No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

For intuitive and critical discussions, from spirituality to theological doctrines. Fair warning: because the subject matter is personal, moderation is strict.

Moderator: Dan~

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Serendipper » Fri Mar 30, 2018 3:28 pm

A Shieldmaiden wrote:Do you know of anything that is superior to your mind? and

Superior in what way? My view is it's impossible to have an advantage without also a disadvantage therefore there is no such thing as overall superiority. For instance your mind may be superior to my mind in certain ways and vice versa, but neither of us can be overall superior to the other.

Do you honestly believe that any power or force which is inferior to your mind could have produced you?

Well, I was once a baby and now I'm not, so was I inferior then? If so, how did I get from baby to adult (inferior to superior)? How does a forest of trees come from one acorn?
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1129
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby A Shieldmaiden » Sat Mar 31, 2018 1:52 am

Serendipper wrote:

Superior in what way? My view is it's impossible to have an advantage without also a disadvantage therefore there is no such thing as overall superiority. For instance your mind may be superior to my mind in certain ways and vice versa, but neither of us can be overall superior to the other.


Indeed.

Well, I was once a baby and now I'm not, so was I inferior then? If so, how did I get from baby to adult (inferior to superior)? How does a forest of trees come from one acorn?


Look at the stars in the sky, the entire universe with its galaxies, are they nothing short of spectacular, yet they don't have a mind, they cannot think or reason or plan as you do. Perhaps you believe "this all just happened"? No master mind thought out and planned that complicated universe, brought it into being, you said yourself neither of us can be overall superior to the other. Wherever laws exist, there must of necessity be a lawmaker. The mind can invent and gather knowledge, sends signals to the moon, have the ability to annihilate all life from earth, but, there remains one thing no man ever has been or ever will be able to do. He cannot build or create anything that is more intelligent than himself.
The man that walks his own road, walks alone

Old Norse Proverb
User avatar
A Shieldmaiden
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1972
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 6:13 am

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Serendipper » Sat Mar 31, 2018 2:37 am

A Shieldmaiden wrote:Look at the stars in the sky, the entire universe with its galaxies, are they nothing short of spectacular, yet they don't have a mind, they cannot think or reason or plan as you do.

I'm not sure.

Image

Perhaps you believe "this all just happened"?

No, life can't come from nonlife.

master mind thought out and planned that complicated universe,

I have a hard time believing that too.

Wherever laws exist, there must of necessity be a lawmaker.

But there are no laws. There are just regular happenings.

The mind can invent and gather knowledge, sends signals to the moon, have the ability to annihilate all life from earth, but, there remains one thing no man ever has been or ever will be able to do. He cannot build or create anything that is more intelligent than himself.

What do you mean by "build or create"? What do you mean by intelligent? Computers can compare 3 billion faces in 1 second.

If there is a monarchical god, how do you know you identified the right one?
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1129
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby A Shieldmaiden » Sat Mar 31, 2018 7:29 am

Serendipper wrote:
But there are no laws. There are just regular happenings.


Accidental Truths vs. Laws of Nature.

What do you mean by "build or create"? What do you mean by intelligent? Computers can compare 3 billion faces in 1 second.


Computers. Built and created by an intelligent woman/man.

If there is a monarchical god, how do you know you identified the right one?


Entirely your decision. God gave you free will to decide for yourself.
The man that walks his own road, walks alone

Old Norse Proverb
User avatar
A Shieldmaiden
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1972
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 6:13 am

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Serendipper » Sat Mar 31, 2018 3:20 pm

A Shieldmaiden wrote:Serendipper wrote:
But there are no laws. There are just regular happenings.

Accidental Truths vs. Laws of Nature.

"Accidental" seems too much like a mistake. I'd say serendipitous. "Truths" seem too much like laws. I'd say observed regularities.

What do you mean by "build or create"? What do you mean by intelligent? Computers can compare 3 billion faces in 1 second.

Computers. Built and created by an intelligent woman/man.

But you said "there remains one thing no man ever has been or ever will be able to do. He cannot build or create anything that is more intelligent than himself."

If there is a monarchical god, how do you know you identified the right one?

Entirely your decision. God gave you free will to decide for yourself.




We're groping around in the dark looking for something to cling to that will save us, so what if we stumble upon or are born into the wrong religion?

How can you say we have freewill when we're blind? How can you make a choice when you can't see to decide?
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1129
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby A Shieldmaiden » Sun Apr 01, 2018 2:14 am

Serendipper wrote"
What do you mean by "build or create"? What do you mean by intelligent? Computers can compare 3 billion faces in 1 second.

SM wrote"
Computers. Built and created by an intelligent woman/man.

Serendipper wrote:
But you said "there remains one thing no man ever has been or ever will be able to do. He cannot build or create anything that is more intelligent than himself."


Computers do not have feelings e.g. love, fear, anger etc, this fuels ambition and creativity and advances civilization.

Serendipper wrote:

We're groping around in the dark looking for something to cling to that will save us, so what if we stumble upon or are born into the wrong religion?

How can you say we have freewill when we're blind? How can you make a choice when you can't see to decide?


We?

Jesus declared that even those who “knew not” the Lord’s will, but did things “worthy” of condemnation, will be punished by the returning Master (Luke 48).
The man that walks his own road, walks alone

Old Norse Proverb
User avatar
A Shieldmaiden
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1972
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 6:13 am

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby WendyDarling » Sun Apr 01, 2018 3:01 am

What if truth about our origins and what type of beings we are is scattered about in all of the major religions in bits and pieces that need to be assembled to make a coherent explanation?
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 7099
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Serendipper » Sun Apr 01, 2018 3:14 am

A Shieldmaiden wrote:
Serendipper wrote"
What do you mean by "build or create"? What do you mean by intelligent? Computers can compare 3 billion faces in 1 second.

