Is there a God?

[rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrqwef43]

.

[Huguenot]

It seems to be a running theme that those who consider themselves spiritually 'enlightened' think non-religious people need to free their minds.

Conversely, to me those of a spiritualist/religious bent seem the least liberated people I've encountered. Their minds are cluttered and confused. Unwilling or unable to accept the simplest explanations in case it makes them feel insignificant, they crave meaning in everything like autistic numerologists seeking connections for the number 23.

Like angst-ridden teenage goths they distance themselves from the frightening simplicity of human existence, and elevate themselves to an ethereal musical plane whose validity is defined by the limited population rather than the quality of the environment.

Their need for ambiguity prevents them exploring the joys of everyday existence with even a minimal sense of curiosity, their vanity and self-obsession leads them to slowly retreat from the real world enthralled with the fizzing and buzzing of their consciousness.

Finally, like Narcissus, they drown in the glory of their own reflection.

The spiritualists may well consider themselves liberated, but the reality is that they're social amputees.

[Huguenot]

It's interesting reading your observations about personal growth rubsely, I think you are suffering a disassociation between the way you perceive yourself and the way you come across.

Your boasting about your metaphysical achievements brings to mind a rather pasty youth touting a supercilious sneer, posing and reposing, one hand on jutted hip the other sweeping your chest with the fingertips, demanding that disinterested passers-by admire your coat of many colours...

[HAL9000]

That's an extraordinarily harsh indictment of the billions who seek some deeper level of meaning to life through the spiritual realm - one would have expected a more tolerant attitude from you. You sound like a disillusioned misanthrope.

[Jeremy]

HAL9000 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Jeremy - other posters have recently rebutted

> theists with the rationalist, scientific evidence

> argument - Silverfox and Huguenot, for example,

> appear to be caught in that gyre. You?re not alone

> :)

>

> Just trying to free your minds - there is NO

> spoon!

I'm not sure how that's an answer to my previous post... but anyway...

[Huguenot]

If "the billions who seek some deeper level of meaning to life through the spiritual realm" want to avoid being judged, then they should avoid standing in judgement on others claiming they're better than everyone else and that they need to free their mind?

It's one of the manifestations of 'spiritualists' that they dish out pompous claptrap and then wage war on heretics.

I also doubt your 'billions' figure. My experience of religion around the world is that the vast numbers of adherents affiliate themselves with religion for social, political and recreational reasons, not to find meaning.

[HAL9000]

Hmmm... you do realise that it's a famous quote from a popular

?

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

yipes. I need a cigarette after all that.

[Huguenot]

Ah... ;-)

Your cultural references passed me by.

[SeanMacGabhann]

Given the religious blow-back in Pakistan the last day or two, I don't see much in the way of enlightenment

blasphemy as a concept - really?

[Jeremy]

Great article, Sean. It never ceases to amaze me, the evil things that people can do in the name of religion.

I think Rubsley made an important point in separating God from organised religion. I respect this stance (even if I don't understand it) a lot more than someone who blindly follows scripture and mythology. The latter can have very dangerous results.

[mockney piers]

I hate to fisk, but this one was a particularly telling statement

7. If life is about the evolution of the individual soul, none of this matters anyway.

Putting words into people's mouths? Noone has asserted that life is about anything much have they?

This is perhaps where the biggest atheist fallacy lies - 'cos they say "show me the proof" while not actually wanting it in the first place.

Fallacy implies logical deduction, nothing wrong with asking for proof, ignoring evidence is a fallacy. And why do you say an atheist doesn't want it, maybe they're desperate for it but can't bring themselves to take the leap of faith without proof?

Life is what you make it.

Aye, yep.

We are the creators of our own experience ("made in the image and likeness" of the original creator, if you will).

I agree we are the keepers of our own destiny, illness or chance not withstanding (acts of god? ;-P); but insisting we are the image and likeness of the original creator is just repeating anthropocentric mythology; universe revolves around the earth type stuff. So mankind is the only creature to enjoy a soul then is it?

And we have all the time in the world (quite literally, stretched, probably, over hundreds and thousands of lifetimes).

Speak for yourself, I'm lucky if I have another 30 years left.

You present this as fact, but really, howcome? No abrahamic religion believes in reincarnation, what makes you so certain?

Or do you think all religions nibble around god's core truths however they come at it, paths to god as it were? It's nice, but I find that hard to swallow considering how much is completely contradictory, and how people use these differences to wage war and spill blood, even if it's over something as trivial as the language a book was written in or what that cup actually contains.

So God doesn't care whether you believe in Him or not - nor is God in any hurry for you to come to Her, or experience It, because it's all just the grand journey of the soul and time isn't of the essence.

If god doesnt care, then what's in it for us? Entreaty won't make our crops grow or keep us healthy, but don't worry about being murdered or that nasty famine, none of it matters as long as you work towards enlightenment at some point or other in the far distant future (as a human, other animal, aother lifeform on another planet?).

But it brings us right back to the first clause of the first point. Whether or not anything matters.

