I was discussing god with few people...the discussion as usual turned into heated debate...nothing divides humans more than religion/god and soon debate turned into heated argument...one strong believer said it requires enlightenment to understand god ..to which one of my atheist friend replied ...atheism is ultimate enlightenment...
what are your views on this?
True enlightenment is knowing you don't know everything. They're probably both wrong, and right, to some extent.
To deny the spiritual dimension, (as atheists do), you could hardly call that enlightenment!
Atheists here seem to be obsessed with the "here and now", and what can be scientifically substantiated. No scientific discovery can be called enlightenment, just a "result".
It's a classic oxymoron, as far as I'm concerned.
well i was thinking while reading your comments...and it was hmmm of thinking phase ...i was thinking whether it can be called oxymoron or not?...because how enlightenment is defined in general way might not be enlightenment at all and what atheist say might actually turn out to be final reality...in that case they can be said an enlightened ones ...
How can they possibly be right, when they have less than TOTAL knowledge, and information?
Irrational, and illogical, on both counts.
They can only assert natural reality, and personal observation and experience. Both of which are limited (EXTREMELY limited).
agreed but what we call as not limited to senses can be trick of human brain too...for e.g. people all across the globe , irrespective of faith , whom they worship etc etc when they die , many of them see white light...this is often called near death experience...now scientist have discovered that it is due to chemical reaction and since humans are same species , no matter how they tag them (muslim,christian,atheist) , brain doesnot differentiate tags and released chemical as last attempt to save body...and these makes people see white light....
That may be so, but it's not an all encompassing explanation.
It is not a contradiction of the spiritual realm, nor is it merely a biochemical imbalance.
We may have chemical reactions in our brains when we fall in love, but our love for those dear to us is more than chemicals flowing in our grey matter.
Brain synapses fire when we think, talk, work etc, but our thoughts are more than electric sparks flashing in the brain.
in cases i mentioned...it is not imbalance but desperate act of brain to save body...it is last attempt ...
in case of love , well yes we do have chemical reactions in brain and yes s you said our love for those dear to us is more than chemicals flowing...you have point in that...
Unless you can provide any evidence to support your hypothesis, your claim is mere uninformed speculation.
Good science will support whatever worldview is actually true. The problem is what people are calling science very often. I think the most enlightened worldview is one that doesn't take anything "off the table" prematurely. Instead, we see people ruling out what they don't want to be true in advance.
Its a trick, and an obvious one. When they give reasons, they are not well supported, and turn out to be just their own beliefs really. That is just a different way of sharing what you personally believe, not giving evidences.
an almost perfect beginning to a statement:
"Good science will support whatever worldview is actually true."
-the issue facing that is nothing in this reality of the human mind is true only a perception of what is true from that realities perspective projecting outward (mind to infinity)
"The problem is what people are calling science..."
~indeed. Science ought to be observe and report only, not application of that observation. Unfortunately without application, humanism cannot seem to function and further indulge what it titles true and real.
This is/was the basis of my argument and what began a fun filled trip "down the rabbit hole". From it was born The Ism, the house of Quality over Duality, as well as Quantus Philo, how great free will. If anything Quantus Philo shows how both sensation (applied theology) and equation (applied science) are lacking humanities true purpose and reality...
Show us this so-called "spiritual dimension" and we'll gladly agree with you. You can't, of course.
Would you be as kind to define two things for me please?
What is Atheism?
In light of it, how does it account for everything in existence?
Unless we have a common base, there is no way to have any type of discussion. We have to agree on what these words mean, otherwise there can be no basic of logic.
Atheism is, by all observations, a seemingly logical detachment from a theology with still a strong sensational attachment. Sort of a paradox, really.
Else, atheism would thoroughly dismiss --in all points and practices by thought or argument-- theism. It would simply walk away, never mentioning it again, as if it never existed. And --in atheism's own expression, leave theology to its own demise.
As for enlightenment, that is interesting to hear. Is it a form of enlightenment? No. And certainly not the ultimate form of enlightenment, as again, enlightenment is the acknowledgment of the human ability to reach a higher plateau of reason, awareness, consciousness that understands the fabrics of itself and the universe --without using the traditional methods of sensation/excessive emotion/solely ritual methodology or mechanics/science/equation to achieve the aforementioned. In Simpler terms: complete understanding via universal expression of itself and not human intervention/presumption of the universe.