SM wrote"
Computers. Built and created by an intelligent woman/man.

Serendipper wrote:
But you said "there remains one thing no man ever has been or ever will be able to do. He cannot build or create anything that is more intelligent than himself."


Computers do not have feelings e.g. love, fear, anger etc, this fuels ambition and creativity and advances civilization.

Yeah that's true, but I've read that computers can generate art and play music and are projected to take every job known. Oxford and Yale University have estimated the years until all job are gone: https://www.sciencealert.com/experts-th ... f-our-jobs

How do we know if they feel like us? How can we tell if they're just mimicking? How can we tell when a psychopath is mimicking? Are some people just machines? Do some people not have souls? What about animals? Which animals? Bacteria? What about plants?

Serendipper wrote:

We're groping around in the dark looking for something to cling to that will save us, so what if we stumble upon or are born into the wrong religion?

How can you say we have freewill when we're blind? How can you make a choice when you can't see to decide?


We?

Jesus declared that even those who “knew not” the Lord’s will, but did things “worthy” of condemnation, will be punished by the returning Master (Luke 48).

But why is that a basis for your belief? How do you know what the bible says is true?

I can't find Luke 48. What chapter?
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1129
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Serendipper » Sun Apr 01, 2018 3:18 am

WendyDarling wrote:What if truth about our origins and what type of beings we are is scattered about in all of the major religions in bits and pieces that need to be assembled to make a coherent explanation?

That philosophy worked for Bruce Lee with martial arts. He took a little of this and a little of that and made a style that made him famous. That's pretty much what Alan Watts did too.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1129
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby WendyDarling » Sun Apr 01, 2018 3:23 am

Name all the major religions Alan Watts took material from.
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 7099
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Serendipper » Sun Apr 01, 2018 3:56 am

WendyDarling wrote:Name all the major religions Alan Watts took material from.

Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity. (Really not much from Juadaism, just the Yetzer Hara which is the evil inclination or what he calls the element of irreducible rascality.) Nothing on Islam that I've ever heard from him.

He said Buddhism is Hinduism stripped for export.

He surmised 4 models of the universe:

1) Ceramic Model
2) Fully Automatic Model
3) Organic Model
4) Dramatic Model

In the West, the ceramic model came first. That's the potter working the clay. Then in the late 1800s, early 1900s that idea fell out of favor in light of scientific and astronomical discoveries, so they booted God out and kept the rest of the model (fundamental matter is lifeless "clay" that somehow forms itself into life automatically). He asserts that even people who say they believe in God don't really believe because if they really believed they'd be shouting in the streets, but even the Jehovah's Witnesses are polite when they come to the door. So, nobody 'really' believes in the God of the bible, but they think they ought to believe.

In the East, the dramatic model came first, then the same thing happened: they booted the Brahman out and kept the rest of it, which is the organic model.

If anyone can think of other models, that would be great! Plausible models! Not pink unicorns sprinkling pixie dust and the like :P
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1129
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sun Apr 01, 2018 4:48 am

Serendipper wrote:In the West, the ceramic model came first. That's the potter working the clay. Then in the late 1800s, early 1900s that idea fell out of favor in light of scientific and astronomical discoveries, so they booted God out and kept the rest of the model (fundamental matter is lifeless "clay" that somehow forms itself into life automatically).
Who booted God out? Certainly not all Christians or theists.
He asserts that even people who say they believe in God don't really believe because if they really believed they'd be shouting in the streets, but even the Jehovah's Witnesses are polite when they come to the door. So, nobody 'really' believes in the God of the bible, but they think they ought to believe.
Is he really arguing that nobody believes in God? I can't see any basis for that and what's the fleshed out shouting in the streets argument?

In the East, the dramatic model came first, then the same thing happened: they booted the Brahman out and kept the rest of it, which is the organic model.
Again who is they they?
Karpel Tunnel
Thinker
 
Posts: 887
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Serendipper » Sun Apr 01, 2018 5:10 am

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Serendipper wrote:In the West, the ceramic model came first. That's the potter working the clay. Then in the late 1800s, early 1900s that idea fell out of favor in light of scientific and astronomical discoveries, so they booted God out and kept the rest of the model (fundamental matter is lifeless "clay" that somehow forms itself into life automatically).
Who booted God out? Certainly not all Christians or theists.

Popular culture.

He asserts that even people who say they believe in God don't really believe because if they really believed they'd be shouting in the streets, but even the Jehovah's Witnesses are polite when they come to the door. So, nobody 'really' believes in the God of the bible, but they think they ought to believe.
Is he really arguing that nobody believes in God? I can't see any basis for that and what's the fleshed out shouting in the streets argument?

Yes he says people think they ought to believe, but they don't *really* believe. He says if you honestly believed eternal damnation were a danger, you'd be going mad in the streets. I'll see if I can find the video and cue it up.

In the East, the dramatic model came first, then the same thing happened: they booted the Brahman out and kept the rest of it, which is the organic model.
Again who is they they?

Pop culture. It's like an erosion of purity; decadence maybe. I don't believe any of the religions are true to their own teachings.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1129
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Serendipper » Sun Apr 01, 2018 5:19 am

FWD to 8:00 for the "people screaming in the streets part"

Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1129
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby A Shieldmaiden » Sun Apr 01, 2018 5:22 am

Serendipper wrote:
I can't find Luke 48. What chapter?


