Do you believe in God and why

[mauGR1]

13 minutes ago, Skeptic7 said:

I'll try to explain why you almost always get confused face. Starting with the obvious...your last statement (sentence) is preposterous. 

 

Now on to the obscure. Which brings another serious question. How can things "coexist" in different realities or realms? Even adding the words "states of" render coexisting impossible...does it not? Maybe they can, but an example would help. To be clear...looking for an explanation, not an argument. 

Well, for me, having experienced altered states of consciousness,  and I'm not referring specifically to drugs and the such, it's just obvious. 

Yet, I think I can understand your point of view, and i admit that it's difficult,  if not impossible for me to explain "how" matter is a projection of the spirit, so i will add a quote , which might or might not be useful to you:

 

"We must, however, be clear that all that makes itself visible to our eyes derives from the spirit. There is no material thing that does not have a spiritual basis.

Now for a more frequently-used analogy. A child shows us some ice. We say, “This is water in another form.” The child will then say, “You say that it is water but yet it is ice.” Whereupon we will say, “You do not know how water becomes ice.” So it is for him who does not know that matter is condensed spirit."

[Skeptic7]

50 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Well, for me, having experienced altered states of consciousness,  and I'm not referring specifically to drugs and the such, it's just obvious. 

Yet, I think I can understand your point of view, and i admit that it's difficult,  if not impossible for me to explain "how" matter is a projection of the spirit, so i will add a quote , which might or might not be useful to you:

 

"We must, however, be clear that all that makes itself visible to our eyes derives from the spirit. There is no material thing that does not have a spiritual basis.

Now for a more frequently-used analogy. A child shows us some ice. We say, “This is water in another form.” The child will then say, “You say that it is water but yet it is ice.” Whereupon we will say, “You do not know how water becomes ice.” So it is for him who does not know that matter is condensed spirit."

Appreciate the honest and civil answer. I like it, but once again derailed by the last sentence. Any 6th grader knows the basics of the 3 states of water. Although H2O is arguably unique, it's not spiritual...just basic chemistry. Also in basic chemistry, the 3 main states of matter are either solid, liquid or gas Water is matter. Although water is unique in that it's the only substance which commonly exists in all 3 states. Still nothing "spiritual" about it and is well understood and easily explained. 

 

This 3 states of water analogy is a fave of the religious and spiritual alike. It's often been an effective Gambit, as it takes many people by surprise. That is until they have time to actually gather their thoughts and think about it. Nowadays it's just overused and tired. 

[mauGR1]

34 minutes ago, Skeptic7 said:

Still nothing "spiritual" about it and is well understood and easily explained. 

If it was spiritual,  you would not see or hear it.

I hope you understand that's just an analogy. 

As a personal curiosity,  how would you explain colors to a blind person?

[Skeptic7]

49 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

If it was spiritual,  you would not see or hear it.

I hope you understand that's just an analogy. 

As a personal curiosity,  how would you explain colors to a blind person?

In answer to your query...i haven't a clue. 

[mauGR1]

10 minutes ago, Skeptic7 said:

In answer to your query...i haven't a clue. 

Ok, it's just an analogy to explain how difficult is to prove the existence of the spirit to those who cannot perceive it.

Another analogy ?

Of course you identify with your physical body , but also with your dreams, your thoughts, your set of morals.

Now, if one hits your body, you feel a physical pain, if one offends your morals, you'll feel pain in your soul.

Does your soul exist or not ?

[Sunmaster]

You guys have become so polite, it's almost disgusting.  ????????

 

 

[Skeptic7]

8 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

Ok, it's just an analogy to explain how difficult is to prove the existence of the spirit to those who cannot perceive it.

Another analogy ?

Of course you identify with your physical body , but also with your dreams, your thoughts, your set of morals.

Now, if one hits your body, you feel a physical pain, if one offends your morals, you'll feel pain in your soul.

Does your soul exist or not ?

I reject both your premises and definitions. As we well know, this is the norm when "materialism" meets "mysticism". Also the guerrilla use of words like "soul" for simple emotions and assuming it will be acceptable. 

 

In answer to your query...No.

[mauGR1]

1 hour ago, Skeptic7 said:

I reject both your premises and definitions. As we well know, this is the norm when "materialism" meets "mysticism". Also the guerrilla use of words like "soul" for simple emotions and assuming it will be acceptable. 

 

In answer to your query...No.

That's interesting. 