I don't believe anything does matter in the cosmic sense, as in a deeper meaning. Why look for it, there is enough wonder, beauty around us, and our interaction with our surroundings an each other have a deep significance to us while we're alive. I honestly don't have a problem with that being it, it's enough to be getting on with for me.

And forgive me if I'm wrong, but it rather suggests that you simply cannot conceive of existence without that deeper meaning, in your case it would seem immortality through reincarnation if I read correctly.

And that's fine if it works for you, but of course wanting something to be true doesnt make it actually true does it, even if you simply cannot compute the alternatives.

You keep coming back as to how agnostics (I'll add that one in for you as I'm getting a bit annoyed at being labelled an atheist, I deny no god, nor anyone's right to believe) and atheists are missing the point, because your self-assurance is absolute, but it still makes nothing you believe real does it, ultimately it's just that, belief.

I say again, if it makes you happy, good luck, but you do keep coming across as rather superior 'poor widdle afeists' and it is beginning to grate.

[zeban]

I agree with every single word of that mockney piers. I wish I'd written it!

[rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrqwef43]

.

[Burbage]

rubsley Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> even when I say "I find it a tired and boring

> argument" I'd like to be understood as just

> expressing my own personal thoughts

Mine too, thanks. But even though theological debate remains as tired and boring as it was in Swift's day, that doesn't make it pointless.

God is a concept. Much like the Theory of Everything, Consciousness or the Easter Bunny's Magic Basket. As an explicatory models for the currently-inexplicable, it's fine. And if you can derive useful reasons for living a more socially-acceptable life from it, so much the better. As a concept, God indubitably exists, though in as many forms as there are people, whether they 'believe' or not.

In the absence of facts, we use rules of thumb and inventive fantasies to model our world, and this will always be the case, even for bits of it that don't exist. Scientific evidence will always limited by our methods, our knowledge and our reach. We don't, ironically, even really know what 'thought' is. But that doesn't stop our imaginations being infinitely greater and weirder than any set of rules or processes we can create with them.

There are lots of things we can't explain and we haven't evolved to cope with uncertainty very well. Presumably because the forces of natural selection have starved and eaten those possible ancestors who put navel-gazing above the making of soup or spears. Even now, our fear of half-glimpsed shadows helps prevent us getting mugged.

A belief in the supernatural can be useful. But so can disbelief, which tempers both the divine right of kings and the less savoury attentions of those who explot the belief of others (it's worth remembering that a faith in the unworldly does little harm. It's having faith in humans who claim to be unworldly that does the damage)

We are also gloriously free to share our ideas. Doing so is a social adaptation akin to mutual grooming and, though debate is not as immediately beneficial as having the fleas licked from your ears, the advantages are similar. It's no coincidence that Bertrand Russell, the celebrated atheist, reckoned that the rituals, meetings and support offered by organized religion did more good than harm. As a species, our survival relies on the exchange and evolution of ideas, even though the majority of ideas exchanged are not necessarily productive or useful. Ideas evolve in us like swine flu evolves in pig's guts (Morphic Resonators may disagree on this point, but only in terms of the mechanism). For every billion doomed and pointless ideas, there'll be one that'll catch on like the pandemic or the paperclip.

In that sense, concepts have an existence that are independent of us as individuals. They are omnipresent and reach beyond our individual understanding. Thus, even a tedious and acrimonious debate between 'atheists' and 'theists' serves a purpose that's above and beyond the participants or the milieu in which they froth. So, although it doesn't matter, and you'll never reach a conclusion, it really is a good use of your time.

[HAL9000]

rubsley Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> 7. Reincarnation is a concept found in pretty much

> every religion and belief system in the world -

> including the Abrahamic traditions. I'd say

> there's pretty good evidence for it too.

Quite right.

Reincarnation is deeply-rooted in Judaism even today: no doubt carried over from its Hindu and Buddhist origins: more

Before around 600AD reincarnation was a central Christian (Catholic and Orthodox) doctrine: more

Edited because I hadn't noticed that the original point had been addressed and to add a better link.

[Jeremy]

I was really intending to stay away from this thread - but what is the evidence for reincarnation?

I've seen stuff on TV about people having knowledge/memories of places they've never been to. And Hal's Wikipedia link mentions something about birthmarks representing fatal wounds of the previous incarnation. But I assume you're referring to something rather more substantial!

[rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrqwef43]

.

[Jeremy]

Hard to disprove... even harder to prove!

[rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrqwef43]

.

[SeanMacGabhann]

so.... given that you don't need anything other than what you WANT to believe, what is the difference between genuine, proper nutters and people who believe what they want to believe?

[rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrqwef43]

.

[Jeremy]

rubsley Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I quietly walk with my beliefs, and live my life, and if anybody

> wants to challenge them then the burden of proof is on them. You don't

> think God exists? Well that's all fine by me - and if you can prove it,

> I'll happily change my mind too.

That's fair enough.

I was just wondering what you meant by your original point about there being pretty good evidence for reincarnation... that's all.

[rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrqwef43]

.

[Huguenot]

Did you know that David Icke wrote thirteen books? To be that prolific he certainly must know what he's talking about. Come on rubsley, show us your inner lizard ;-)

I intend to write a book shortly, and trust your faith in my opinion will become much more robust!