Luke 12.48
The man that walks his own road, walks alone

Old Norse Proverb
User avatar
A Shieldmaiden
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1972
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 6:13 am

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sun Apr 01, 2018 5:42 am

Serendipper wrote:Popular culture.
But there are many theists. And popular culture includes pagan and pantheist and New Age ideas of God.r

Yes he says people think they ought to believe, but they don't *really* believe. He says if you honestly believed eternal damnation were a danger, you'd be going mad in the streets. I'll see if I can find the video and cue it up.
There is some truth to that, i would guess and things like that used to drive me mad when I was a kid in a not religious household, but then no one believes in science either by that argument. One, all the matter in our bodies gets replaced in whatever number of years it is - that alone should drive any materialist mad. Real contact with other is illusory - given the filters of perception, reconstruction of perception inside the brain from transmitted information type theories of perceiving in science, with all of us 'really' suffering a kind of locked in syndrome, being alone, never having real contact with others - and certainly the upcoming eternal nonexistence threat that science indicates should drive them mad, but does not, and the lack of evidence, in scientific terms, of Good and Evil, putting us in a moral free world - should send some others into street screaming. I mean, anyone believing in science, doesn't really believe in it, by Watt's model, because they should all be screaming in the streets. And the same would hold for Buddhism. A few mystics in each system have faced their ego deaths and since Watts himself was never that disciplined, he never engaged in the kind of long term practices that are considered necessary in buddhism to clear out ego clinging and the rest, he ain't one of those mystic. But let's say he did, through some intuitive non-disciplined method arrive at enlightenment- when did he run around screaming in the streets? He never had that phase, he never believed anything really, then. So how would he know what people would do if they did believe? I think that damns his argument. He is claiming to know what people would do, other people, all of them, if they really believed in Hell, but he never experienced this himself in his Christian phase or in any other phase in relation to the frightening implications of other belief systems.

ALL the major current belief systems collapse under that kind of argument. None of would have real believers. Shamanistic, indigenous ones need not if they have afterlife/reincarnation schemes. I think there is some truth in this. I think people believe in ways that they do not realize, and lack belief or avoid noticing, in ways they do not realize. But I don't think it is useful on the whole since many religions consider the religion itself as offering a way to move towards profound belief from more scattered versions, and this process generally includes some kind of dark night of the soul - a parallel to the screaming in the streets. People tend to think of belief in binary terms, so they deserve Watts' judging their beliefs in binary terms. But it's a bad way to look at beliefs so his error is still an error and a judgment he does not have the experience to justify. Only those who have screamed in the streets and move on to something else get to, and he is not one of them.

Pop culture. It's like an erosion of purity; decadence maybe. I don't believe any of the religions are true to their own teachings.
But that's quite different from saying that no one really believes. Most people in those religions have some kind of conception of a deity and believe in it. Belief is not binary. They believe to various degrees in various contexts, have doubts and likely their beliefs mix paradigms in ways they may not want to notice, but that sums up everyone on earth including atheists, or even realists, in fact any belief group, including trivial beliefs.
Karpel Tunnel
Thinker
 
Posts: 887
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Serendipper » Sun Apr 01, 2018 6:26 am

A Shieldmaiden wrote:Serendipper wrote:
I can't find Luke 48. What chapter?


Luke 12.48

40 Be ye therefore ready also: for the Son of man cometh at an hour when ye think not.
41 Then Peter said unto him, Lord, speakest thou this parable unto us, or even to all?
42 And the Lord said, Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom his lord shall make ruler over his household, to give them their portion of meat in due season?
43 Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing.
44 Of a truth I say unto you, that he will make him ruler over all that he hath.
45 But and if that servant say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidens, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken;
46 The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.
47 And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.
48 But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.


It seems to imply what you said, but why do you believe it is true? No one can do the will of God; that's why Jesus died on the cross. So it's no longer about being a good steward, but having faith. So how do we have faith?

Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

So we hear the word of God and either believe or we don't. So it's a function of how we're put together.

Romans 9

11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)
12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?


There it is plain as day: God makes people to split hell wide open. So where is the choice? The freewill?

Isaiah 45

5 I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:
6 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the Lord, and there is none else.
7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.


Matthew 13

13 The same day went Jesus out of the house, and sat by the sea side.
2 And great multitudes were gathered together unto him, so that he went into a ship, and sat; and the whole multitude stood on the shore.
3 And he spake many things unto them in parables, saying, Behold, a sower went forth to sow;
4 And when he sowed, some seeds fell by the way side, and the fowls came and devoured them up:
5 Some fell upon stony places, where they had not much earth: and forthwith they sprung up, because they had no deepness of earth:
6 And when the sun was up, they were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away.
7 And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprung up, and choked them:
8 But other fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold.
9 Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.


Here it seems to all be about chance: did god, by chance, make you good or evil? No freewill.

"Predestination" and "election" is mentioned a lot, along with allegories.

So there is no choice involved. You preach to call the sheep forth. You don't convert goats to sheep; just call the sheep. Goats are goats and sheep are sheep. Wheat is wheat and tares are burned.

If there is no choice, then how does one effectively practice the religion? If you're chosen, they yay! You're done; nothing else to do. If you're not chosen, then what can you do? Can you make yourself believe if you don't believe?

And on top of that:

Ephesians 2

8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.


That boasting part is important. It cannot be about anything you do or else you could brag about it, be self-righteous and arrogant.

Matthew 7

21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.


The common element between Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism is pride, ego, arrogance, conceit: that is the sin.