What you mean for "the guerrilla " ?

[Skeptic7]

55 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

That's interesting. 

What you mean for "the guerrilla " ?

Well as an adjective here...inserting unusual words to gain attention and favor for an idea or narrative. 

 

When opposing views can't even agree on terms...it's extremely difficult to have a productive debate. Civil yes, but our views are so vastly different and diametrically opposed that IMO...impossible. 

 

It's still interesting and fun, so let's see how the thread evolves from here. 

[canthai55]

[mauGR1]

38 minutes ago, canthai55 said:

Do you really believe that Buddha said those exact words, accurately translated from Sanskrit or Hindi, when the scriptures were not even existing, or confined to a small elite of Brahmins.  

.. or perhaps you justt like the thought expressed.. 

Which is a paradox btw...

And do you think that adding one of the several artistic renditions of the Buddha ( I suppose he's Sakhiamuni Buddha) makes it more credible?

Imho, "question everything " sums it up pretty nicely.

 

[canthai55]

It was a quote - used to express an idea.

Nothing else.

The rest is in your mind - or a product of your imagination.

Kinda like God I guess ...

[mauGR1]

2 hours ago, Skeptic7 said:

It's still interesting and fun, so let's see how the thread evolves from here. 

Btw, i have to say that i don't consider myself a "believer " in a strict sense.

..perhaps 50% ????

I am born cynical apparently, and, should I discover one day that :" I don't really believe in anything ", i would not be really surprised. 

[mauGR1]

24 minutes ago, canthai55 said:

It was a quote - used to express an idea.

Nothing else.

The rest is in your mind - or a product of your imagination.

Kinda like God I guess ...

Actually it's an interesting variation of the "liar paradox ' , which is probably as ancient as humans.

Here's a definition:

philosophy and logic, the classical liar paradox or liar's paradox or antinomy of the liar is the statement of a liar that they are lying: for instance, declaring that "I am lying". If the liar is indeed lying, then the liar is telling the truth, which means the liar just lied.

[canthai55]

We are born Alone.

We die Alone.

Only by creating the illusion of love and friendship can we convince ourselves that we are not alone.

[thaibeachlovers]

3 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

Imho, "question everything " sums it up pretty nicely.

Seems that a lot of people never question anything these days, especially if it comes from "authority". IMO it's leading to a lot of abuse of power by the authorities.

 

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

Btw, i have to say that i don't consider myself a "believer " in a strict sense.

..perhaps 50% ????

I am born cynical apparently, and, should I discover one day that :" I don't really believe in anything ", i would not be really surprised. 

I believe that a lot of what is around is rightly described as BS. Depending on the occupation of a person is whether they lie a lot or a little.

 

Re "believer", given my "road to Damascus" moment I have no choice but to believe, but that doesn't mean I have to be religious. It doesn't even mean I have to live differently, given I was never a really bad person before. Not so much a sinner, as sinned against.

 

[thaibeachlovers]

5 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

That's interesting. 

What you mean for "the guerrilla " ?

I wonder what he considers to be a "soul". IMO it's the spark of life that allows a clump of organs to be sentient. IMO if we didn't have a soul, we'd wouldn't be alive.

Perhaps species like bees or ants have a collective soul.

[mauGR1]

4 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I believe that a lot of what is around is rightly described as BS. Depending on the occupation of a person is whether they lie a lot or a little.

 

Re "believer", given my "road to Damascus" moment I have no choice but to believe, but that doesn't mean I have to be religious. It doesn't even mean I have to live differently, given I was never a really bad person before. Not so much a sinner, as sinned against.

 

The problem with words is that one can be easily misunderstood,  and one can misunderstand others.

For that very reason, i tend to trust my inner feelings as much as words that i hear.

Should i go into a church,  or a temple,  I would not trust everyone there to be a believer... perhaps I have more chances to meet a believer by the river, or on the top of a mountain. 

[mauGR1]

4 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I wonder what he considers to be a "soul". IMO it's the spark of life that allows a clump of organs to be sentient. IMO if we didn't have a soul, we'd wouldn't be alive.

Perhaps species like bees or ants have a collective soul.

Actually i regard what I call soul, in this case a synonym of " mind" , as a real body, and the connection between physical body and the spirit. 

But, as i  said a few times,  I'm following the teachings of R.Steiner,  and i think I'm in good hands.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, mauGR1 said:

Actually i regard what I call soul, in this case a synonym of " mind" , as a real body, and the connection between physical body and the spirit. 

