Do you believe in God?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 40035
  • Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.


niceonemarra said:
Undecided, but leaning towards no as I have trouble defining what God is meant to be exactly. Flying spaghetti monster is a listed god now apparently.
Click to expand...

No. I'm a seeing is believing type. I wouldn't completely rule it out, but I doubt a God exists.

Nor do I care whether or not there is a God. If it was proven tomorrow he or she does exist it wouldn't change my life one iota.

Have no problem with those who do believe though, and genuinely think there is a place for both religion and science in this world: they serve contrasting purposes that human beings need fulfilling.

Christianity in particular spread because of the idea of salvation, which was a pretty attractive idea in a world where life was short and full of pitfalls. As we live in an age which is pretty comfortable and peaceful by comparison, then the idea of salvation isn't so attractive.

But, you only have to look 'round any town centre on a Friday and Saturday night to understand that a lack of moral guidance and structure in society, as offered by Christianity, isn't always a good thing.
 
Outlaw Pete said:
Love these threads but I always get lost :)

My only contribution (which I contribute every time! )

Click to expand...

Thanks for posting that, excellent.

GK said:
Speculation

You keep implying that I'm religious. i don't believe in God but people that do have as much scientific evidence supporting them as those who believe the universe spontaneously appeared . ie none.
Click to expand...

Have you watched that video of a talk posted a few pages back. There seems to be evidence and theories that can explain the big bang. As far as I know there is no evidence to even remotely explain a God. Unless by God people just mean a being from another planet dropped a couple of people off on this planet.
 
Last edited:
hairynaker said:
Thanks for posting that, excellent.



Have you watched that video of a talk posted a few pages back. There seems to be evidence and theories that can explain the big bang. As far as I know there is no evidence to even remotely explain a God. Unless by God people just mean a being from another planet dropped a couple of people off on this planet.
Click to expand...
Theres nothing to explain anything prior to the big bang. time didn't even exist unless we are in a multiverse. who knows what happened.
 
Skandhaless said:
Life is not punishment , to be punished is a self referent concept . The root of the invitation to suffering .
Click to expand...

I agree. My post may have sounded a bit strong to many who believe in an afterlife or reincarnation but our beliefs can lead to complacency when what will be will be regardless of our belief or non belief. I think the greatest hindrance to someone who practices the Way is complacency which leads to procrastination and the delusion that we have plenty of time. We don't. We live a temporary existence in a temporary world and yet put that out of our mind, because we don't like the implications, to pretend to ourselves that it's all permanent. Time is precious. Each breath is precious. Truth (sat) is the consciousness (chit) of bliss (anand) which in Raja Yoga is called the Ocean of Satchitanand. That is the goal, to experience Satchitanand in this lifetime.

In that regard Raja Yoga is similar to Buddhism as the goal is a cognitive experience.

No concepts or non concepts required. No God or no God. The Way is for both atheists and theists.

Belief or non belief is irrelevant.
 
Last edited:
Mercia Blackcat said:
I agree. My post may have sounded a bit strong to many who believe in an afterlife or reincarnation but our beliefs can lead to complacency when what will be will be regardless of our belief or non belief. I think the greatest hindrance to someone who practices the Way is complacency which leads to procrastination and the delusion that we have plenty of time. We don't. We live a temporary existence in a temporary world and yet put that out of our mind, because we don't like the implications, to pretend to ourselves that it's all permanent. Time is precious. Each breath is precious. Truth (sat) is the consciousness (chit) of bliss (anand) which in Raja Yoga is called the Ocean of Satchitanand. That is the goal, to experience Satchitanand in this lifetime.

In that regard Raja Yoga is similar to Buddhism as the goal is a cognitive experience.

No concepts or non concepts required. No God or no God. The Way is for both atheists and theists.

Belief or non belief is irrelevant.
Click to expand...
Lately I have been prompted to personally consider whether what we seek is actually a cognitive experience given that's a process of a discrete mind that will always reflect with reference to its own existence . I am more wondering what lies at the level of direct somatic interface with whatever is. The soma of course does not necessarily need to be limited to atomist explanations .
Early days but it's a way of getting away from fixations on preferential higher mind states which can be enchanting in and of themselves .
 
