Is faith a reliable path to knowledge?

. Yes, well Mickey Mouse is no longer in vogue. But many children have an emotional attachment to their dolls. To children they are trusted friends to which they can tell their secrets.

Aah, there's the crux. Spiritual life suggests adhering to a commonly held belief and perspective of our relationship to nature, such as believing that God will answer your prayers, because you have a spiritual connection to the mind of God.

Oh not at all, it depends on what your belief teaches you about your position and responsibilities to the natural functions in nature.

As I said, we are a violent, invasive species, in spite (or perhaps because) of the many religions that teach man's divine destiny to rule the world (as shepherds), each in accordance to his Holy Commands, which may vary widely and then are considered blasphemous.

In India, killing a sacred cow is a great crime. Here we have super markets full entire sections dedicated to beef, kosher beef, pork, certain endangered species.
In Indonesia, there used to be a practice of eating the brains of living monkeys, strapped underneath the table with the top of their head exposed through a hole in the table. It is a firm belief that by eating living brains, one gathers the (life) spirit of the animal. Native americans used to eat the heart of a freshly killed deer, to inherit its spiritual strenght. Spiritual life is practiced in many forms and that's the problem.

At least we have done away with offering living virgins as sacrifice to appease the God of fire in the volcanos of Hawaii.

It is secular law that has placed restrictions on the practice of harming others in the practice of religion.

I have here an old transcript of the intent of punishment by the Inquisition, which exercised an iron grip on compliance with scripture, in accordance to their interpretation. This truly scary instruction booklet could have been written by any cold-blooded dictator, but for a religion that claims Divine Inspiration??

Would you consider this good (virtuous) or bad (evil) methods to teach enlightenment?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Maybe so so, but that has nothing to do with the transcendental, as it pertains to God. So in answer to your question, I would not believe Mickey Mouse is God.
But I understand how you could feel justified in asking that.

I think what you've described there is more attuned to "religious life". "Spiritual life", or advancement of such, would be the reason one is religious.
Religious life is the training one undertakes, in a bid to advance, spiritually.

Good riddance to it.
But there are still terrible things that occurr on day to day levels, that makes sacrificing a Virgin, seem more acceptable (not that I think it is).

Which is good.

Why would you characterise that as teaching enlightenment?

I would be more inclined to describe that strategy as bad, as opposed to virtuous.

Jan.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You would not believe Mickey Mouse is God, because you already have another image (painting) of God, floating on a cloud, reaching his hand to create the first human, Adam. You believe in that?

And failing miserably, because you use the wrong training. Try science.

By saying that, to the people who lived in those times, you would be committing sacrilege. That was the specific purpose of the Inquisition, a thousand years later.

Yes, without secular law we would still be burning people at the stake.

(highlighted mine)

It was created specifically for the purpose of teaching adherence to the purity of the Divine Scripture.
I specifically shuddered at the common practice of wrapping "witches" in ropes and throwing them in the river to determine a persons innocence of being a witch.
If they floated back up, it was a sign of guilt (spiritual control) and the witch would be killed (public burning at the stake, which the entire village (men, women, children) was forced to witness this heinous act.
OTOH, if the person sank and drowned to death, it was a sign of innocence.
Now riddle me that one as teaching spiritual enlightenment.

We are in total agreement in this and I will stipulate that at certain times, certain religions are doing "good" works under the most demanding circumstances.

But alongside these "good samaritans" you will find many atheists, who are equally motivated, but for different (perhaps scientific) reasons.
The point I am trying to make, in the end it makes no difference what we have done or not done. The earth will be swallowed up by the sun. It's a mathematical certainty.
End of story.

Unless we manage to have at least one astronaut, and forty virgins make it to another human habitable planet..............

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That gets at why I'm basically an atheist regarding the divine figures of religious mythology.

I just have trouble believing that whatever explains the reality of reality, the universe's first cause, the origin of the laws of physics, the existence of mathematics, and whatever sustains existence from moment to moment... is a giant glorified human being with a human-style psychology.

That just seems inherently unlikely to me, just as absurd as saying that it is a glorified Mickey Mouse.

I guess that I think that human beings have far less cosmic significance than the traditional religions give us.

I do agree that ascribing human personality to whatever the ultimate explanations might be makes them a lot easier for the average person to relate to emotionally.

 

I agree with that perspective.
Reality is of course an implacable condition and IMO, becomes expressed as a result of its mathematically consistent functioning nature.