But, as i  said a few times,  I'm following the teachings of R.Steiner,  and i think I'm in good hands.

I've read a lot of thoughtful people in my life, but I don't "follow" anyone. I prefer to take what people say with the proverbial pinch of salt and see if I agree given my personal experience.

 

 

[mauGR1]

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I've read a lot of thoughtful people in my life, but I don't "follow" anyone. I prefer to take what people say with the proverbial pinch of salt and see if I agree given my personal experience.

 

 

I tend to agree in general with your stance, and the "pinch of salt" is something which i always regard as necessary for any recipe. 

Nonetheless i have some good reasons for choosing a specific path, as it's like I've been sitting at the crossroads for too long, so to speak.

[thaibeachlovers]

Just now, mauGR1 said:

I tend to agree in general with your stance, and the "pinch of salt" is something which i always regard as necessary for any recipe. 

Nonetheless i have some good reasons for choosing a specific path, as it's like I've been sitting at the crossroads for too long, so to speak.

I used to just go blundering along whichever path seemed the best, usually to my detriment, as when I became a nurse, which was a horrible mistake ( underpaid, overworked and bullied by management ).

These days I generally sit on the crossroads in preference to going down one of them- it's less likely to lead to trauma ( as in getting married, or lending money to "friends" ).

[mauGR1]

17 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I used to just go blundering along whichever path seemed the best, usually to my detriment, as when I became a nurse, which was a horrible mistake ( underpaid, overworked and bullied by management ).

These days I generally sit on the crossroads in preference to going down one of them- it's less likely to lead to trauma ( as in getting married, or lending money to "friends" ).

I did many massive mistakes as well, but i didn't know any better at the time, so i can't really blame myself. 

Blaming others is useless too, they are what they are, and they're suffering too.

As i believe karma is real, everything which happens is food for thought. 

As we say in Italy: " help yourself and the sky will help you".

[canthai55]

[VincentRJ]

22 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

Do you really believe that Buddha said those exact words, accurately translated from Sanskrit or Hindi, when the scriptures were not even existing, or confined to a small elite of Brahmins.  

.. or perhaps you justt like the thought expressed.. 

Which is a paradox btw...

And do you think that adding one of the several artistic renditions of the Buddha ( I suppose he's Sakhiamuni Buddha) makes it more credible?

Imho, "question everything " sums it up pretty nicely.

 

I suspect this is an interpretation of the ideas expressed in the Kalama Sutta which addresses the doubts that a group of villagers had about the various religious ideas which were prevalent in those times.

 

The Kalamas were inhabitants of the town of Kessaputa. They had experienced, before the Buddha arrived, numerous monks, brahmans, and ascetic wanderers, passing through their village and teaching their own doctrine whilst reviling and despising the doctrines of others.
As a result, the villagers were confused and uncertain about which 'teaching' they should follow, or accept as true. When the Buddha arrived at their village, the Kalamas explained their situation and their doubts.

 

The Buddha's response, known as the Kalama Sutta, is found in the Pali Canon. The following article goes into detail.

 

"The instruction of the Kalamas (Kalama Sutta) is justly famous for its encouragement of free inquiry; the spirit of the sutta signifies a teaching that is exempt from fanaticism, bigotry, dogmatism, and intolerance."
 

The criterion for acceptance
10. "Come, Kalamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another's seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, 'The monk is our teacher.'

 

Kalamas, when you yourselves know: 'These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,' enter on and abide in them."

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/soma/wheel008.html

 

Everything that we experience, talk about, or think about has to be first interpreted during the process of 'awareness' or 'consciousness', although often very basic interpretations appears to be instantaneous because they are embedded in our subconscious. An example would be 'seeing a very small house in the landscape'. We don't have to ponder and wonder whether or not the house is a 'Doll's House' because it is so small. We automatically understand that it appears very small because of it's distance from us, which is something all children learn at an early age.

 

Even if writing had existed during the times of the Buddha, and his teachings had been written down, there would still be problems of modern interpretation, especially considering the abstract nature of the subject.
The Kalama Sutta has different, modern interpretations. It doesn't seem to be a popular sutta within the traditional Buddhist religion, which is understandable because the sutta is advising those who have doubts, not to automatically accept what is written in the scriptures, nor accept what a particular, so-called 'authority' claims to be true.

