive nature) at the after party of any Christening, Wedding, Funeral  or 'Early Release On Probation' ceremony. 

[Fat is a type of crazy]

1 hour ago, pedro01 said:

Like everyone else on planet earth, I don't know what happens when we die and I dont know how the universe was created. 

 

I am fine with the big bang, not sure about evolution but it beats 'dinosaurs were put there to test our faith'. I've read the blind watchmaker but the issue with Dawkins and Stephen Fry is that they both think they have the answers and they don't. Evolution theory can be wrong at the same time God doesn't exist and vice-versa. 

 

Anyway, all this stuff in the unuverse got here somehow and it's convenient to say God did it - but then who made God? Was he not here 1 day but was the next? Of course, you could say that God exists outside of time but his atoms still come from somewhere.

 

Whatever you say created something must have been created itself. Nobody seems to be able to answer that. 

 

So, I am agnostic. Unlike Dawkins and Fry, I don't look down on anyone for their beliefs and I also don't beleive that any of the worlds major religions have it right. I would guess that if there was a creator, we couldn't possibly comprehend its form or function 

I think you are a bit tough on Dawkins. He considers that belief in god is often caused by a form of delusion and it is fascinating to work through that argument as to why people may choose to believe in god .

I have seen him do lots of interviews and I don't see that he looks down on people or thinks he has all the answers beyond what he can take from science.

I have bigger problems with those who say they have found god and have a certain smugness. Believers should be able to freely do their thing, of course,  but if they show smugness - i.e. you just haven't experienced what I have experienced type stuff  -  I like those people to really flesh out how they experience god and show why it is not likely to be a form of delusion. 

Edited February 17, 2021 by Fat is a type of crazy

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, pedro01 said:

Anyway, all this stuff in the unuverse got here somehow and it's convenient to say God did it - but then who made God? Was he not here 1 day but was the next? Of course, you could say that God exists outside of time but his atoms still come from somewhere.

Indeed, the "where did God come from" is a hard one to answer, but whatever, I doubt that God is composed of atoms, as that would imply that God is finite as even atoms can cease to be. IMO God is pure energy without form and invests everything in the universe.

[thaibeachlovers]

4 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

I like those people to really flesh out how they experience god and show why it is not likely to be a form of delusion. 

Given everyone's experience of God is individual, describing it would be as complicated as trying to explain how one feels when they are "in love".

To come back to an old favourite of mine, I consider people that believe in "Romantic Love" to have a form of delusion, but I doubt many would agree with that, as most people seem to believe in it- certainly pop singers make a good living from singing about it, and Mills and Boon sell lots of books about it.

[mauGR1]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Given everyone's experience of God is individual, describing it would be as complicated as trying to explain how one feels when they are "in love".

To come back to an old favourite of mine, I consider people that believe in "Romantic Love" to have a form of delusion, but I doubt many would agree with that, as most people seem to believe in it- certainly pop singers make a good living from singing about it, and Mills and Boon sell lots of books about it.

Yesterday I was thinking about starting a thread about romantic love.

It's not just a "fav. of yours",  but it can be an interesting discussion for most of us.

Comparing it to the belief in God it's not wrong either, but spotting the differences among various beliefs, which may turn into delusions, can be indeed a good exercise. 

..Provided that getting rid of illusions is beneficial,  of course,  coz many, if not most, enjoy different types and degrees of illusions...

Saying it shortly, I believe that romantic love exists since the beginning as a force of nature, a clever trick to ensure we keep on reproducing, thus developing both physically and spiritually. 

Of course, much more can be said.

Edited February 18, 2021 by mauGR1

[mauGR1]

On 2/16/2021 at 7:49 PM, VincentRJ said:

This is what I wrote: 'I don't believe in a permanent 'I', 'soul' or 'self'. Do you get the significance of the word 'permanent'? A major Buddhist precept is that 'nothing is permanent

It would be interesting to hear the exact words by Buddha on this subject,  in the original language. 

If "nothing " doesn't exist by definition,  how can we even talk about "nothing".. ? And even following you on this path of talking about nothing, could you provide some evidence that everything is impermanent, or perhaps you should better admit that we are not in a position to claim that "everything is impermanent ".

I would rather say that "everything " is permanent and impermanent at the same time... as what we call reality can be described as an "array of realities " with various degrees of truths, which can last different amounts of time.