The sin of eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was not suddenly becoming aware of the difference between good and evil, but arrogantly presuming you could tell the difference. Because now you're on a righteous crusade for good and a fight against evil and THAT is evil, if anything is.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Alan said "Nothing can be more egotistical than true repentance." From studying all the religions it occurred to him that faith is letting go of all concepts of god and not clinging to anything. Any idea you think you have of god is a "graven image" to cling to in absence of faith.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1129
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Serendipper » Sun Apr 01, 2018 6:56 am

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Serendipper wrote:Popular culture.
But there are many theists. And popular culture includes pagan and pantheist and New Age ideas of God.r

Prevailing pop culture.

Yes he says people think they ought to believe, but they don't *really* believe. He says if you honestly believed eternal damnation were a danger, you'd be going mad in the streets. I'll see if I can find the video and cue it up.
There is some truth to that, i would guess and things like that used to drive me mad when I was a kid in a not religious household, but then no one believes in science either by that argument.

You grew up in an atheist family? My mom is fundamentalist and dad is.. idk... nothing I guess: a non-practicing catholic, technically.

One, all the matter in our bodies gets replaced in whatever number of years it is - that alone should drive any materialist mad.

Add to that the atoms popping in and out of existence from earth to Mars and essentially being pixels of energy densities within an energy field (gluon field, Higgs field, et al).

Real contact with other is illusory - given the filters of perception, reconstruction of perception inside the brain from transmitted information type theories of perceiving in science, with all of us 'really' suffering a kind of locked in syndrome, being alone, never having real contact with others - and certainly the upcoming eternal nonexistence threat that science indicates should drive them mad, but does not, and the lack of evidence, in scientific terms, of Good and Evil, putting us in a moral free world - should send some others into street screaming. I mean, anyone believing in science, doesn't really believe in it, by Watt's model, because they should all be screaming in the streets.

Oh I see what you're saying: the science types would be going bonkers trying to justify their own beliefs. But Alan's point was if one really believed other people were going to hell, they'd react as if they just saw a person about to fall off a cliff: abandon everything and run towards them in order to save them before it's too late. The Jehovah's Witnesses are even too polite to really be said to believe.

And the same would hold for Buddhism. A few mystics in each system have faced their ego deaths and since Watts himself was never that disciplined, he never engaged in the kind of long term practices that are considered necessary in buddhism to clear out ego clinging and the rest, he ain't one of those mystic.

How do you know?

However, Watts did have his supporters in the Zen community, including Shunryu Suzuki, the founder of the San Francisco Zen Center. As David Chadwick recounted in his biography of Suzuki, Crooked Cucumber: the Life and Zen Teaching of Shunryu Suzuki, when a student of Suzuki's disparaged Watts by saying "we used to think he was profound until we found the real thing", Suzuki fumed with a sudden intensity, saying, "You completely miss the point about Alan Watts! You should notice what he has done. He is a great bodhisattva."[46] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Watt ... nd_critics

But let's say he did, through some intuitive non-disciplined method arrive at enlightenment- when did he run around screaming in the streets? He never had that phase, he never believed anything really, then. So how would he know what people would do if they did believe? I think that damns his argument. He is claiming to know what people would do, other people, all of them, if they really believed in Hell, but he never experienced this himself in his Christian phase or in any other phase in relation to the frightening implications of other belief systems.

Maybe he realized that even he himself never really believed. I mean, if you believed someone was about to lean too far and fall off a cliff, would you react casually?

Harold Camping used to tell the story of the Ninevites who put on sack cloth and sat in ashes until their city was spared destruction. He used that as example of how to change God's mind about your own salvation. How many people go to such extremes? Most people just go to church and that's it.

ALL the major current belief systems collapse under that kind of argument. None of would have real believers.

Alan believed we are all characters in a play performed by the Brahman type ground of being. There is no reason to scream in the streets with that view. He says the Hindu would applaud the Christian for his performance. For here god was totally taken-in by his own role and has convinced himself of the most impossible dilemma: eternal life vs eternal damnation and it must be decided in this life. Bravo!

I think there is some truth in this. I think people believe in ways that they do not realize, and lack belief or avoid noticing, in ways they do not realize.

Yup, me too.

But I don't think it is useful on the whole since many religions consider the religion itself as offering a way to move towards profound belief from more scattered versions, and this process generally includes some kind of dark night of the soul - a parallel to the screaming in the streets. People tend to think of belief in binary terms, so they deserve Watts' judging their beliefs in binary terms. But it's a bad way to look at beliefs so his error is still an error and a judgment he does not have the experience to justify. Only those who have screamed in the streets and move on to something else get to, and he is not one of them.

Well, whatever Watts is or isn't is irrelevant to what he teaches. Who cares what he does; does he speak truth or does he not?

Pop culture. It's like an erosion of purity; decadence maybe. I don't believe any of the religions are true to their own teachings.
But that's quite different from saying that no one really believes.

Right. But this is a different note in the tune. It's an illustration of how Hinduism got perverted into Buddhism and how the Ceramic model perverted into the automatic model. And how religions tend to pervert as time goes on anyway. It's no longer about fervency of belief, but perversion of belief.

Most people in those religions have some kind of conception of a deity and believe in it. Belief is not binary. They believe to various degrees in various contexts, have doubts and likely their beliefs mix paradigms in ways they may not want to notice, but that sums up everyone on earth including atheists, or even realists, in fact any belief group, including trivial beliefs.

