Death happens when there is no longer life in the flesh. This is when everything of the flesh shuts down from the brain to the heart and everything else.
Death is the collapse of your morphic field.
"Morphic Fields: A Summary
The hypothesized properties of morphic fields at all levels of complexity can be summarized as follows:
1. They are self-organizing wholes.
2. They have both a spatial and a temporal aspect, and organize spatio-temporal patterns of vibratory or rhythmic activity.
3. They attract the systems under their influence towards characteristic forms and patterns of activity, whose coming-into-being they organize and whose integrity they maintain. The ends or goals towards which morphic fields attract the systems under their influence are called attractors. The pathways by which systems usually reach these attractors are called chreodes.
4. They interrelate and co-ordinate the morphic units or holons that lie within them, which in turn are wholes organized by morphic fields. Morphic fields contain other morphic fields within them in a nested hierarchy or holarchy.
5. They are structures of probability, and their organizing activity is probabilistic.
6. They contain a built-in memory given by self-resonance with a morphic unit's own past and by morphic resonance with all previous similar systems. This memory is cumulative. The more often particular patterns of activity are repeated, the more habitual they tend to become."
FROM http://www.sheldrake.org/research/morph … troduction
....and that's putting it simply! Thank you Kathryn. That's something I have always wanted to know. Even J K Rowling could not have explained it better.
Rupert's mind is obviously open enough that it can question, propose, listen, visualize, ..... and find excitement in the "what if..?.."
I like it!
"I propose that memory is inherent in nature. Most of the so-called laws of nature are more like habits.
My interest in evolutionary habits arose when I was engaged in research in developmental biology, and was reinforced by reading Charles Darwin, for whom the habits of organisms were of central importance. As Francis Huxley has pointed out, Darwin's most famous book could more appropriately have been entitled The Origin of Habits.
Morphic fields in biology
Over the course of fifteen years of research on plant development, I came to the conclusion that for understanding the development of plants, their morphogenesis, genes and gene products are not enough. Morphogenesis also depends on organizing fields. The same arguments apply to the development of animals. Since the 1920s many developmental biologists have proposed that biological organization depends on fields, variously called biological fields, or developmental fields,
or positional fields, or m o r p h o g e n e t i c f i e l d s."
Why do you like it? The concept of "organizing fields" sounds like G O D !!!!
1 Biology: the origin and development of morphological characteristics.
the study of the forms of things
Habits are behavioral!
"fields" are what?
It's a great question for a deep thinker. Take out the obvious - the rotting of the physical body to the point of complete loss of consciousness. To the normal muggle, this is death.
Death to a self-aware spiritual seeker wouldn't exist. The loss of self-awareness or consciousness would be a form of death. The passing from the physical into a non-physical realm does not need to be called death, but a transition. The age old question of "What is Consciousness" which is still not answerable to the mind of science, comes up time and time again. And the answer to your question could be placed in the same realm as this. To an adept spiritual seeker, death would align to a complete loss of consciousness.
"To an adept spiritual seeker, death would align to a complete loss of consciousness." … permanently. Isn't that a scary thought?
How much spiritual thinking and religious pursuit is directed by "scary thoughts?"
Does this not lead to convenient acceptance of the mysterious and beliefs; which are perfectly adequate to settle the mind of a believer, yet not adequate for the mind of a skeptic?
Get real, JLC! Do you mind the thought of slipping into permanent non-consciousness … ?
Hah, I don't mind it at all. Totally resigned to it.
But look, I am contemplating a totally serene non-existence. Everyone that I have ever fallen out with (even those here in HP!) will be gone. No more arguments. No more putting up with ridicule, trying to get out of embarrassing bloopers that I've made.
All those things I've said or done in my early years that are beyond the pale, bad, make-you-cringe memories, they are gone, all forgotten about - I am the only one who knows about them.
But then to meet up with those souls and have to live with my mistakes for eternity? No way! I'll take a wager on no heaven, no hell, thanks.
Has it ever occurred to you that once you move into a state where you understand eternity that all of that stuff will be so trivial that no one will even think about it? Although, I'm with you. If yours were the scenario people had to look forward to I'd want to opt out.
Indeed! And I have already worked out the bit about eternity....it's not in the future, not in the past, but here, right here, this moment. Infinite and every moment, pure and simple.
It's when we paint a dreamy picture of what to expect in the future, that's when all hell lets loose; worries, dread, fear, manipulation of others and our own circumstances.
The hymns and prayers we were taught concentrated our minds on the what-ifs. Very difficult to shake off that learning.
Funny thing is although I agree with you that sentiment it goes for pretty much every assumption whether it be religious or scientific. This doesn't apply to the things we know. The things we can touch and feel. The things we can see the start and finish through direct observation.
What ifs are muzzled just as easily by telling a young mind that 'this is the way it is and there is no deviation' through religion or science. I would prefer to see us train up our youngest minds to explore all possibilities without prejudice.
Circular rational or logical discussions will ensue for lifetimes when a person has no personal knowledge. Experience is what gives knowledge to the broadening of consciousness and a sceptic is one who is missing the experience. If you've not had the experience, you're looking in the wrong place.
What do you mean? Are you presuming that I lack personal knowledge and experience compared with yourself? Please explain so that I don't walk away with a false impression.
By the way, the primary question at the start of this thread: what is death? On the basis of most replies so far, it seems: "whatever you imagine it to be."
From my perspective: "entering the state of nothingness."
One can go into an experience of alternative broadened states of consciousness, without drugs, and retain consciousness, retain awareness. This state is to be experienced and it is possible to be experienced. There is no imagination in these states. But for me to tell someone that this is possible means absolutely nothing, unless it is experienced by the questioner.
Even in the state of nothingness, there is something. It's like closing the eyes and seeing black and assuming it is nothing. It is not nothing - so has 'death' occurred in the broader context of consciousness, as I originally stated.
Thanks for your reply.
Where you state: "Even in the state of nothingness, there is something. It's like closing the eyes and seeing black and assuming it is nothing" as a fact, would you be comfortable in saying "I believe that even in the state of nothingness, --- " etc.?
From my own experience in meditation, one can seem to lose all sensory connection with the physical world. This is not "nothingness."
When truely asleep, or in a state of general anaesthetic, this is when we have no sensory input or memory of the happenings while in that state.
Death will be an indefinite extension of that state. You will have no memory to say you entered that state or came out of it....ever. That is true lack of consciousness, I suggest.
I don't like using the term believe, mainly because it's loaded. Experience is something I've learned to use in meditation spaces because one state transitions into another. In the space of blackness, or nothingness, there is still a flavor to it. Even when you lose sensory connection, you are still conscious of what is happening. You are not using your normal senses, but nonetheless there is an attainment of the experience that, after coming out of the state, you can recognize it's flavor. When mapping states of consciousness one has to find a new language. The rational mind can be useless when these experiences happen - and in most cases it gets in the way. You would have experienced the limitations of the mind when transitioning from ordinary consciousness into states of bliss and beyond. Astral Travelling, for the adept, is a practice for death and that practice is to retain consciousness from one state (the waking state, to a sleeping state, but retaining consciousness in that sleeping state.) Interestingly, the physical body is quite regenerated after the experience of A.T. because consciousness has moved out of it and the physical body rests. At death the sleeping state is permanent. My experience is that consciousness is not just a bodily function.