Atheism is still a by-product of theism. Like meat by-products from a can of Religious Spam. In my opine, still looks and tastes nasty, but less expensive than traditional religion-in-a-can, I suppose.
How very wrong you are James. Atheism has absolutely no connection with anything at all. I know it makes you feel better to think it does, but that is because you are only halfway there.
The active atheism you note in regards to theism is more anti-religion and eradicating things that damage us is a collective responsibility.
In much the same way as I argue with nationalists, or people who show no regard for the planet on which I currently reside - I argue with theists - because it is divisive and damaging - that does not mean I am attached to it as you are suggesting.
Disregarding the physical makes no sense. If it did - you would not be here, using a scientific creation to earn money to eat.
Until such times as you do so - you cannot claim to be anything other than a sensationalist yourself. Personally - connecting to what the theists call "god" or you call the "universal expression," does not allow me to function in the physical reality I live in. And I need to do that for the moment.
I had no idea you were an atheist. (grin).
As for This:
"universal expression," does not allow me to function in the physical reality I live in. And I need to do that for the moment."
I thoroughly disagree. The Universal Expression IS the reality. The portion theism or science exists is a gray area of their own making --their minds. Rightly so that The Ism or former theists require a term named G/god to define their reality. Yet, their presentation of that reality is pitiful and certainly NOT the actual reality the universe itself, and even more so not the expression of the universes reality for mankind.
Functioning within "a reality" (a priori, priori or posteriori) is limited by the reality, no doubt --in this case the mind of a theist or atheist.
I would wager, either way, you still have functionality-- within the gray and if by the universal expression of who your are supposed to be-- a functionality far exceeding the quest for knowledge by trivial engagements/rituals/experiments?
Marcus, although I engage the sensationalist, the equation or the thinker does not mean I am any of them. I thought you would have reasoned that out by now. Am certainly no "angelic whisperer" nor "nebula whisperer". I merely observe and report --not based on either sides documents or evening vespers.
That is because you do not have a genuine connection to the "universal expression," you simply say you do - otherwise you would not use such words as "supposed to be."
The assumption/claimed enlightenment/mistaken identity you use to claim certain knowledge proves you are simply another claiming esoteric knowledge that places you above others.
Until you reject sensationalism - rather than claiming to have done so - it is just more word salad. Talk of the mythical flood as a real event? Just another religionist claiming not to be. Sorry.
I, and any rational person in --at least this forum, would conclude you have no idea what connections any has to Creator. Supposition and apathy seem to be your only outlets else hostility toward your former "religion". My use of words is only to delegate the possibility. What you do with that delegation is of no concern of mine. Sorry, it just isn't. Relishing your hot dog argument and smearing condiments on stale bread results in you still eating it --and quite a hefty portion, yes? Else, why as a proclaimed atheist (not the active atheist you mentioned to me) are you here? A true/pure atheist would never engage sensationalism, no matter the conversation. Anyone rejecting sensationalism without experience of True Reality, is going end up --well, being you. I do not see how that is more fitting. Even worse is a sensationalist turned scientist, which at least you have not that route, to my present understanding of you by your forumivity. As for me rejecting sensation-equation, I have long passed that road. Might want to look for the signs --they're everywhere. Along the way, provide something substantial and valid to life, something evidentiary, rock solid and no loopholes or things to work through, then maybe they would honor it and consider it. Me? No. I won't and this you know.
A flood? Still stuck in BC 5000 or 2000? Dear me, still hanging on every sensationalist text/document as if your life depended on it...such a "non-active" active atheist you are (sorry, again).
At any rate, should you like to see what I know of Creator, be all means, let's make a date of it. I will even go so far as to invite you and yours, at my expense, for a week of experience.
Enjoy the weekend!
There many ways to enlightenment, choose the one with heart.
For what I don’t understand, at some point, I will need to accept. For what I may not ever understand, I will at least have peace within. To over focus on any one thing or to dwell in only one group “be all and end all”, is to limit my thinking and to move away from the light. Enlightenment is to gaze with undimmed eyes on all darkness. There are more days to each dawn; the sun is also a star for even Jesus is a son (sun) under God, for we are all god.