 

It's the type of sutta that mostly appeals to atheists, skeptics, and those who attach great importance to the rigorous process of the 'Methodology of Science'. Those who criticize the sutta claim that it encourages people to believe whatever they like, which I think is a wrong interpretation. In my view, the Kalama Sutta encourages people to 'think for themselves', to question 'so-called authorities', and to also consider their own biases which have influenced their current views.

 

I consider the Kalama Sutta, as interpreted in modern English, to be one of the wisest of the Buddha's teachings, regardless of whether or not the Buddha actually taught that precise message as translated.

[Sunmaster]

17 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

I suspect this is an interpretation of the ideas expressed in the Kalama Sutta which addresses the doubts that a group of villagers had about the various religious ideas which were prevalent in those times.

 

The Kalamas were inhabitants of the town of Kessaputa. They had experienced, before the Buddha arrived, numerous monks, brahmans, and ascetic wanderers, passing through their village and teaching their own doctrine whilst reviling and despising the doctrines of others.
As a result, the villagers were confused and uncertain about which 'teaching' they should follow, or accept as true. When the Buddha arrived at their village, the Kalamas explained their situation and their doubts.

 

The Buddha's response, known as the Kalama Sutta, is found in the Pali Canon. The following article goes into detail.

 

"The instruction of the Kalamas (Kalama Sutta) is justly famous for its encouragement of free inquiry; the spirit of the sutta signifies a teaching that is exempt from fanaticism, bigotry, dogmatism, and intolerance."
 

The criterion for acceptance
10. "Come, Kalamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another's seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, 'The monk is our teacher.'

 

Kalamas, when you yourselves know: 'These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,' enter on and abide in them."

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/soma/wheel008.html

 

Everything that we experience, talk about, or think about has to be first interpreted during the process of 'awareness' or 'consciousness', although often very basic interpretations appears to be instantaneous because they are embedded in our subconscious. An example would be 'seeing a very small house in the landscape'. We don't have to ponder and wonder whether or not the house is a 'Doll's House' because it is so small. We automatically understand that it appears very small because of it's distance from us, which is something all children learn at an early age.

 

Even if writing had existed during the times of the Buddha, and his teachings had been written down, there would still be problems of modern interpretation, especially considering the abstract nature of the subject.
The Kalama Sutta has different, modern interpretations. It doesn't seem to be a popular sutta within the traditional Buddhist religion, which is understandable because the sutta is advising those who have doubts, not to automatically accept what is written in the scriptures, nor accept what a particular, so-called 'authority' claims to be true.

 

It's the type of sutta that mostly appeals to atheists, skeptics, and those who attach great importance to the rigorous process of the 'Methodology of Science'. Those who criticize the sutta claim that it encourages people to believe whatever they like, which I think is a wrong interpretation. In my view, the Kalama Sutta encourages people to 'think for themselves', to question 'so-called authorities', and to also consider their own biases which have influenced their current views.

 

I consider the Kalama Sutta, as interpreted in modern English, to be one of the wisest of the Buddha's teachings, regardless of whether or not the Buddha actually taught that precise message as translated.

So do I as a non-atheist or non-skeptic, and I think I made that abundantly clear in this thread. 

The question is, how far will you go questioning the explanation of what reality is? 

Will you still accept that consciousness is a byproduct of the physical brain because someone told you, or will you try to find out by yourself? 

It's all good and well to like this sutta, but it should be backed up by actions. That's the whole point.

[mauGR1]

39 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

I suspect this is an interpretation of the ideas expressed in the Kalama Sutta which addresses the doubts that a group of villagers had about the various religious ideas which were prevalent in those times.

 

The Kalamas were inhabitants of the town of Kessaputa. They had experienced, before the Buddha arrived, numerous monks, brahmans, and ascetic wanderers, passing through their village and teaching their own doctrine whilst reviling and despising the doctrines of others.
As a result, the villagers were confused and uncertain about which 'teaching' they should follow, or accept as true. When the Buddha arrived at their village, the Kalamas explained their situation and their doubts.

 

The Buddha's response, known as the Kalama Sutta, is found in the Pali Canon. The following article goes into detail.

 

"The instruction of the Kalamas (Kalama Sutta) is justly famous for its encouragement of free inquiry; the spirit of the sutta signifies a teaching that is exempt from fanaticism, bigotry, dogmatism, and intolerance."
 

The criterion for acceptance
10. "Come, Kalamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another's seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, 'The monk is our teacher.'