To claim that man was made in the image of god, is pure hubris and fails to take human foibles into account. If the claim were true, by the law of necessity and sufficiency, God would be also be in the image of humans and that sounds sacriligious to me.
At least the Catholic Papal department of science now recognizes evolution as fact, and that only leaves speculation as to original causality.

 

No. I'm trying to draw attention to any possible flaws in your epistemology. How do you know god is? What's the perception? Isn't god non-physical and our senses physical?

 

Why would I?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You can envision someone doing so, because you are atheist.

That is so silly, it's almost funny.
But in answer to your question. No.

Was it?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Can you elaborate on that, some more please?

What does this have to do with what we're discussing. Or the thread, for that matter?

Good on them!

jan.

 

Why? What difference would it make?
You asked me this in another thread, and you didn't accept my answer then.

If you want to know about God, then go and find out.
If you don't, then nothing anyone says is going to matter.
So we may as well just talk from our perspective positions.

jan.

 

You asked the question, I responded.

 

I don't accept that. Why don't you want to answer questions about how you know what you claim to know? How is your perception of God verified to be the actual god?

 

Perhaps the "perception" of god is an internally created formless image which cannot ever be verified. In reality God cannot be perceived and any verification, such as apparent miracles which do not obey natural law, has been debunked.

How does one perceive a spiritual concept?

 

True

 

god , life is in the sub-atomic . Life , the potenial is in all things .

 

god is not about " perception " , god is about understanding lifes energy . In all things.

Up to you

 

I am using the terminology used by Jan.

That would be nice, but that's not how it works. It supposedly depends on strict belief and adherence to scripture, which has been proven to contain false information. Moreover, individual perceptions vary, thus no one ever can really claim divine truth. This "witnessing" of god's interference is from purely personal emotional experience creates a personal god for every "spiritually inclined" person and we end up with 8 billion different gods, most of them incompatible with any other gods and as history shows, this is not always a good thing..

The question was not if could or should. The question was; "How does one understand life's energy as God"? We know quite a bit about energy, but it does not imply a sentient magical energizer bunny.

I am convinced that the potential for "all things" exist in the abstract before they become manifest. Bohm calls it the Implicate, but what does that have to do with spirituality?
That is a description of conversion from potential to expression. It's not divine (albeit very fortunate for all living things today).

The main problem I have with the concept of an all powerful sentient and motivated being is its inability to provide an experiential event, witnessed by theist, scientist, and layman alike, for some 3000 years, whereas before then the world was filled with gods or "demons" who made themselves manifest by making you sick or crazy (possession). We even had sin-eaters in those days. wow, that's far out thinking, even for an open mind.

Question: If God is the cause for all life energies, why do we get sick in spite of being a firm believer? For that matter, why do we die? Does God leave our "understanding" and emotional attachments. As Carlin says; It sounds more that god just doesn't give a damn about your or anyone else's beliefs.

And finally, science has debunked every previously unexplainable natural event, that was originally attributed to God's will, except for the BB, though we have some good ideas. When we solve that last remaining unexplained event, the need for God becomes moot, and each individual becomes responsible for his or her own actions.

I can "understand" that concept.

 

You don't accept God, period. Why? Because you're an atheist. That is the basis of why you are atheist.

I responded to your. question in the "In regards to atheism" thread (it was off-topic there also). Go and find it.

How is it that you have no perception of God, at all?

How is it that you think material nature gave rise to abilities?

Jan.

 

Define "spiritual concept"?

Jan.

 

en·er·gy
\ˈe-nər-jē\
noun

• : ability to be active : the physical or mental strength that allows you to do things
• : natural enthusiasm and effort
• : usable power that comes fromheat, electricity, etc.

ie

god is about understanding lifes ability to be active : the physical or mental strength that allows you to do things

Or

god is about understanding lifes natural enthusiasm and effort

Or

god is about understanding lifes usable power that comes from heat, electricity, etc

Got it

In all things

Got it

That's how the energy from the toaster makes the face of JC on the bread

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Is that where the expression "Holy Toast" comes from?

From that long list of examples, only the one I retained is responsible for all the others. It gives us understanding of how the universe functions. No Mystery.

 

I can't, though a native bruha once told me I was a very spiritual person. Apparently God dwells inside my mind, whether I believe in Him it or not. It's all very confusing. I actually looked it up;

Hey, counting numbers! That's in my ball-park. Now if we qualify that numbers and equations are symbolic representations of values and functions, I'm in!

I am troubled by the term "The Upper Chamber", where can that be found? Upstairs?

But you are the expert in spiritual matters, so I'll defer to your definition.