Transitioning is a fair term because there is a movement from one state to another, to another. There is a clear difference and these difference are tangible and memorable. But subtle, very subtle.
Please don't assume that I am trying to refute or belittle what you have said. Mostly I can agree. However, when you avoid using the term "belief," this I feel can point to a bit more understanding.
Your personal experience and awareness during and after such phenomena as Astral Travel is unique for yourself. When you try to describe that experience and awareness for others, you can only got so far in convincing them. You will not know if each of you got exactly the same sensations. You might suppose it, but never totally sure.
The same with any supposition to do with the nature of death, or consciousness beyond the physical. Your experiences have been powerful enough to convince yourself that there is "something out there, or on The Other Side." The state of meditation can be such a sublime experience that it's only natural we may want to share it with others. Yet, unless we want to allow the Ego full reign, it's important to step back and say, "This is my stuff, my belief, it's what I want to accept as true, but I can never prove it to others. I must allow them full expression without judgement, or declaring them wrong."
Not an easy position to adopt consistently, but worth the effort, because that Ego certainly is "well loaded."
There is so much context to give an intelligent response. It can be frustrating for sure to relay dialogue on these experiences. Ego for one is also a loaded term. Ego = The Self. (Notice capital E). The fallen ego (lower e) is full of doubt and all the malaise that is rife in the world. But the Unfallen is extraordinary. It's difficult to relay that to a mainstream audience who has not had the experience of an Unfallen self. But having had the experience (albeit not long lived), I can definitely say it is not a belief but a state that I want to reach on a more permanent level.
To be among a group of people who have also had similar experiences and can relay through a language is extraordinary.
You are so right, allowing full expression without judgement or dismissal is paramount to broadening the mind. Plato's Allegory of the Cave is masterful in it's relaying how, until you know what a square window looks like you will not be able to see a square window.
I remember the times when I doubted what I was seeing and experiencing. It was not until those experiences became consistent that I could 'claim' them. Definitely worth the effort.
Death is the act of ceasing to exist on the physical plane.
Death is the condition of ceasing to function in the living state. The body that has lived still may exist physically for a limited short time until it ultimately breaks down into more basic physical forms, as a result of it lacking life processes.
Does that mean lack of brain activity or lack of any cellular activity? Bodies can live for months with a little help but the person that used to animate it is long gone.
I understand your question and what can sometimes be a matter for disagreement. When having to make a decision for my mother, who lay in a terminal coma from irreparable brain damage, I was aware that the person of my mother could never again communicate with me, accept via my memory or what she had written. (Or via memories invoked by the Christmas dinner she had already prepared for us).
Making that decision to allow the turning off of life support was governed primarily by emotions, because there was still life in her body. In other words, cells were still able to function biologically with oxygen and nutrients supplied.
However, that is totally different from a body which is in fact "dead." I am very aware of that difference, from numerous experiences in the course of my work over 45 years.
The actual moment of death is probably only definable according to the complete absence of brain activity, IMHO
I didn't mean to disagree, and in fact fully agree with what you're saying. It's almost as if the body is just a tool, a machine used by the person to get around and provide sustenance. Just asking for discussion's sake.
But many will not agree with us. Either in the body being an accessory or in the person being in the brain. It's an interesting subject, I think, and although 100% of available information is that the brain houses or is the person, a great many will disagree.
Another point of view: "the person is the entire entity of what we can relate to...... the body, the brain, the mannerisms, shared memories, etc. But we know for sure that there can be no communication without adequate brain function.
Not more from me now...about to hit the road at 6.30am.
Ugh. Better you than me (hitting the road). Have a safe trip!
Haha...soft landing, 2hrs and 70miles later and brain still in good humour
It is sad that this thread has come to an end. Did I get too serious? Is the subject matter too deep for most people? Or is it a naturally dead-end discussion? (Pardon the pun, but you know what I mean)
The thread is.....ALIVE. Death is merely a transition of consciousness from the material to the immaterial or supernatural. Some would say a higher consciousness. There are a few who will interject that some people will transition to a.....LOWER consciousness. Continue the discussion. This thread ISN'T dead by a long shot-CONTINUE.
I do not believe we automatically advance to higher consciousness. If you are not aware of your spiritual self here, you will not be aware of it there. You will most likely be as asleep there as you are here. You take your consciousness with you. Most people will be sleeping until they wake up and wonder where all the stuff they had in their last life is …
" Yawn, I feel like a bowl of ice cream… hey, where's my fridge!!!"
"I would like to be rich and famous this time around … hmmm… let's see what's happening in Hollywood … what? California dropped into the sea?" (There's usually a 500 year break between lifetimes) I suspect we watch the material realm for awhile until we can figure out where we can fit in… I believe souls can return together. 'Hey, ya wanna be my wife on earth this next time around?" etc.
We never drop to a lower consciousness. It is impossible. We never go from human to animal.
Kathryn, those who are evolved individuals do progress to a higher consciousness as they possessed such while on the spiritual plane while individuals who are evil or devolved regress to a lower consciousness. Like attracts like.
Maybe you are right, but we never go back to animal form once we have evolved to human form. Even though we act like pigs in this lifetime we will not become one in the next.
Death is a peaceful sleep for most people, but I believe you can cause your own hell by bringing unresolved feelings of remorse, regret or hatred into the astral plane. I believe we can make up for wrong actions with determination to live better lives the next time around. For instance, I have heard that Abraham Lincoln was King Herod in his last life.
Can you explain more about regression? How would it work … with examples.
What I mean is when if a good person dies, h/she progresses into a higher spiritual form of consciousness. Old time religionists would call such a higher form of consciousness heaven If an evil person dies, h/she regresses into a lower spiritual form of consciousness. Old time religionists would call such a lower form of consciousness hell.
Lets say Trump, in his next life, is dirt poor and doesn't have the advantages he has now. He won't necessarily regress, but his circumstances will be different so that he can learn true sympathy and empathy. I don't believe his consciousness will regress, just be in a position to experience a different perspective so that he can continue to evolve.
That is true. According to the theory of reincarnation, what we condemn, WE BECOME to learn lessons of compassion & empathy.
Its amazing to realize that even though we we are destined to die, our death is the last thing we think about.
It can be healthy not to get too attached to your race and culture, Considering Religion is a culture . To enable you or I to be able give out your love unconditionally and treat the world as your family. Maybe Adam/ Eve & JESUS were BLACK.
Wouldn't that beat all and hell with that picture of Blond, blue eye Jesus on the wall.
Jesus was from the Middle East and did not have blue eyes. He had dark hair and dark eyes. I wonder how he was able to resurrect his body after he died. That IS very God-like, isn't it?
So Kathryn, Castle, that Godliness, and the Human-ness, represent that which each of us desires to see?
