Atheism:believe in no God or disbelieve in God

That the power in all things is an illusion we create for ourselves. Like money, time, life etc.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Then...do they (the electrons) possess the personality, or do they rotate and shift in patterns that determine the personality? Is it within the electron, or to be found within the configuration of the electrons?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This makes me wonder? I see lots of illusions, my eyes see things that I question are real or not. Because of this I have been wondering for a long while now if it is possible that these illusions are in some way real, after all, I really see them and they appear at times when additional significant value can easily be attributed to their appearance, and they are really affecting how I view the Universe. Can illusions do that?

Also, as I see them more, they seem more real then what we say is real, as if reality is an Illusion and the Illusions are closer to the Real Essence.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sure... but that doesn't make them simple enough to need no further explanation, right?

 

The two are very different. One requires some sort of conscious intent, the other doesn't.

I realize we might be talking over each other though. Right now I'm assuming when you say a "reason for everything", you're saying it in the context of a conscious intelligent being (God) who intended to create us for purpose xyz. Is that correct and, if not, can you explain what you mean by "reason for everything"?

 

Thats a quality of the human mind. Nothing is ever enough.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Hmm since I've never articulated it, I'm finding words to be inadequate to explain my meaning.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I guess in a way I'm saying everything to me is connected and all part of a whole. Does that make sense?

 

You know, one could believe that and still not be a theist, or still believe it's all one big coincidence. That belief doesn't require intent behind creation.

 

Agreed. It's simply systemic thinking that does not necessarily posit a Creator.

 

It begs the question how these systematic states arisen.
The only coincidence of systematic states that are not designed, apparently is the universe system.

 

Greenberg

you can also use lotus leaves as plates - in India the production of lotus leaf plates is an industry (unfortunately the plastic plate industry is also burgeoning)

thinking, willing and feeling in the medium of eternity

BG 2.20 For the soul there is neither birth nor death at any time. He has not come into being, does not come into being, and will not come into being. He is unborn, eternal, ever-existing and primeval. He is not slain when the body is slain.

Or alternatively sat (eternity) cit (knowledge) ananda (bliss)

If one is pursuing the notion of ceasing to exist as the goal of liberation, issues arise

whoever may be right, I think the answer lies in philosophical analysis - needless to say "sitting down and having a good think" doesn't seem helpful in surmounting one's conditioned nature, since the root of conditioned nature is the (conditioned) mind


“

the point is that for the soul, there are no activities of renunciation in regards to matter since it bears no connection to matter (even though such issues may be important initially) - it kind of helps distinguish perfectional from practical spiritual life .... meaning to say that spiritual life is eternal does not entail issues of eternal renunciation

yes




“

even agnostically , it can remain a mental concept

my point is that the realization arises from practice, and that is precisely what is lacking in a person on the mental platform (ie immersed thoroughly in the notion of ideas only)

 

Someone who was really into math and circles thought up this notion that we could think of the world and everything in it in terms of systems.

 

What about God? Why do people think that God needs no further explanation?

 

From the idea that God is the universal constant, I suppose. As a source of the energy that makes up the universe, he does not need to change or come into being. Sort of like being the basis of the immaterial rather than the material. A cosmic spirit.

 

so, in the spirit of keeping things simple, why does this energy source have to have any additional baggage, such as intelligence?

 

To account for the organisation of both the material and spiritual system that the universe is made up of.

 

What organization?

 

The organisation which makes things predictable enough that I put on a lab coat and make assumptions about what I expect to find.

 

You mean fundamental physical law?

 

Or then ... if we think about it, it makes so much more sense that Xenu the intergalactic Space OverLord blah blah blah...

considering that there is EQUAL evidence for:
- God
- God as a universal constant
- God as a source of energy
- God that makes up the universe
- God that does not need to change
- God that does not need to come into being
- God being the bases of the "immaterial" (whatever that is)
- God being a cosmic spirit

- God with a hot body and big breasts like Athena
- God that likes "His" eggs over easy.

... as there is evidence for Xenu.

Why bother making the postulate at all?

Because it all comes back to he does not need to change or come into being. and there you have it. Why not "She" SAM? Or if not She then say It? But "It" and "She" don't feel right do they SAM? No No No .. not when we need a sky-daddy. A big fat alpha male ape in the sky.


The simple fact is we only have evidence of the existence of our universe.
That's all.
Not one shred of evidence of the existence of Xenu. Or Allah. They are both equally as plausible. So why believe in one over the other? Because you were taught to believe in one over the other. If you were a scientologist you're be rattling off attributes of Xenu.

- Xenu the invisible.
- Xenu the overloard.
- Xenu the cosmic egg-head


And it'd make just as much sense.

Which is to say ZERO.

Funny how Theists easily accept their non-observable sky-daddy always existed but can't make the logical leap to the fact that reality always existed without God. How easy they accept some half-baked story about an angel whispering into some cons brain?



You want to know why atheism MUST be defined as "lacking a beleif "? its to TRY and somehow pull some sort of semblance of a logical debate out of mumbo jumbo like "Xenu the cosmic universal egg-head and His Prophet camel-toe Joe"

THAT'S why.

Michael

 

Yeah, thats an example of one of those things we take for granted, cos they don't need any explanation.