 

Kalamas, when you yourselves know: 'These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,' enter on and abide in them."

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/soma/wheel008.html

 

Everything that we experience, talk about, or think about has to be first interpreted during the process of 'awareness' or 'consciousness', although often very basic interpretations appears to be instantaneous because they are embedded in our subconscious. An example would be 'seeing a very small house in the landscape'. We don't have to ponder and wonder whether or not the house is a 'Doll's House' because it is so small. We automatically understand that it appears very small because of it's distance from us, which is something all children learn at an early age.

 

Even if writing had existed during the times of the Buddha, and his teachings had been written down, there would still be problems of modern interpretation, especially considering the abstract nature of the subject.
The Kalama Sutta has different, modern interpretations. It doesn't seem to be a popular sutta within the traditional Buddhist religion, which is understandable because the sutta is advising those who have doubts, not to automatically accept what is written in the scriptures, nor accept what a particular, so-called 'authority' claims to be true.

 

It's the type of sutta that mostly appeals to atheists, skeptics, and those who attach great importance to the rigorous process of the 'Methodology of Science'. Those who criticize the sutta claim that it encourages people to believe whatever they like, which I think is a wrong interpretation. In my view, the Kalama Sutta encourages people to 'think for themselves', to question 'so-called authorities', and to also consider their own biases which have influenced their current views.

 

I consider the Kalama Sutta, as interpreted in modern English, to be one of the wisest of the Buddha's teachings, regardless of whether or not the Buddha actually taught that precise message as translated.

I am still of the opinion that "question everything " sums it up.

Incidentally, i like reading  long posts, the thing is, the significant message could be missed among so many words, and some newbie may choose to skip the post entirely. 

Btw, yesterday I was reading on the unmentionable newspaper that a high ranking monk, in charge of a meditation centre, shot dead his neighbor in a fit of rage. It reminded me of you warning against the dangers of medication... or was something in the food? ????

 

[VincentRJ]

1 hour ago, Sunmaster said:

So do I as a non-atheist or non-skeptic, and I think I made that abundantly clear in this thread. 

The question is, how far will you go questioning the explanation of what reality is? 

Will you still accept that consciousness is a byproduct of the physical brain because someone told you, or will you try to find out by yourself? 

It's all good and well to like this sutta, but it should be backed up by actions. That's the whole point.

I already have an explanation of what reality is. It's combination of human characteristics, (that is, our qualities of perception and thought as a species), and our environment (inner and outer) which we observe and perceive using those qualities of perception.

 

As I've mentioned before, if one separates the observed from the observer, there's nothing to be observed. One cannot observe consciousness as a separate entity, because consciousness is always required to observe, experience, and think about anything and everything.
What we can observe, using modern technology, are certain activities in parts of the brain that are always associated with consciousness, and the inactivity in those same areas of the brain when we observe that a person is unconscious.

 

Whilst an individual, during introspective meditation, might achieve a state of awareness without any thoughts arising, that is not a state of 'understanding the nature of consciousness'. It's just a state of awareness with no thoughts. Such awareness with no thoughts might result in an extraordinary sense of peace and calm. However, to then describe that experience as a 'oneness with God' is not only pure speculation and hypothesis, from a scientific perspective, but terribly imprecise without a clear definition of God.

 

If you describe God as 'everything that exists', then an experience of a 'oneness with everything' is just an illusory experience which you find impossible to describe meaningfully and rationally. Do you feel a oneness with a Black Hole, an exploding star, the scientifically hypothesized Dark Matter and Dark Energy, and a oneness with the billions of different species of insects and microbes in the soil? ????

 

A mere handful of soil can contain a greater number of microbes than the entire human population on our planet. Do you feel a oneness with all those microbes that you can't possible be aware of personally, unless you are a microbiologist with sophisticated instruments? ????

[mauGR1]

20 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

you describe God as 'everything that exists', then an experience of a 'oneness with everything' is just an illusory experience which you find impossible to describe meaningfully and rationally. Do you feel a oneness with a Black Hole, an exploding star, the scientifically hypothesized Dark Matter and Dark Energy, and a oneness with the billions of different species of insects and microbes

What imho you fail to understand is that the experience of oneness is beyond logic,  that's why it's so amazing and so difficult to describe. 

Yet, i can easily predict that, if you are so lucky to experience it, you'll also try to explain it, to yourself and others,  in logical terms.