Raising from the dead is a extreme phenomena, yet, not unheard of. A few times in the bible it was mentioned. Also throughout. Human history, many have sacrificed for their people and families. A few have fooled us into thinking they we dead.
The new Pope believes in evolution, the big bang theory and Aliens will be our saviour. I have not meet enough intelligence life on this planet. I just hope the Aliens could save us from the bankers, that be the best phenomena yet.
Thanks for this early-morning laugh.
From the Bible who risen a dozen from the dead . Like a few, were Nain’s & Shunammite their sons, Jairus’ daughter, Elisha, & Lazarus &.Jesus. Jesus, Yahweh son a questionable birth and death there. A few have fooled us about death. I have an uncle that has been dying for the pass 40 years. Good thing I don’t take life or death too seriously.
The Pope is from the wealthiest country in the world, the bankers and him should smooth things out. Too bad for the rest of us, don't belong to the same Club. The same Club that they keeping beating us up with every day.
Since this Forum addresses Death, it could be viewed in the perspective of other aspects of psychology that seek to control us:
First, we have this subject, Death. The fear of it does not need to be planted; it's already there in most of our brains. To control us, all anyone needs to do is enhance that fear, for whatever reason....
Next is Hunger (and with it, Thirst). The latter will drive us crazy if unquenched for an extended period. So, what and how much is allowed to enter our stomachs; this also an area whereby we can be subject to control.
Thirdly, Sex. The fear of punishment for exceeding the limits of enjoyment knows no limits. God, who endowed us with this wonderous gift in the first place, was so in fear of its misuse, that he could not even allow it to be used in the manufacture of his own son!
People love to put off the inevitable until .....the LAST MINUTE. Death is still a distasteful subject to many.
Yes, us men are pigs, that is why we own everything. Is God a pig?
Apparently our human bodies and those of pigs are very similar, biologically. At least, as far as I understand it.
My favourite area of research is compost. This is inseparably concerned with cyclic life and subsequent death.
Inorganic chemicals come together; catalysts (and the biological ones, enzymes), allow those chemicals to join and transform into a great variety of combinations that in turn allow the process of life. Life begins, proceeds, terminates. Energy emerges from moment of need. Energy instigates, enables, moves, changes, stops, starts, stops, starts, ad infinitum. The Tapestry of Life is manifest. Sometimes pretty. Sometimes ugly. Sometimes pure nectar, other times rank poison. Yet always changing to produce food for the next Life manifest in sequence.
Macrophage eats virus. Worm eats macrophage. Bird eats worm. Mammal eats bird. They all excrete what they have no further need for. Others devour excreta. Excretum becomes recycled food for countless plants and fungi and insects...on and on and on in the continuum of infinite existence and happenings. The compost heap itself being like a living organism, structured, stratified and a microcosm of Life and Death. Not dissimilar to the workings within our gut. We are that close to Life And Death, every moment. Just be conscious of it!
From another point of view: are pigs God?
LOL. If they are then God is rather tasty and unlucky; from a place on the food chain angle.
Maybe cats own people, maybe smarter than us, Cats don't have to work like a dog. They just sleep for 16 hours get feed, we scoop their poop like a VIP and we massage them. Maybe God is useless as a cat and all God wants from us is to worship him.
Nobody has found been to this spiritual world call Heaven and come back. Some claim it is a mansion in the sky, for extremely happy people. Sounds like a funny farm to me. MOOO haah mooo haa haaa I'M HAPPY!! HAPPY!!! HAPPY!!
All of this banter about death and yet...no one has Ever returned...just stories and theories and what's been handed down from less informed people through out history.The question no one seems to address is 'cohesion' after death...dose it exist?Are we still self aware?Without self awareness it doesn't matter what else exists..."If a tree falls etc". The only Real answer to the question of death is the same one that's always been...we'll know when we get there...or not
You have to have some hope that all will be revealed in due course. I've had too many encounters with fate to realise that this is all for nothing. Near death experiences, astral travel, synchronicity to name but a few.
As far as Truth is concerned, there isn't any death. The only true death is the mystical dying of the personal self. The truth of existence is that only God is and nothing else exist but the fullness and presence of God, Spirit, or Consciousness as our entire universe.
What we refer to as someone died is our memory of the physical person that left our awareness but the real being which is God never dies. God, Spirit or Consciousness is eternal and forever being the entire infinitude.
Our individual self, mind, body, world and universe is God and is forever being the fullness of God. We only need to rise in conscious awareness of God as what we are and what our universe really is.
It is only in seeking the truth of our being that our awareness becomes spiritual and the wisdom of the heaven and earth is revealed to us. Then the truth of what life, death, mind, body and universe is will be known.
This guy is ban.
Maybe for trying to blend Truth, Nature, Fairy-tales with the Bible.
Strangely, that pseudonym "theonlypresence is" popped into this thread of discussion, just for a moment, and then went back into oblivion. Yet what was written is not far from what I personally understand, at this point in time. What it conveys, for me, is description of really beyond the human limitations of time, space and accepted metaphors.
We tend only to see things in terms of metaphor and analogy which fit in with our life experience, then call our vision reality....and since individual vision/reality is unique, then there can be no absolute common ground of understanding.
Thus, before anyone gets tempted to say that jcl's point of view is erroneous, just remember his view of the mountain is unique also.
The tyrannical aspects of psychology. How to overcome them:
Calmness can also help us overcome death, strangely enough.
1. "Be King or Queen of your own domain."
2. "Fear is a matter of the unknown. Give it (fear of the unknown) work, love and time."
3. "Your calmness will help you deal with every problem, conquer worries and bring happiness."
As long as your working and loving you won't grow old. Age is a not a number, your as old as you feel. Fu*k those multi media advertisers and their myths..
....too old to listen, and consider, and learn a-new, and - maybe - even change my mind. This is the a-theist mind, willing to open up to infinite possibilities. This is how the theist mind needs to be also: open to the infinite possibilities, way, way beyond the constricting dogmata of our religious learnings.
Otherwise you corrupt the infinity of that God, whom you claim to worship, into a finite caricature of the human mind....and a waste of time even thinking about, surely?
Death is the universe's big immovable existential question to all sentient beings.
This existential dilemma has created all philosophy and science and all religion.
Hence death has ironically given us positives such as knowledge, culture and enquiry.
Don't knock the big sleep.
Many but not all atheists pretend there is no existential dilemma and choose to ignore all of human histories cultural and religious striving.
This is sometimes called "being dead from the neck up" ; or as a great spiritual teacher once said "let the dead bury the dead" meaning there is a living death of ignorance to those who ignore the main existential question of life. It is often referred to as a living death in many other cultures. Death in indigenous cultures is often seen as a teacher to the living which focuses things into their proper perspective.
There is a living death only to the spiritually blind which indicates their crass ignorance to the universe's greatest question. Such people never really get to live in the fullest sense.