Enlightenment comes little by little for true spiritual growth come through persistent exercise of real love. Ignorance is weapon of tyrants; enlightenment is the salvation of the free. When one takes one with a heart that person's then dreams of possibilities, then you become those images. Give people your enlightenment, to share, for all we have in life is what we give away.
I can not master life unless I love what I do. We all must carry water and chop wood, the only different is, is to do it with enlightenment. "Love is, work made visual" I love what I do for most waking hours of my life because to mastering others require force, mastering the self is strength and to carry the quiet acceptance of what is.
The most "enlightened" views will come from those that use facts and good reasoning skills to back up what they believe and say and think.
We see one side saying they are doing this more, but as you really look deeper, we see assertions, and their own held beliefs coming through, and often with very poor reasoning attached. Its not a put down, its an observation that I see people doing, and often they tack on put downs of whole groups of people, that really they just disagree with. A truly enlightened view doesn't need to be putting people down as part of its base. We would see more rational and fair discourse.
Also, people need to realize that others see when they apply their own philosophies and worldviews to what they are "calling" science or factual things. People need not feel bullied or put down by types like these for their tactics are clear. It seems there is a self applied driving force to just prove the worldview that is opposite of their, as wrong. To justify the sometimes very negative behavior, we see that they are just putting people down, really just accusing and accusing the wrong things. In some of the most "polite" exchanges, there are often put downs inherent in a comment.
That isn't necessary, and doesn't help promote peace for more people overall. Understanding for instance, that some religions taught crusades, while others taught and lived a different message is critical. People that can't make the mental distinctions and just hurl insults, aren't helping themselves or anyone. It is what creates a lot of the problem.
Not letting the behavior get to you, and keeping a clear and critical way of thinking at the forefront can disarm a person that is just intent on hurting other people's worldviews. I find that an odd way to think in the first place. Don't let others put your down just because they don't want what you believe to be true or not.
For instance, I am anti killing and anti crusades. Daily however, I see people allowed to go on the attack and say that what I believe caused those things. What I believe however, if you actually examine it truthfully, supports the opposite. I hope to inspire clearer thinking on these issues. The division needs to stop and will be better for everyone.
Like the definition of faith, enlightenment can have two distinct meanings, the first is to "understand" while the second is "spiritual insight into religion".
The first definition is used often when someone requires clarification or understanding of a concept, proposal, etc.
The second definition is essentially faith based subjective interpretation of religious dogma.
Obviously, atheism wouldn't fit into the second definition but could be said to easily fit and command the first.
The only thing that I can see here is that no one can agree with anyone else.
And still my questions are left unanswered!
So, if no of you can even come into agreement as to what it means, or at least point me to a very simple definition, then how can anyone even claim that it has any merit?
Please help me understand exactly what it means.
If you want an enlightenment summed up just by any one group, what the hell do I know?
If you want an enlightenment summed up of my self, then it is...
"A quiet acceptance of what is"
If that is true, could that not be also the case if there was a God, if that was in fact true?
It would seem to me that if it is a quiet acceptance of what is, then the real issue should be what is, why is it and how!
There has to be something or someone behind it all in order to get it all started. Surely it cannot be limited by what we know or much less by what we can understand!
So regardless of what we think or what we may want, there has to be something or someone that is well beyond us that is behind it all!
That is the kind of thing some people want to believe as opposed to what is actually behind reality.
The whole Universe is connected; people want oneness yet, tend to separate. Out of all the100 billions of people, who ever lived on earth, how can they take just one man like Jesus and claim he is the whole truth and knowledge out of the entire Universe. Anyone tells me they are very intelligent, I think most likely they are not, because it's not intelligent to do so.
As for each ego group claiming they have the Ultimate answers to the whole Universe. It makes me think, how limited thinking and have limited imagination that is.
I accepted all groups and take the best from each and every group. That way, I can think that every one is God, so if I am God too, I can ultimately answer my own question best.
The claims made by the so called followers of Jesus the christ are usually the claims that the man made by himself and/or of himself....
eg I am Truth....and You shall know all things...all things are possible to you...
nevertheless these things are generally not a reality among that group... in fact his negative declaration are more of a reality with them.
however... I would stand by each and every one of his claims for I know them truly to be a reality...
Now to those who disbelieve...this unbelief stand in your way of this reality being in you.
and one cannot believe unless one knows Truth and this Truth teaches a man all things, and by which the entire reality if the universe is like an open book.