Yeah, there's truth to that.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1129
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sun Apr 01, 2018 8:09 am

As I said, even if Watts through his chaotic approach did achieve enlightenment, he never had the screaming in the streets phase. I don't think he was enlightened - my sense from his own writings and also from seeing him live back then - but that doesn't really matter. I don't think he ever believed any particular paradigm - iow he was typically modern, just much smarter than most, much more open than most, but still a mishmash of paradigms. I don't think that gives him the experience to look at true believers in one paradigm - of which there are quite a few - and decide that they would really be screaming in the streets - which many of them do, hell some of them strap bombs on themselves which trumps the commitment of screamers, and others devote whole lives to helping the poor and others do go door to door and look very sad and empathetic and mean it, however annoying they are.

Sure, some people and experts thought Watts was enlightened. Other experts thought not. Compared to some of the masters I met, he seemed much more a very open, very smart [u]modern Westerner[/u]. I don't think people like that with their mixed paradigms know what it is like to have a dark night of the soul. Further, he had No buzz around him. There is magic around some of those Eastern masters. I mean real magic. This doesn't mean I like their magic, but I respect it. I don't like, for example, Buddism. I think it is anti-life, for example in the way it wants us to detach emotions from bodily expression. I have sympathy for their (generally unacknowledged) fears there, but I choose life, being pagan/pantheist myself.

And if the screaming in the streets test is going to be applied, we have to apply it everywhere, and then no one believes anything, at least if belief is binary as the model seems to presume. To scream in the streets, further, you have to be in touch with your emotions on a deep level. British Culture, Christianity, Buddhism - the strongest influences on Watts' personality ALL stifle the full range of emotions and I never heard him criticize them in terms of that. He accepted judgments of emotions from his main sources and presented that 'accepting' of emotions/thoughts in some watery flow conception of enlightenment or mystic being. Once you prioritize that, facing your own running around screaming and getting through it is off the table. Christianity allows more space for emotions, but in very restricted ways. I mean, even Heaven should make one terrified. Eternally happy. One billion years of being happy, then another, then another....If that doesn't concern you radically at some point, you are disconnected. Let alone getting angry at God or the judgement of fear, desire and sex in Christianty and it's just another straight jacket.

I found Watts inspiring at first since he was accessible and gave me a Westerner's way into the East. But since it took what I would call real masters to let me know once and for all that Buddhism and Hinduism were not for me, that there was a hatred of the full human in both of those traditions also, and I went to them to get away from the deathlove in Christianity, Watts seems more a dilettante to me. The positive thing was, they showed me miracles, so I knew that science had not tracked very important phenomena, yet at least. They did it regularly. I have experienced so many anomalies on my own, but those masters could do it on call, and that was good to see.
Karpel Tunnel
Thinker
 
Posts: 887
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Serendipper » Sun Apr 01, 2018 4:29 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:As I said, even if Watts through his chaotic approach did achieve enlightenment, he never had the screaming in the streets phase.

What do you consider enlightenment? If two people are enlightened, will they believe the same thing? And so what is that thing? What is the right way? It seems that someone would have to know the right way before he could determine if someone else knows it.

Alan said:

If you ask for spiritual instruction, you are confusing yourself. Because you are looking outside for what you are asking for... as if someone else could give it to you.. as if you didn't have it.

If you ask me for enlightenment, how can you ask me for enlightenment? If you don't know what it is, how do you know you want it? Any concept you have of it will be simply a way of trying to perpetuate the situation you're already in. If you think you know what you're going out for, all you're doing is seeking the past... what you already know... what you already experienced. Therefore, that's not it, is it? Because you say you're looking for something quite new. But what's your conception of something new? You can only think about it in terms of something old.


I don't think he was enlightened - my sense from his own writings and also from seeing him live back then - but that doesn't really matter.

You saw him live? I never knew he existed until about a year ago and I wondered how that was possible. Maybe you're more discerning than I, but he's so far over my head that I had to listen to a presentation 30 times before I was finally able to take it all in. Of course, I was starting from zero understanding of Eastern philosophy. Usually I can listen to someone for a while and then like George Carlin said, "Well he's fairly intelligent... ah, he's full of shit!" That hasn't happened with Alan yet.

I don't think he ever believed any particular paradigm - iow he was typically modern, just much smarter than most, much more open than most, but still a mishmash of paradigms. I don't think that gives him the experience to look at true believers in one paradigm - of which there are quite a few - and decide that they would really be screaming in the streets - which many of them do, hell some of them strap bombs on themselves which trumps the commitment of screamers, and others devote whole lives to helping the poor and others do go door to door and look very sad and empathetic and mean it, however annoying they are.

Well like I said, he believed this life is just an act, a show, a play. He said not to take it seriously. He was careful to differentiate between "serious" and "sincere". So if he were 100% convinced of his own convictions, why would he run in the streets? I mean, if he truly believed life is just an act, then he'd stay drunk all the time and blabber for money, which is what he did.

Sure, some people and experts thought Watts was enlightened. Other experts thought not. Compared to some of the masters I met, he seemed much more a very open, very smart [u]modern Westerner[/u]. I don't think people like that with their mixed paradigms know what it is like to have a dark night of the soul. Further, he had No buzz around him. There is magic around some of those Eastern masters. I mean real magic. This doesn't mean I like their magic, but I respect it.

Alan called the magic "psychotechnics".

Listen to the 1st few minutes of this or start at 2:00.



I don't like, for example, Buddism. I think it is anti-life, for example in the way it wants us to detach emotions from bodily expression.

You had that impression too? I've been arguing that for the last few days. http://theabsolute.net/phpBB/viewtopic. ... 00#p159257

I've gone round and round with this philosophy and it always takes me to the same place: nonexistence. How can you have an oceanic feeling and also feel existence? The two are contradictory. It seems the only escape from suffering is to end living.