I have question atheist on atheist forums. Why is your forum filled with mostly Religion topics. Also why do Atheist have the most worldly Religious knowledge than any other group of people. Even US Government made Atheists' a religion. Some of that ancient spirituality plus the real spiritually reality of the 99% unknowns will rub off on atheist mentality. Although they would lack the practice .
A strict religious person would put their head in the sand more so about other religions, science and other non religious groups. Einstein said science is lame and Religion is blind. Would it not be better to served these answer, somewhere on middle grounds.
Like Donald Trump, why don't atheist ignore Religion for more part, so they loose their powers of being over advertised.
I must study some Religions for my stand-up comedy act. Also comedian can give the best news over fake new and Trump's BS. Trump has this serious disability of not knowing anything. He will excess Bush (he tried) as the dumbest President in American history. We the people, better get our act together as the politician keep getting worse and the billionaires keep getting greedier.
I would argue about the statement that atheists have more religious knowledge. Example. I'm taking a course at the moment. I am at the top of my class. That does not imply that I have any amount of knowledge more than any other person in the class. Nor does it imply I have the faintest idea what I am talking about. I understand the terms. I am able to use them in sentences. I have not applied this knowledge. I don't have hands on experience.
Which is one problem I have with atheists. They have perfunctory knowledge. They have a tendency to belittle a believer simply because they don't agree with what the atheist thinks a believer is supposed to believe. It's childish and, to be quite frank, so shallow that the only reason anyone engages is because it would be rude not to.
Maybe that's because the atheist must make assumptions to hold any kind of intelligent discourse because believers all seem to hold to a different belief.
For example, most "believers" seem to think they will live forever, but whether that "life" will be in the body of an animal, on Kolob, in Purgatory, in heaven or hell or even Valhalla depends on who is speaking. No agreement is available on just how to get there, what it is like when there or pretty much of anything else. The creatures there vary as well, from Satan to demons to virgins or any of a multitude of other entities.
It isn't a given within one religion or even one sect of a particular religion. All very confusing - just when the poor atheist thinks they have a handle on it, it changes.
Why does the atheist care what others believe? I know, I know what you'll say. Because of what religion does in the world. To which I will reply that it isn't religion as much as politics. I'll counter with we have seen what atheist regimes have done to the world. You will, of course, maintain that wasn't atheism but politics.
I think it is important to note that atheism is only a lack of theism. Many atheists hold different beliefs as to what the time after mortal time entails. But, you won't see me complaining that they don't all agree. No one is supposed to agree, by my mind. So, it seems that your view of theists is little more than posturing to hide the fact that differences of opinion are common within both beliefs.
Define atheist- a lack of belief in God.
Which you really have is varies degrees of agnostic. No-one can be 100% atheist, a person who knows God dose not exist because 99% of the earth is unknown. So each of us have very little knowledge and capabilities to know God existence.
The burden of proof is on the believer or he/she maybe experiencing a form of insanity such in wars, sex and the natural environment disabilities.
Better answers is in the middle. As the proof as examples. Are in most of the greatest accomplished achievers and wisest person's through out mankind's history.
I agree. Conversely, the simple definition of a theist is one who believes a god exists. And, then you have various degrees of theism. A theist agrees that 99% of the universe is unknown. They simply believe there is a higher power.
I've always held that theism which aligns with any particular belief structure is about an ounce of truth wrapped within 15 ounces of bs. The same holds true for any so called non belief structure. As you said 99% of the universe is unknown. To lay claim to any final conclusion is taking belief and running with it.
"Why does the atheist care what others believe?"
Personally, because I'm interested in how people think, and to a lesser degree in what they think. But I can't recall ever starting a conversation on religion - that seems to always fall to the believer.
"I don't think gays should be allowed to marry."
"Because I think my god said it's a sin".
"You think your god made them homosexual, but it is a sin to be that way?" (here we have the assumption that the believer thinks their god made people)
and so on.
Differences: most atheists will agree that we evolved over millions of years. But theists? There seems to be about as many opinions as there are people, with the result that when the atheists assumes a popular belief from their past discussions it is usually wrong. Even when the assumption comes from the believer's own sacred writings it is wrong.
Makes it all difficult to respond intelligently when the topic arises.
Why should the evangelist care that the atheist does not "believe?"
In my opinion, it's the presumption on the part of "believers" that they have knowledge which is factual and superior to that of the atheist. It's the need to get the atheist's mind and life changed around, in order to conform....this is what I am rejecting. That desire to influence me with their own beliefs and fears, trying to control me.
I am not trying to implant my "non-belief" in them. So what are they afraid of?
If politics were directed at defending peoples from the excesses of religious fervour, then I can fully understand why.
I think why atheist world religious knowledge is the greatest of all groups. Is their need to defend themselves from almost all religious people.
Sometime religious discussion get so tiring and crazy. I wish they were right about gravity and have them float away into the shy then be lost into space.
I don't know that I have ever pushed my beliefs on anyone. But, I am not offended by others believing it is their purpose to do so. I ignore it. End of story. If you chose to feel pushed, that is a choice you make.
Let's be honest here. Shall we? If you were honestly interested in intelligent discourse you wouldn't insist that believers believe the same thing. Across the board. And, you have been known to do that quite frequently. I don't see the atheist as attempting to hold an intelligent discourse. For the most part when they engage they are pushing their belief just as strongly as a believer attempting to gain converts.
Most atheists don't believe in a higher power, such as a god, but whether that involves non existence, some form of existence or some form of awareness varies from atheist to atheist. I don't find that confusing at all. Which makes me wonder why atheists always claim to be confused. Are they simply unwilling to allow others their own ideas on existence outside of this physical plane? Are their's the only ideas of value? Sounds like the same traits they grumble about with believers.
There is a huge difference in what people think and how they think. What induces them to believe, in other words. And it is primarily that which I'm interested in - if the reasoning is correct then perhaps I need to believe, too. If it is based solely on a desire to live forever, or on having a father figure watching over us and giving us gifts, I'm not so interested.
When a belief is required (gay's should not marry because God said so or we should not imbibe alcohol or not dress "wrong" because God said so) then yes, I'm unwilling to allow the belief to affect the lives of others and am not backwards about saying so. Believing on existence outside of all our experience is fine...so long as others are not required to hold the same belief. And, I might add, so long as it is not shoved in the face of others - how many billboards have you seen declaring that there is no god, as opposed to how many declare there IS a god? How many icons of atheistic belief do we see as we drive along as opposed to how many icons of theistic belief (in the US, crosses, Jesus statues, ten commandments monuments, etc.)?
Confusion - when a theist tells me the bible is the word of god, true in every particular, then refuses to accept portions of it as true, I'm confused. When two members of the same religion or church hold differing beliefs, both based on the same information, I'm confused. And the atheist acknowledgement that they don't know is an "idea of value" - that, too, is confusing.
(If you go back and carefully read my posts you will find that the "attack" you say is there is very nearly always on the reasoning presented, not on the conclusion. The big exception is when a belief is presented as factual, whereupon I have a tendency to present other, opposing beliefs as fact as well. "If you can make things up, so can I and they are just as valid as yours" in other words.)