Skandhaless said:
Lately I have been prompted to personally consider whether what we seek is actually a cognitive experience given that's a process of a discrete mind that will always reflect with reference to its own existence . I am more wondering what lies at the level of direct somatic interface with whatever is. The soma of course does not necessarily need to be limited to atomist explanations .
Early days but it's a way of getting away from fixations on preferential higher mind states which can be enchanting in and of themselves .
Click to expand...

Well what is the difference between Truth, Consciousness and Bliss (Satchitanand) and the Bliss of Nirvana. Nirvana is the blowing out or quenching of the fires of passion (greed), aversion (hate) and ignorance (delusion) that arise in the mind. That is a cognitive experience of what remains or truth as the consciousness of bliss. Bliss is the consciousness of truth or that which is true. It's not an intellectual concept. The mind cannot avoid reference to itself as the mind deals with the finite and the mind itself is finite. I am conscious of my mind with its thoughts, words, constructs and concepts. My consciousness is not computable. It is the false sense of self that has emerged from the mind, the individual ego or personality. The direct somatic interface must be those parts of the brain that deal with sight, sound, touch (feelings), smell and taste when external stimula have been removed or ignored. This correlates to the Buddhist Theory of Dissolution and the corresponding neurological process. This is the interface and it can not be explained by simple mechanics or I would be able to describe the colour red to a blind man. The problem with fixating on preferential higher mind states as you say is that they are just the fantasies that the mind can distract with to keep you focused on the finite. Then again, everything I've just said is food for the mind. Thinking about drinking water to cure my thirst is not actually drinking the water.
 
niceonemarra said:
Fkinell and I was worried about my pissed posts this weekend
Click to expand...

So you think in your mind that because you were worried in your mind about your own posts that came from your mind that someone else should be worried in their mind about their own posts. That's a lot of mind mate. Your mind.

Why do you think that your mind should be so important to someone else?
 
Alright then God. If Sunderland beat Swansea 5-0 next weekend then we'll all believe in you. Can't say fairer than that. Over to you.
 
I don't think I believe in God, but I certainly believe in the principles of his teaching. Funny thing though, when your life is in danger you suddenly start to pray to him to help you out a bit
 
Ilios said:
It is based on an assertion that provides no evidence, and no method by which it can be proven false; ostensibly an argument from ignorance (and a fallacy of division), you could replace 'rock' and 'consciousness' in the sentence with 'seaweed' and 'melancholy' and you'd not be making a great leap. How would you test it? How can anything be tested, when it provides no actual evidence in its favour in the 1st place? It is a totally abstract idea with no science to it; it is nothing more than cognitive speculation for me, and one that is inherently non-scientific.

Honestly, I don't know. But it is not up to me to provide an alternative to an unsupported assertion, though. If pressed, I'd say that consciousness is probably emergent, and is the collective end result of the evolved 'whole', and doesn't require all of the basic 'parts' to be imbued with the same. A brain produces thoughts and emotions, that doesn't require every single thing that makes up a brain to also do that, it is a fallacy of division.
Click to expand...

I don't understand what your issue is, in the sense that, why do you think it is any more credible to think that consciousness is probably emergent?

I can't remember the exact nature of the post I originally put up, but I'm pretty sure I didn't say "panpsychism is true". I said I thought it was the strongest theory out of those available. Why is panpsychism any more falsifiable than your emergence hypothesis?

I don't think it is necessarily an 'argument from ignorance'. It is an argument that comes down to how you perceive consciousness. I am happy to agree that you could have something approaching A-consciousness from an emergence. I'm happy to agree that a functional conception of consciousness could easily emerge. What I struggle with is the idea that P-consciousness could emerge in the way it does without there being some form of panpsychism.

There is evidence in favour of panpsychism. There is also evidence in favour of emergence. Many theories of consciousness have (albeit limited) evidence to support them.

I don't think this issue is about a fallacy of division. Because I'm not saying "because the whole has X the individual particles must have X". I'm happy to accept that thoughts/ emotions don't help with this assertion, but the nature of perceptual experience raises difficulties.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top