Alan said "when you identify with the universe and the grim reaper comes, there is no one there to kill." Obviously, because you're already dead. Buddhism seems to be the practicing of dying. Alan also said "If you can't let go in life, it happens automatically in death, so you've nothing to worry about haha." That's what all this is about: how to die. Death is the 100% realization of oneness with the universe; the ultimate letting-go. Buddhists can practice letting go in meditation and achieve X% realization of oneness with the universe, but they come back to reality which means X<100.

I have sympathy for their (generally unacknowledged) fears there, but I choose life, being pagan/pantheist myself.

What is that specifically?

And if the screaming in the streets test is going to be applied, we have to apply it everywhere, and then no one believes anything, at least if belief is binary as the model seems to presume.

I suspect it's binary to degrees since some believe more strongly in god or not-god than others, but very few are 100% convinced of either. My favorite type of person is someone who kinda sorta thinks something is out there, but they don't do anything about it lol. It's the pious ones who are the problem.

To scream in the streets, further, you have to be in touch with your emotions on a deep level. British Culture, Christianity, Buddhism - the strongest influences on Watts' personality ALL stifle the full range of emotions and I never heard him criticize them in terms of that. He accepted judgments of emotions from his main sources and presented that 'accepting' of emotions/thoughts in some watery flow conception of enlightenment or mystic being. Once you prioritize that, facing your own running around screaming and getting through it is off the table.

No he's not very emotional. My friend can't stand the fact that Alan is so monotone and I never really noticed it until he said that. So I'm listening one day and thinking to myself why I would speak in one way vs the other when it dawned on me that the only reason to animate my voice would be to fervently try to compel someone to buy what I'm selling. It's an appeal to emotion tactic and indicative of intent to persuade. So, I think the monotone is saying "take it or leave it" while those who resort to such seductive vernacular strategies are probably up to something.

Christianity allows more space for emotions, but in very restricted ways. I mean, even Heaven should make one terrified. Eternally happy. One billion years of being happy, then another, then another....If that doesn't concern you radically at some point, you are disconnected. Let alone getting angry at God or the judgement of fear, desire and sex in Christianty and it's just another straight jacket.

Christianity is all about emotions. Watch some RW Schambach sometime ;) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rq6BFARt14M

I found Watts inspiring at first since he was accessible and gave me a Westerner's way into the East. But since it took what I would call real masters to let me know once and for all that Buddhism and Hinduism were not for me, that there was a hatred of the full human in both of those traditions also, and I went to them to get away from the deathlove in Christianity, Watts seems more a dilettante to me. The positive thing was, they showed me miracles, so I knew that science had not tracked very important phenomena, yet at least. They did it regularly. I have experienced so many anomalies on my own, but those masters could do it on call, and that was good to see.

He has nothing to sell. Geese flying over a lake do not intend to cast their reflection and the lake has no mind to retain it.

Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1129
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby phyllo » Sun Apr 01, 2018 4:46 pm

"Live every day like your hair was on fire."
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10873
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Mon Apr 02, 2018 6:59 am

Serendipper wrote:What do you consider enlightenment? If two people are enlightened, will they believe the same thing? And so what is that thing? What is the right way? It seems that someone would have to know the right way before he could determine if someone else knows it.
I am not sure there is a right way, but enlightenment, which includes detachment from one's emotions and desires and the disengagement from direct physical expression of these, for example, is not right for me. Those last two words are key.

You saw him live? I never knew he existed until about a year ago and I wondered how that was possible. Maybe you're more discerning than I, but he's so far over my head that I had to listen to a presentation 30 times before I was finally able to take it all in. Of course, I was starting from zero understanding of Eastern philosophy. Usually I can listen to someone for a while and then like George Carlin said, "Well he's fairly intelligent... ah, he's full of shit!" That hasn't happened with Alan yet.
Maybe you and I want different things. In any case I hit Watts early in learning about Eastern practices and then late a second time. By the second time I had a lot of experience of Eastern religions.

Well like I said, he believed this life is just an act, a show, a play. He said not to take it seriously.
Yeah, that's part of what I don't like about him/Eastern approaches. And it's not like I don't like humor and play.
He was careful to differentiate between "serious" and "sincere". So if he were 100% convinced of his own convictions, why would he run in the streets?
Detachment will certainly skip that, sure.

Alan called the magic "psychotechnics".

Listen to the 1st few minutes of this or start at 2:00.
Yes, there is tremendous judgement of magic in Eastern approaches. They fear it feeds the ego. You'll notice how Buddism is presented as accepting, but underneath there is a lot of judgment of some things. In practice there is huge judgment of emotions, especially if they are expressed. You are taught to just observe them, as if disengaging emotions from expression was not a form of judgment and dualistic thinking. You can also see the judgments carried out in Buddhist communities. Watch them cut what they on the surface call a monism into halves.

I've gone round and round with this philosophy and it always takes me to the same place: nonexistence. How can you have an oceanic feeling and also feel existence? The two are contradictory. It seems the only escape from suffering is to end living.
There are assumptions in there they take as true I do not.

I have sympathy for their (generally unacknowledged) fears there, but I choose life, being pagan/pantheist myself.

What is that specifically?
Pagan/pantheist? Everything is alive is pantheist, pagan means I think there are a lot of conscious forces/entities beyond those so far tracked by science.

I suspect it's binary to degrees since some believe more strongly in god or not-god than others, but very few are 100% convinced of either. My favorite type of person is someone who kinda sorta thinks something is out there, but they don't do anything about it lol. It's the pious ones who are the problem.
Are you pious about that?