'If the reasoning is correct.'
That's funny. How can the reasoning be correct? If you are speaking of the metaphysical there is no way to rationalize your way to that position. There is no physical proof a person could offer. There is no empirical evidence. So, you are playing a shell game with that one.
I agree that no one should feel they have the right to 'shove' belief at another. I suppose there is a difference of opinion on the meaning of that term. I have witnessed atheists 'shoving' their opinions where they were not solicited or wanted. But, I doubt you would agree with me on that.
As to billboards and such. I doubt anyone would grumble at atheists paying for billboard space to push their beliefs. I doubt that the company's which own the advertising space would turn down a paying customer. So, the lack of billboards might simply be a sign of not enough people caring enough about their cause to pool their money together. Freedom of speech is a precious thing. I'm not going to begrudge people exercising their rights.
As to your confusion on what a believer thinks concerning the Bible. You have attempted, on more than one occasion, to insist that I had to believe what you thought I should. Your desire to believe I should believe what you want me to does not a mandate make. I would think that holds true for anyone of faith, or lack thereof. If you continue to be confused you might try approaching the conundrum from a different angle, or give up.
Also atheism is implied in thousands of billboards advertising say blood sports or rampant gambling or any highly aggressive sport or porn or excessive alcohol consumption etc etc.
It's also terminally hypocritical for atheists to support the Reverend Donald who corruptly politically supports backwoods fundamentalists while at the same time criticizing religion (such as a certain unmentionable obsessive hubber does every day on hp). If the shoe fits...wear it. We all know.
"Also atheism is implied in thousands of billboards advertising say blood sports or rampant gambling or any highly aggressive sport or porn or excessive alcohol consumption etc etc."
Presuming you mean that a billboard advertising gambling implies that (rampant) gambling is all right, can you elucidate how that also implies a lack of belief in a deity? Are you assuming that all theists proclaim that it is wrong, even as they gamble in their house of worship?
it's time you fessed up about your unethical contradictions regarding the holy Reverend Donald.
Red herring other "alleged issues" doesn't cut it either.
Once you talk honestly about it then we can have an intelligent discussion.
Not much interested in your silly claims about the President or my "contribution" there. When you manage to straighten yourself out and have something to offer outside of name calling, twisted "facts", unsupported assumptions and innuendo I'd be happy to discuss him with you. At least if you can bring yourself to be objective rather than just hateful.
Your inability to respond intelligently to comments, veering off to express hatred of Conservatism every time, is something I'm just not interested in continuing.
See there is a huge contradiction in what you say about religion on the one hand and the Reverend Donald on the other.
Pointing out such hypocrisy is not "name calling" ; it is merely undermining your argument in order to clarify where you are going wrong. You can't have your cake and eat it too. No religion but you want to have Donald?. It's oil and water bro.
See there is a huge contradiction in what you say about religion on the one hand and the Reverend Donald on the other.
That's perhaps because the president and I are two different people. Personally, I've noted that no two people on the planet agree on religion; why would you think I and the President, or you, would?
And yes, using "holy Reverend Donald" is name calling; both of use know he is neither a theologian, priest or any other religious VIP. You sound like my 7 year old grandchild trying to denigrate her older brother but having nothing but name calling to use as a weapon.
How can reasoning be correct?
"People believe for thousands of years, so it must be true"
"Lots of people believe, so it has to be true".
"I don't want to die, so it has to be true".
"I'm ignorant of what happened, so Goddunnit".
All examples of faulty reasoning - whether it is about the supernatural or why the car won't start it is still faulty. If evidence cannot be found then belief is premature and conclusions are based solely on desire, not fact.
"So, the lack of billboards might simply be a sign of not enough people caring enough about their cause to pool their money together. "
What "cause"? Atheists have no "cause" to promote in the field of theology or metaphysics. But the statement gives pause; what is the "cause" of the billboard advertisers? To convince others that a belief is fact? Something they, too, should believe?
Confusion - I don't think I've tried to convince you of anything. Except perhaps to accept facts as they are instead of forming conclusions contrary to those facts. I don't recall you quoting scripture as fact, or giving opinion as factual, so even that is questionable.
You have, on occasion, insisted that I should be expected to take the Bible as some written in stone factual account. You have, on occasion, insisted that I should live by Mosaic law.
As to the billboards. A 'this is what we believe' statement is not tantamount to an insistence that you join in that belief. An invitation to church is not an insistence that you do so. Unless, being invited out to lunch with someone is an offense. Since they must be insisting that you do it. Do you feel pressured to do anything anyone asks you to?
And, one thought on your list of faulty reasoning. I don't know that I have ever heard anyone put forth those statements as their reason to believe.
"You have, on occasion, insisted that I should be expected to take the Bible as some written in stone factual account."
Comes from assuming you are Christian and believe the bible is the true word of God.
"As to the billboards. A 'this is what we believe' statement is not tantamount to an insistence that you join in that belief."
LOL - a billboard indicating Hell is waiting if you don't come and listen isn't insisting that you accept the belief? We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.
Faulty reasoning: "I don't know how the universe came to be, or the nuts and bolts of how it works, so therefore I will believe a god did it, and with a belief strong enough to base my entire life on". THAT is faulty reasoning, and I've heard it too many times to count. Along with "If you can't explain it to my satisfaction then God did it" - that one, too, is quite common.
I have previously presumed Live to Learn was Christian in her beliefs, but must stand corrected in that, apparently.
Apart from that, I now regard churches nothing much more than clubs, where like-minded people congregate.
If I went to one of those clubs and asked for membership, while continuing in my dis-beliefs, what would be the point or benefit of that? Basically a waste of everyone's time?
But if I go into a church to enjoy the ambience, or the music, or the company of people I find pleasant to be with, will they all welcome me regardless of my beliefs?
It would depend on how you presented your beliefs. I had a few preachers who frequented my restaurant. We'd talk religion. They were adamant that I really needed to come to their churches. At first. I think my personal views on the subject ended up being too heretical for them. But, I'll take discussing beliefs over sitting around listening to preachers try to sway opinion from the pulpit any day of the week.
Points well taken. Thank you.
Likewise, I just love music played well on a pipe organ, by some one like Gert Van Hoef. It enthralls me in so many ways...the sounds themselves, the skill and talent of the musician, the expertise of the person(s) that tunes all those pipes, the architect and builders of the massive church. I can enjoy all of these, and the inspiration of the composer who was most likely extremely religious. Yet I don't have to take on board any of the associated beliefs or dogma.
And a person can be ultra-religious or emphatically atheist, whilst being a most humble, caring and charitable person.
"It takes all sorts....."
Here here. Well spoken my old nemesis. Religion created culture, music, art, philosophy, maths, science etc etc etc.
And yes an atheist can be better than a phony religious person: St Paul stated the same thing in his letter ( Romans) all that time ago but "many" atheists don't see it for some reason.
I may have gone to a concert with you while at university. I'd never heard of the person performing. I thought the guy said the guy played rock. We got to the concert and I realized he had said the guy played Bach. We listened to a guy play on a pipe organ for 4 hours.