And Truth is not the words of men but the Word of God.
So if I be a fool unto you then so be it...
But I know Truth for I am it.
Imagine the whole human race has only 1% knowledge or our entire earth and that information is of 1% of the surface crust of 6 km, deep. Not the 99% interior of the earth we don't know anything about.
Then take each one person among the billions of people collective knowledge on earth it still come to 1% Total knowledge. Let not get started on how much bigger the Universe is.
How can you know only from one book you have enough universals truth and knowledge, rather than the thousands of great book among the billions of people and don’t get me started about TV, Phones and internet?
Would your brain need not need to be bigger than hundreds of planets combines to figure this one out
You must need to Know every problem in order to say you know the answer of the meaning of life for everyone here on earth.
Show me the outer limits of your imagination and I'll show you the universe...
Men follow books but Truth can never be written...
So I am greater than any and all books that can ever be written...
So I do not need a book nor books nor internet nor tv nor phone etc..
I do hope you are enlightened
For atheist may be but for the rest obviously not. It's anyone's perception.
How can atheism be ultimate enlightenment when the Atheist because they can not physically experience God denies His existance? Life all life is of God.
Complete and total enlightenment is only achieve through religiously understanding that the meaning of one's life is to be determined by oneself, as well, as is their purpose for living.
Those who claim other have no understanding of a "spiritual" dimension, apparently lack enlightenment themselves, especially into themselves.
The only true spirituality required in one's life is love. There is no rhyme or reason for any other spirituality, because any and all other forms of spirituality lead one to become selfish, and love does not exist within a selfish person.
What is your friends interpretation of ultimate enlightenment might be a good question?
Blimey, I've stumbled into some very clever people here.
But as I'm here.
Can there be a person who is a believer or unbeliever, but simply doesn't have any interest? So it's cool if people choose to follow or not follow, but it doesn't really matter?
If you believe in Cod, your life is full and elightened by Him.
If you do not believe in God, your life is full of different things and you can be elightened by those things as well.
Atheism is not disability, it is a certain way of thinking and experiencing life.
Atheism is ultimate enlightenment?
I don't think Atheism has any enlightenment.
[24:36] Allah is the Light of the heavens and the earth. The similitude of His light is as a lustrous niche, wherein is a lamp. The lamp is in a glass. The glass is as it were a glittering star. It is lit from a blessed tree — an olive — neither of the east nor of the west, whose oil would well-nigh glow forth even though fire touched it not. Light upon light! Allah guides to His light whomsoever He will. And Allah sets forth parables to men, and Allah knows all things full well.
http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/sh … p;verse=35
The Creator-God is Light and it is He who gives enlightenment.
I believe that atheism is a major form of enlightenment, although there are other forms which are more significant.
by Dave McClure 10 years ago
Tolerance, Reason and Humanity were the three pillars of Western Enlightenment, a philosophical movement inspired by such thinkers as Newton and Descartes and further developed by Rousseau, Paine, Voltaire, Hume. They looked back to Greek learning (which, incidentally, had been preserved by...
by Linda Rawlinson 6 years ago
Can we be too young to have achieved Enlightenment?Do we have to have a lived a long and 'full' life to be able to say that we know what it's all about? Or can Enlightenment come to anyone who thinks about it long and hard enough, no matter their age?
by daphniemoreno 4 years ago
What's your stand on Atheism?i'm agnostic and skeptic. And just want to know people's opinion, comment, and expression about atheism.
by Mick Menous 6 years ago
Let's face it. We ALL know that most atheists are paranoid of religions and that they're in-denial about it. They claim they're the more peaceful people in America when really they're no different from any average radical religious person. They also claim that there has been no crime commited in...
by yoshi97 9 years ago
Before I go into this discussion, we all need to understand that I am not a scientist, I am not a prophet, and I am not an expert on the topic. I am merely trying to offer my belief in how atheism occurs. And why some of you might not like what I am about to say, understand that it is not meant as...
by Kris Koshner 4 years ago
If United Nation were to declare ONE religion as the Global religion which ONE should it be?Christianity, Islam, Tao, Jews, Budhist, Hindu ,
|HubPages Device ID|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Google Analytics|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel|
|Google Hosted Libraries|
|Google AdSense Host API|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels|
|Author Google Analytics|
|Amazon Tracking Pixel|