No he's not very emotional. My friend can't stand the fact that Alan is so monotone and I never really noticed it until he said that. So I'm listening one day and thinking to myself why I would speak in one way vs the other when it dawned on me that the only reason to animate my voice would be to fervently try to compel someone to buy what I'm selling. It's an appeal to emotion tactic and indicative of intent to persuade. So, I think the monotone is saying "take it or leave it" while those who resort to such seductive vernacular strategies are probably up to something.
Not having emotions present in your voice is not the default. You are looking at it as if that facet of being a social mammal is an option to choose. Quite the opposite: It is cultural and religious to opt out. And then second, why should emotional expression be seductive and a strategy. Are babies being strategic? One can certainly perform and perform to be seductive and as a strategy, but that doesn't mean that if you speak with passion or emotion, you are being manipulative, strategic and seductive. Removing the emotions, or continuing to suppress them after cultural or spiritual training IS DEFINITELY STRATEGIC. Of course hiding emotions for one's own protection may be wise, but that's another story. I, as a social mammal, do not choose to be emotional and express my emotions. I can however choose not to. The people who tell me that choice is the loving one or the rational one or the compassionate one bear the onus. I tend to find their vibe rather unpleasant. Why is honesty seen as information based and not also emotion based? I see honest emotional expression as a key part of honesty. We are not computers, relaying truths. We are social creatures and my honesty, at least, includes a full expression of myself. And if it is safe to do so i will as part of loving relations. Of course I may manipulate and so on. But hell that is done to us everyday by people speaking in rational, even tones of voice.

Christianity is all about emotions. Watch some RW Schambach sometime ;)

About the emotions in specific contexts, aimed in certain ways. And desires are no nos. Christianity is filled with guilt. Guilt suppresses emotions and is often confused with emotions. Shame is also central to Christianity and this also suppresses emotions. Of course many Christians are inconsistent about how guilt and shame suppress emotions, but the religion is definitely trying to shrink you down, channel and restrict emotions. Compared to Buddhism it can seem emotional, but you get a set of regulations of emotions that is huge and profound. And think about how one would likely react emotionally to a God who made the world this way and the crucifixion, adn then imagine how the various churches would come down on your natural reactions - and in the past kill you rather than simply shame and ostracize you - and you get a taste for how strong the fascism is around emotions. Islam can look emotional also, but shit, leave the grooves to follow your own emotional line, a bam you'll find out what they really think about the emotional body.

He has nothing to sell. Geese flying over a lake do not intend to cast their reflection and the lake has no mind to retain it.
And go near the goslings and Mamma goose will walk towards a much larger entity not speaking in monotone. While Alan Watts is getting off on being less than he could be, basking in the attention of people who put him on a pedestal, while telling people to be like nothing. I'm wary of people basking in the light telling you to be less than you are.

And why should geese attitudes about their reflections be my role model? And then no other aspects of goose being in the world?

These kinds of 'profound' images, spoken in graceful, ooh, how profound tones, have, over time, come to really offend me. Talk about seductive language use.
Karpel Tunnel
Thinker
 
Posts: 887
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Serendipper » Mon Apr 02, 2018 4:17 pm

I'm going to split this up into parts to make it easier on everyone.

Part 1 of X

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Serendipper wrote:What do you consider enlightenment? If two people are enlightened, will they believe the same thing? And so what is that thing? What is the right way? It seems that someone would have to know the right way before he could determine if someone else knows it.
I am not sure there is a right way, but enlightenment, which includes detachment from one's emotions and desires and the disengagement from direct physical expression of these, for example, is not right for me. Those last two words are key.

So, there are many ways to get to the same place? Or are there many ways to get to different places? In other words, is enlightenment the same place for everyone?

You saw him live? I never knew he existed until about a year ago and I wondered how that was possible. Maybe you're more discerning than I, but he's so far over my head that I had to listen to a presentation 30 times before I was finally able to take it all in. Of course, I was starting from zero understanding of Eastern philosophy. Usually I can listen to someone for a while and then like George Carlin said, "Well he's fairly intelligent... ah, he's full of shit!" That hasn't happened with Alan yet.
Maybe you and I want different things. In any case I hit Watts early in learning about Eastern practices and then late a second time. By the second time I had a lot of experience of Eastern religions.

I think we're both after truth. For instance, I had listened many times without realizing or taking special notice of the monotone voice and the wisdom derived thereof; it's like a snake in the woods that I almost stepped on. There are many nuggets contained in his presentations that just aren't visible the first few times I listen. Perhaps it's because of where I am in life.. my perspective, or perhaps he's just that deep. I'm not saying I like him as a person, but there is a wealth of wisdom in his words and it seems unlikely that someone could take it all in after only one listening.

Well like I said, he believed this life is just an act, a show, a play. He said not to take it seriously.

Yeah, that's part of what I don't like about him/Eastern approaches. And it's not like I don't like humor and play.

So you take life seriously? What does that mean and why? Let's say you're a character in a play, then the acts that your character performs does not impact the life of the actor, so it's not serious although the playing may be sincere. However if you take it seriously, it must mean you do not believe the persona played currently is a role played by the ground of being and you would have to believe you're a real entity, eternal, and that what you do in this life has eternal consequences. If that is true, then why are you convinced of that?
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1129
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Serendipper » Mon Apr 02, 2018 4:42 pm

Part 2 of X

Karpel Tunnel wrote:Yes, there is tremendous judgement of magic in Eastern approaches. They fear it feeds the ego. You'll notice how Buddism is presented as accepting, but underneath there is a lot of judgment of some things. In practice there is huge judgment of emotions, especially if they are expressed. You are taught to just observe them, as if disengaging emotions from expression was not a form of judgment and dualistic thinking. You can also see the judgments carried out in Buddhist communities. Watch them cut what they on the surface call a monism into halves.