I recommend a listen to Gert's music. Plenty of YouTubes out there. Listen with good quality head phones or Hifi. He taught himself to play J S Bach by the age of 14. Now thoroughly professional, revels in his work, yet a down-to-earth young man in all respects. He will bring hope and happiness to your day.
There is as much variety in Christian beliefs as there are grains of sand on the beach. You are assuming that everyone is a 'born again' Christian. If you look at some of the more outrageous claims made you will find that they are ensconced in fairly new ideas within Christianity. Look at the 'six days' claim. That comes from a literal reading of Genesis. The historic church never insisted that it meant 6 24 hour periods. That is a modern interpretation by a segment of the faith. The Rapture, another modern invention.
I find it interesting that atheists doggedly insist that each of them are different, but cannot fathom the idea that each person of faith has a different understanding and their belief structure (if Christian) only truly unifies with the belief that Jesus died on the Cross and was resurrected. Although, even that is not agreed upon by all Christians. I think the only qualification for being labeled Christian is to believe that Jesus was of great significance.
Your example of billboards is ridiculous, at best. I've seen billboards advertising what great fun I would have at a casino. I don't believe it. Nor am I offended by the thought that the people who paid for it do. You make the choice to feel offense.
And, to your belief that belief in a Creator is faulty reasoning I would counter with the fact that nothing discovered, thus far, has ever laid waste to that belief. With so much of the universe still unknown I have no idea why people would even argue this subject.
"I think the only qualification for being labeled Christian is to believe that Jesus was of great significance. "
Perhaps that's our biggest difference, for the impression I get from the multitude of Christians I've talked to is far different. Goes back to what I said earlier; just when we think we have a handle on what "Christianity" is someone comes along and says "No, that's not right: it means this."
Does one person or group get to define an entire belief structure? It appears the atheist believes that is so. Since you are one who does I suppose you won't mind my lumping you in with atheists whose ideals don't match your own.
If you all apply the same label to yourselves (Christian in this case) I would expect the beliefs to be very close. But they aren't even though the label of "Christian" is promoted along a specific belief line.
As atheism does not have ANY belief associated with it, why would you expect all atheists to share beliefs about anything at all? That's like saying all blonde's have the same moral code, whether genetic or from a bottle.
Strangely, you don't understand that there is no more in common among Christians than there is among atheists. Christians believe there is a God. Atheists believe there is no God. Expecting Christians to tow some imaginary line is as ridiculous as expecting atheists to. The only added feature to this belief is that Jesus was of significance, in the grand scheme of things. Little different from one atheist believing the big bang explains the grand scheme and another believing in the eternal universe theory. But, you are the one who is insisting so we'll just look at the two belief structures and their effects on those who don't share them.
Let's look at some interesting facts. The Catholic Church has about 1 billion adherents. China had 1 billion citizens under Mao. The Pope killed no one between 1949 and 1970. It is estimated that Mao killed up to 60 million.
It looks as if about 8.5% of the Chinese belong to the communist party. We'll assume that is about the same percentage that did under Mao. Let's assume a percentage of those are members simply because it would benefit their careers, a percentage are members due to fear and a percentage truly held the ideals. So, one atheist has convinced (let's say) 4% of the population to work with him to control the rest. During that time people were murdered, starved, imprisoned and tortured. Due to that belief structure. During the same time the Catholic Church probably had more than 80% of its members as people who followed not because it would benefit their careers, nor due to fear; but they simply agreed with the beliefs. I don't know of any data which would suggest that, during this time frame, anyone who didn't agree was killed, tortured, imprisoned or otherwise inconvenienced by a disagreement in belief.
Protestantism would be more difficult to compare since it has hundreds of sects, no main structure and little control outside of each individual church. But, if we did compare it to atheist beliefs which spawned a following we would find that unlike the Protestant faith, atheism shared collectively has been a danger to those within and around.
My point is, thank God atheists don't band into groups. They have proven themselves to be a danger to themselves and those around them if allowed to work together toward a common goal.
"Strangely, you don't understand that there is no more in common among Christians than there is among atheists."
Perhaps because I grew up in a strongly Christian home and received a thorough grounding in what "Christians" are and what they believe. Only to find, as I grew into adulthood, that there is no more consensus in what I was taught than there is in the much wider world of international Christianity. Still, it seems like there should be some common ground if people are to accept and promote the label...but there isn't. Even the foundation changes, not to speak of the rest of the construction.
But atheism - depending on the definition of the word (what I learned as "agnostic" seems to be becoming "atheist" in common terminology), the belief is either "There is no God" or "We don't know if there is a God or not". No waffling, no changing and no belief structure to force into compliance as we learn more about the world around us.
But, you insist that atheists not have common ground in order to promote the label. Strange, indeed. I assume you grew up in some sect which insisted its adherents agree on everything, or risk shunning or excommunication.
But, that is exactly what the term Christian is also. Belief that there is a God, that Jesus was of some significance (I only put it that way because there is no consensus on what that was). There is no forcing of anyone to comply with anything as they learn more about the world around them. It is a choice freely made, to believe. Just as the atheist freely makes the choice not to.
Unfortunately, atheists appear to demand compliance. I suppose it might be rooted in a desire to feel in control of their surroundings which is not a problem Christians need concern themselves with (although I think we can agree some do).
The only common ground I'm aware of with atheists is that there is no belief in a god. "God" being generally defined in the Christian sense as an extra-universal entity that created the universe and everything in it.
Yes, the sect was quite strict, and varying beliefs was not tolerated much. At least I was given to think so as a child; later I did find considerable variances in the details if not the primary beliefs.
Here: some beliefs that I attribute to ALL Christians:
God made the universe
God made man.
God made everything.
God watches everything that happens, and guides it along His desires
God gave Jesus, a god/man entity that died and came back to life
God listens to the billions of prayers and answers all of them
God is benevolent, wishing all to enter His heaven
There is a heaven and Hell, with God determining final resting place
There is life after death, for eternity
Satan exists, and tempts mankind to do wrong.
God created the bible as His word.
Even as I meet "Christians" that disagree with some of these, still seems universal - more like some "Christians" aren't "Christian" at all. Of course, that is a deadly insult whether it is meant that way or not - hard to imagine someone considering themselves as a Christian that would not take umbrage at being told they are not.
Sorry Wilderness. The word Christian translates as little Christ. Your list of things you believe all Christians believe is little more than your belief. I am not obligated to share it, or assume it to be truth when anecdotal evidence to the contrary abounds.
This whole conversation started with a comment that people labeling themselves as Christians do not hold similar beliefs and it can be difficult as a result to hold an intelligent conversation about their belief system. Somehow it's deteriorated into atheist bashing and an assumption that anyone trying to understand what it means is ignorant. Indeed, the comment on the roots of the word is that way - no one cares where the word comes from, only what it means today!
I give. Every time I try and describe why people have trouble with the term you take it as an attack on Christians and respond by attacking atheism. Usually with a definition that is as far from truth as what mine is for "Christianity". It isn't - it is an attempt to promote understanding.