I think you've illustrated two things here: that religions become perverted from their fundamental underpinnings (hypocrisy) and that buddhism is essentially suicide since the only way to end suffering is to end existence; if you cut out your tongue to stop the tasting of bitter, you will no longer be able to taste sweet and lack of perception doesn't equate to any sort of existence that I can imagine.

I have sympathy for their (generally unacknowledged) fears there, but I choose life, being pagan/pantheist myself.

What is that specifically?
Pagan/pantheist? Everything is alive is pantheist, pagan means I think there are a lot of conscious forces/entities beyond those so far tracked by science.

I used to believe that, but now I'm hung-up on the single entity concept. Perhaps there could be expressions of the ground of being in forms that we haven't recognized and I suppose that's an effectively similar belief that we share, though I'm getting the impression that you believe all entities are separate and I'm intrigued as to why.

I suspect it's binary to degrees since some believe more strongly in god or not-god than others, but very few are 100% convinced of either. My favorite type of person is someone who kinda sorta thinks something is out there, but they don't do anything about it lol. It's the pious ones who are the problem.
Are you pious about that?

LOL, well, yeah I suppose maybe.

Image

There really is no way around the ego, I'm afraid... except the buddhist way of nonexistence, blah, nothingness, or maybe a nonopinionated drooling on oneself drugged-out type existence. This is why I prefer the "actor in the play" understanding since we're permitted to have realized egos as part of the act, which isn't taken seriously whereas the buddhists seek to end the existence of their character in order to do the impossible: end the ego.

Watts said he got out of the ministry because he didn't want to presume who are the swine to his pearls and he didn't agree with evangelism, but I suppose that's just another way of expressing his ego in being proud of his humility. As I said, the really is no way out of the game except death: whatever you believe, you're going to believe you're better than the ones who don't believe it.

He says gurus are condescending to each other, and he said "I can say I don't put other gurus down; there, that trumps all of them!" There is no way to be better and the reason we want to be better is the reason we are not.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1129
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Mon Apr 02, 2018 5:22 pm

Serendipper wrote:Part 2 of X
I think you've illustrated two things here: that religions become perverted from their fundamental underpinnings (hypocrisy)
I think the underpinnings were tainted. I think Siddhearta and Jesus meant well, were brilliant, but had judgments, cultural and individual, that created systems that are problematic. On top of this perversions take place, though perhaps, sometimes, improvements also.

and that buddhism is essentially suicide since the only way to end suffering is to end existence; if you cut out your tongue to stop the tasting of bitter, you will no longer be able to taste sweet and lack of perception doesn't equate to any sort of existence that I can imagine.
That's my take. Imean,something is alive, but it is after I would have cut out so many parts of myself, I am not interested.

I used to believe that, but now I'm hung-up on the single entity concept. Perhaps there could be expressions of the ground of being in forms that we haven't recognized and I suppose that's an effectively similar belief that we share, though I'm getting the impression that you believe all entities are separate and I'm intrigued as to why.
I think there are connections also. Separate and also connected.

There really is no way around the ego, I'm afraid... except the buddhist way of nonexistence, blah, nothingness, or maybe a nonopinionated drooling on oneself drugged-out type existence. This is why I prefer the "actor in the play" understanding since we're permitted to have realized egos as part of the act, which isn't taken seriously whereas the buddhists seek to end the existence of their character in order to do the impossible: end the ego.
Nothing wrong with an ego per se. You are in the best position to take care of you. That a facet of you prioritizes that and takes responsibility for you simply makes sense. One can also merge on occasion, say via intimate contact, and be aware of interconnections much of the time. Houses have walls, so do cells. Both are permeable in different ways. If you have too hard an ego you cannot be intimate, or eliminate the connections or experience of others, or are solipsistic. Just because something is bad if extreme does not mean it's bad when it's not.

Watts said he got out of the ministry because he didn't want to presume who are the swine to his pearls and he didn't agree with evangelism, but I suppose that's just another way of expressing his ego in being proud of his humility. As I said, the really is no way out of the game except death: whatever you believe, you're going to believe you're better than the ones who don't believe it.
I don't think it has to be this way. I have not eliminated to tendency but I think it can happen. Of course it depends on what your beliefs are. Some religions make it part of believing the right thing is being better. but other than that one can see it in terms of personal desires and life history.

He says gurus are condescending to each other, and he said "I can say I don't put other gurus down; there, that trumps all of them!" There is no way to be better and the reason we want to be better is the reason we are not.
I've met gurus who do not put others down, so I don't know what he's on about here. Not that I was fond of their religions (after engaging with them for various periods of time) but some of these people walk their talks. 'Better' is such a charged word. I see nothing wrong with realizing one knows something better (more accurately) than someone else. Experts should know this,for example. They needn't walk around thinking, say, that everyone understands how to remove a brain tumor as well as I do. Or people who believe cigarettes have no effect on human health are no less competent than me. Better can mean, have more value, which is not necessarily connected to beliefs. I think one can even have pride in what knowledge/beliefs one has attained. Shit, some things I know i had to go to hell and find a way out of to understand and learn were true.

that drawing with the person annoyed by atheists and fundamentalists, well, he may very well be superior to them. imean, it's a funny comic, but the implication that someone getting annoyed by both groups must be somehow, to some degree, an ass for that, is off to me. You could be smug bastard and say something like that, and focus on it and use it as a false way to feel good about yourself, you could, but it's not necessarily so.
Last edited by Karpel Tunnel on Mon Apr 02, 2018 5:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Karpel Tunnel
Thinker
 
Posts: 887
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]