I don't see it as attacking atheism. I have nothing against the average atheist although I do have a problem when an atheist presents a flawed argument and then gets upset because they don't have a valid point.
Most atheists have perfectly valid arguments. If Christians could (verbally) counter them, it would be a great day.
So, you agree that all Christians should be lumped into a single unit without individual thought being factored in while all atheists should not. I'd be interested in your explanation as to why that would be a valid conclusion.
Except that any oppression of the sort you describe was not caused by atheism, but by politics, rejection of outside cultures and people playing the Power Game. Sure, atheism was present, but not the cause.
Roman Catholicism is not so much a religion as a political tool for controlling the minds of the masses. It makes use of the human propensity for believing in the mysterious, to great effect and success for those in the hierarchy - they who ultimately no more believe in the existence of God than the hierarchy of China do.
I accept that for some their belief in the existence of God can lead to great humanitarian works. I also believe you will find similar humanitarianism within atheists, provided one is not too prejudicial.
Ahhh, I see. So, what a Christian does always goes back to their belief. But, not the atheist. How convenient. A group with atheistic beliefs can do as they will and their atheism is not the root cause but a group of theists are certainly only acting the way they do because they are theists. I'm not following the logic on that one.
I do agree that both theist and atheist can work to better the condition of their fellow humans.
"Ahhh, I see. So, what a Christian does always goes back to their belief. But, not the atheist." That was not my logic, nor implied. I can't see how you arrived at such a conclusion from what I wrote.
You have admitted there is wide diversity amongst the beliefs of people who claim to be christian. I agree with you. My conclusion, for my own understanding, is that no god exists as christian people believe (but can't prove.) I have no ability or desire to prove that such a god does not exist.
Also, I do not belong to a group of people that label themselves "Atheist." A would object to being tarred with a corporate colour (maybe black, to show my demonised thinking? )
There's the problem. Who cares what people call themselves and why do we allow a simple label to create negative images of another human being, without having the benefit of knowing them?
It would be, maybe, a better world if we were not so hooked on labels. But that points to the innate, call it instinctive, defensive posture: the desire to belong in a group - safety in numbers, gregariousness.
We wear clothes, adopt "normal" behaviour, recognisable body language, common courtesies, in order to feel safe, "one of us." I sometimes feel a very strong loneliness when outside of the community, especially if I get the sense no one cares.
So, labels, badges are here to stay, until such time as we humans cease to exist.
Not sure what you mean but I do agree the Reverend Donald is rapidly sinking into a state of dementia that makes Bush and Reagan look like geniuses. The people defending him must be on their own dementia rumba train.
I have been to 6 war zones in my travels. Never saw anyone motivated by atheism to kill. Many non religious countries are on the top of the happiest countries listed.
It is not the amount of millions of innocent lives that the US killed that matters. It is the Tyranny control and fear of anticipation of the big bang of a gun or bigger gun or a bomb that case poverty Worldwide in which by far kills most. I seen the horror that man does to man. I watch plenty of films on Christians put Muslims in camps and starving them to death. Plus murdering the men and little boys. As far as terrorism goes Muslims suffer the most of the top two Religions. Very few crazy lunatic who has the Quran all wrong goes shooting and blowing himself up or its a drone that is made in the US killing innocent people (and making more people pissed off at the US). From traveling most of the Muslim countries, the conditions for some of these Muslim countries before and after are the strong case for Hell on earth.
North Korea is just a sidetrack to what they are really going to do in the Middle East.
The problem is you sit there eating you hamburger and coke not realizing what the world is like. Its too easy to blame a black man or a Muslim man for your troubles. US have very little to fear from the outside yet much of the world fears Israel and US. The occasional nut job that shoots people here in the US. Is terrorism a bad thing , a bit of a problem yet there are 100s of greater problems to work out. But blaming Muslims for all our troubles is just stupid. Or blaming atheist for spiritual problems, they are there to keep you in your condescending over ego in check and advance the world in Science, thank dog for that. Atheist could have more room for improvement in their open minds towards spiritual sided advancement also.
It’s not us verse them; this world is my family leave them and their kids alone. Or we will become all bricks in the wall. It’s not just the Government that sucks, the public can suck too.
This is the best and simplest explanation of Atheism I've heard so far;It's by Ricky Gervaise
Person A: I believe in God.(they are now a theist)
Person B: Can you prove it?
Person A: No
Person B: Then I don't believe you (they are now an atheist)
A true atheist doesn't have a belief system;It's a simple statement of non belief...any other embellishment is on the individual.
Thought I'd throw this in for all you big brains who call atheism a 'religion' lol
A trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.
"a belief in democratic politics"
synonyms:faith, trust, reliance, confidence, credence
"belief in the value of hard work"
Belief is when I get a hint of something of an idea or growth towards a knowing. Got dumped by 3 Christian girlfriends because could not be saved and was not on the same page. Getting to the page of Hell and at Universal truth and knowledge. It was time to close that book. There must be better good books out there with less hardships and know it all, sheep herders.
God's house is already in order. It's so great in heaven! No credit cards, no debts, no taxes, no marriages, spouses, offspring. Just friends greeting each other ...
with flowers in their hair.
Haha, that leads me to further deep thought.
If what you have just described is Heaven, maybe the opposite would be Hell.....credit cards, debts, taxes, marriages, spouses, offspring.
I think there's a place in most like that. Are we barking up the wrong tree?... or looking down the wrong well?
The process of Deep Thinking benefits from a few laughs.
Ever since my sweetheart died, big changes are happening ng to me,what does it mean
If the heart stops, the field stops and it is no longer apparent. But, what if the field just organizes itself beyond the body according to its invisible organization, as a continuation of the on-going organization of it's field …
Of course, there is only evidence of the "field" on earth while it manifests in life-forms.
Is it wrong of me to equate f i e l d with f o r c e ?
as in, "May the F i e l d be with you?"
Atheists want to have a valid reason to believe in God. So far, they don't have any evidence. Can't even one Christian, including Jesus, give them evidence? He really does need to get back here at some point. He has some explaining to do!
No one needs to give anyone evidence for anything. Does an atheist have to believe in a God? Of course not. Should a Christian badger someone about belief? Of course not. I've always seen badgering about belief (or non belief) as evidence that the person doesn't have full confidence in their opinion. They are looking for safety in numbers.
I do agree that it has been a very long time since Jesus walked the earth which is why I honestly don't think any deity would hold a lack of belief against anyone. My main problem is simply with people who don't bother to think. Who make foolish blanket statements about large groups of other human beings. Those types of people (as evidenced here in this thread where even you jump on the band wagon of illogical reasoning) are simply, in my opinion,victims of not being completely comfortable and confident in their conclusions. Badgering others on unanswerable cosmic questions means, to me, that the person badgering is unsure and worried about that fact.
I don't care what anyone thinks of the greater reality. The greater reality isn't the question of the moment. The question of the moment is how do we treat our fellow man
I would repeat, again, the obviously (to me) true statement: "God exists in the mind of the believer."
That affirms your answer and answers the question. But to clarify that, God can be He or he, She or she, It or Thou ...... taking on any identity or form that suits and satisfies the mind of the beholder.
Any expression which comes forth from that mind thus tells us about it's owner, expressed in the guise of God.
Understanding this allows me to put aside any argument as to the nature of God, because knowing more about the person becomes paramount.
The real question I need to ask myself: "Do I want to know more about this person?" Maybe. Maybe not. It will depend on how much time I'm willing to put into the relationship; whether I find any attraction; my level of patience; whether he/she is able/willing to reciprocate.
The limitations of this type of platform we use over the World Wide Web, are obvious: visual only, (unless you the listener are eye-sight impaired and depend on technology-aided touch or hearing devices. With great respect I welcome you.) The mind's imagination inevitably comes into play. Such limitation means I have very little knowledge of you. So anything you tell me about yourself via any philosophy or beliefs that you hold, how easy is it for me to gain a totally false impression?
Personally, I am fortunate in having had a reasonable grounding in the written word. What about the person who finds it very difficult to write clearly? I can think of at least one very genuine person who often joins us here. He puts great effort into expression yet is often misunderstood.
I will shut up now and let others speak.
If someone gave me a choice: music or heaven, I would take music. Others would pick sex or food, or wine,
If there IS music in heaven, do they call it Ski-Fi ?
:-D if so, Ill go. There ARE a lot of musicians I am missing ... there now!
http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/27/entertain … index.html
or what would Jesus say to those who love earth and don't want to go to heaven,
Christians: "If you are "good," you will go to heaven."
Me: "That's okay… I'm happy…
And when I die. I won't be able to know anything,
Most people are addicted to other people. What does Jesus say about that addiction?
But of, course, everyone needs to allow the other to have their own beliefs. No one can convince anyone how to believe or what to believe except by how they live their lives.
We do die. That we know.
How much deeper can we go? Not much.
"... Those types of people (as evidenced here in this thread where even you jump on the band wagon of illogical reasoning) are simply, in my opinion,victims of not being completely comfortable and confident in their conclusions. Badgering others on unanswerable cosmic questions means, to me, that the person badgering is unsure and worried about that fact."
"I don't care what anyone thinks of the greater reality. The greater reality isn't the question of the moment. The question of the moment is how do we treat our fellow manI wasn't badgering. What about those unanswerable cosmic questions?" Live to learn.
An atheist is at a point in his life when he is questioning religion in general. He is questioning blind belief, superstitious thinking and false indoctrinations. He is pondering the nature of reality while contemplating/considering reality-feedback within himself.
So what about asking "cosmic questions?' Is one not allowed to ask them, hoping someone, anyone can address them, without it being called badgering?
And yes, I have no (original) answers.
The truth is, an atheist may find reality quicker than blind believers of any religion.
There 43,000 different Christian denominations worldwide with debatable wrongs translations. From each of my last three girlfriends that dumped me because I could not be saved. I was not on the same page of universal truth and knowledge. Prefer the good book of Wizard of Oz, where the dog (god -backwards) pulled back the curtain to expose the man behind the curtain.
Is it Yahweh or the Hi-way. I don’t know much about the 99% unknown earth mass. Yet these women claim to know through an ancient book that’s holds the total universal truth and knowledge.
Why is religion so concern about our sex lives and war. I don"t interfer in their lives and their rap sheet shows more harm than good as a group ego. In an over ego world. I'll keep my perfect record of no harm, that will make God, really jealous.
Satan can't handle all the billions of Fornicator God sends to hell
Save Satan or have all loving God turn hell into a hot nightclub. Why would God give the ultimate pleasure on earth (sex) then allows enteral torture.
Since the Pope cancelled hell, why not cancel out the whole book. Imagination is the only common thread everyone uses anyways. Lets at least make good sense out of our godlike imagination for the salvation of our own species. Kindness is what the World needs most, not more conflicting Religions.
Dead is when something is forgotten. When humans go extinct. We all are finally dead. Live a memorable life. Or die .
In view of our shocking human effort at management, I suspect when that happens, this planet will give a sigh of relief and say, "Thank small-g god for that. Amen."
This planet doesn't even know we are here. Earth is a extinction machine. T rex who?
Furthermore Earth is a God. It worships nothing
If the earth existence was measure in a year calendar. Dinosaurs would have been here for 3 months. Man for 10 minutes.
If T Rex just had a better hand, he would of wrote that God was made in his image.
Proves that this earth is an over ego world. T Rex ranks hight but the immortal jellyfish beats him. Man is not even top ranked running in existence on the planet.
Time? Year? Hour? Uugh. Earth wares no watch. Time is a ego. Mans.
T rex over ate. It didn't pay mind to its resources.
Time does not measure up in the Bible, that is for sure. It is fun imagining events throughtout nature and human history.
The what? The time is now . Always .That book you mention is part of the false reality we build.its paper
Since we haven't even gotten our heads wrapped around the whole concept of space and time I would say you are putting the cart before the horse with that critique.
The horse would relate to about 50 million years ago according to bio science. Human imagination came long before religion was thought of with a string along of their own fairytales to control people. At least religion is good comic material.
I perfered the good book of Wizard of Oz. When the dog (god backwards) exposed the man behind the curtain.
That anwsers more guestions than I get from pastors who anwser with. :You got to have faith: or my favior : How to make God laugh..answer ....Tell God your Plans.
LOL The earth is a clock! You can tell time quite accurately from the position of the planets and solar system, going back millions of years.
Its a vast universe. Man and its Milky Way watch make me laugh. We say a Million years as if we live it. If we do find alien life first thing will try to do is tell it what time it is. They'll think stupid
by helenathegreat 10 years ago
In your personal spiritual beliefs, do animals have souls? Are they interchangeable with human souls? In the past few days I've spent some time looking into my dog's eyes, and I can't decide what I believe...
by Grace Marguerite Williams 5 years ago
What is your perception of death?
by Emile R 4 years ago
I just read a comment in the forum about meeting God. The exact statement was If you believe you've met God (and this is a generic statement) and that God has shown you the true way it's very very difficult to even get most people to show flexibility . This attitude appears to permeate the...
by Deborah Sexton 8 years ago
I have not posted this for debate and I certainly do not want to convert anyone. The idea of Converting is not in my spiritual system of belief. There are a lot of statements made that people who believe in God base it on feelings and what they call faith (which is not true faith that is...
by Prodio 4 years ago
What do we indicate to - when we use the word - real? Are imaginations real? Well - when we imagine - we are obviously doing/using something (materialists = electricity of the nervous system/ others = spirit).So - though the contents of a fantastic imagination might not be necessarily true...
by Pandoras Box 8 years ago
I was reading an article about a study on nonbelieving pastors, and was somewhat intrigued by a rather tricky way of defining the word "god". Here's a short quote from one pastor. “...I still think the word has some value in some contexts. So I think the word God can be used very...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|