Philosophy Now Forum

Hobbes wrote: Nick_A wrote:
Hobbes wrote:
Yeah - don't forget that next time you are taking a shit. You are doing god's work.


Very true. That is about the most sensible thing I've ever read from you.


How do you know the mind of god?

I don't have to know the mind of God to know the purpose of shit in accordance with universal laws.. Manure nourishes the earth

Nick_A wrote: Yes, I distinguish between Christianity having originated with a conscious source and the many man made interpretations of Christendom. There is simply no reason to blindly believe. The question becomes how to consciously verify.

That is interesting because you seem to take the origin of Christianity from a conscious source as an axiom. How have you verified this so as to satisfy yourself that it is not what you call a blind belief?

sthit wrote:

That is interesting because you seem to take the origin of Christianity from a conscious source as an axiom. How have you verified this so as to satisfy yourself that it is not what you call a blind belief?

Yes. If the essence of Christianity revealed to Man is a reality, it must be a perennial tradition meaning it always was. If man invented it, then it is just another fad. The essence of Christianity was always in the world. Jesus helped Man remember it and show what is necessary to profit from remembering: carrying ones cross.

Nick_A wrote:sthit wrote:

That is interesting because you seem to take the origin of Christianity from a conscious source as an axiom. How have you verified this so as to satisfy yourself that it is not what you call a blind belief?

Yes. If the essence of Christianity revealed to Man is a reality, it must be a perennial tradition meaning it always was. If man invented it, then it is just another fad. The essence of Christianity was always in the world. Jesus helped Man remember it and show what is necessary to profit from remembering: carrying ones cross.

Yeah but you have seen the evidence that in fact Jesus helped Man only in the western world remember it. The religions of the eastern world are old too and in all probability older if you see the evidence and there is no mention nor semblance of Jesus or the Christian God in those religions. So how do you reconcile that?

You also say that the essence of Christianity was always in the world. That is an axiom too. How have you verified this? The world is pretty large and there are pockets which have not even heard of the Christian God or Jesus. How does that fit in with your axiom?

Sthit, what you call the Christian God is the Hebrew God that became the God of Christendom. It would be foolish to discuss Christianity with those who haven't felt the purpose of the perennial traditions. It cannot be understood and just creates negativity . But regardless I believe St. Augustine is right

"The very thing which is now called the Christian religion existed among the ancients also, nor was it wanting]rom the inception of the human race until the coming if Christ in the flesh, at which point the true religion which was already in existence began to be called Christian." -ST. AUGUSTINE, Retractiones

Nick_A wrote:Sthit, what you call the Christian God is the Hebrew God that became the God of Christendom. It would be foolish to discuss Christianity with those who haven't felt the purpose of the perennial traditions. It cannot be understood and just creates negativity . But regardless I believe St. Augustine is right

"The very thing which is now called the Christian religion existed among the ancients also, nor was it wanting]rom the inception of the human race until the coming if Christ in the flesh, at which point the true religion which was already in existence began to be called Christian." -ST. AUGUSTINE, Retractiones

No, my question was in regard to your statement that you do not subscribe to blind belief. You have accepted that Christianity existed since the inception of the human race as an axiom when the evidence suggests that there is a large human population which till very recently had never heard about Christianity.

I agree that it would be foolish to discuss Christianity with those who haven't felt the purpose of the perennial traditions. My question is how do you reconcile your belief that Christianity began with the human race against the fact that a large human population had no idea about Christianity till recently? Wouldn't it be necessary for all humans to know of Christianity if it existed since the beginning of the human race?

Hobbes' Choice wrote:I'm an atheist, because belief is simply not enough. I do not have to deny something that is inherently stupid.
As an atheist I feel no obligation to defend myself. Atheism is a label for Theists, and exists only whilst they exist.

There is no idolatry, no dogma, no creed.

Then who is it that is claiming to be an Atheist? ...and is there a belief in that who?

Dontaskme wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:I'm an atheist, because belief is simply not enough. I do not have to deny something that is inherently stupid.
As an atheist I feel no obligation to defend myself. Atheism is a label for Theists, and exists only whilst they exist.

There is no idolatry, no dogma, no creed.

Then who is it that is claiming to be an Atheist? ...and is there a belief in that who?

Where it not for the presence of Theists destroying the world, there would be no need to call decent ordinary rational people "atheists". Calling me an atheist is about me NOT believing.
Some atheists believe some things. But calling them atheistic for a belief is a contradiction in terms.

I believe nothing. That is not to say that I do not have aspirations. I aspire to the world having equality of opportunity and freedom from poverty. You might call that a belief, but it is the sort of belief which aspires to a new future. I'm not pretending that equality exists, nor that it is a natural right; nor that morals exist in an objective world. That is not to stop me being moral and seeking a better morality from those around me. Once again this position can be called belief, but it is not the same as a belief that something is true or that it exists.
It is a wish for a preferred state.

Being an atheist might involve some in aspiring to a situation where people did not believe in god and behaved morally well for its own sake - not for the promise of heavenly reward.
But atheism in general term has no content.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:That is not to stop me being moral and seeking a better morality from those around me. Once again this position can be called belief, but it is not the same as a belief that something is true or that it exists.
It is a wish for a preferred state.

Wishing for a preferred state would require something true to exist in order to fulfil the state. If there is a wish to fulfil some desire then there would have to be a belief there is something true and existing in order to make the preferred state possible, so what do you think that true existing thing is..and do you believe it to be true and existing? If you believe that, then that is the same as the theist who is believing what you have just denied as being not the same as.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Being an atheist might involve some in aspiring to a situation where people did not believe in god and behaved morally well for its own sake - not for the promise of heavenly reward.
But atheism in general term has no content.

The belief in no god comes from the idea that there is a someone existing who does believe in god else the idea would have never arisen. Both ideas have evolved through the Knowledge of opposites.... only the play of duality is known via knowledge. The source of knowledge is nondual therefore unknowable, the source of anything known cannot be located, knowledge is of the mind, god is a mental construction.
Therefore, the one believing in god has to be the same one believing in no god...because we all have one thing in common and that is imagination.

Dontaskme wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:That is not to stop me being moral and seeking a better morality from those around me. Once again this position can be called belief, but it is not the same as a belief that something is true or that it exists.
It is a wish for a preferred state.

Wishing for a preferred state would require something true to exist in order to fulfil the state.
TRUE
If there is a wish to fulfil some desire then there would have to be a belief there is something true and existing in order to make the preferred state possible, so what do you think that true existing thing is..and do you believe it to be true and existing?
You are making a thinking error here. You area assuming that the thing desired already exists somewhere are implicitly denying the possibility of something new. If for a thing to be true had already to exist there would be no need to aspire to it.
If you believe that, then that is the same as the theist who is believing what you have just denied as being not the same as.
Once again - your thinking fails you. Fairies do not have to exist for me to want them to exist.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Being an atheist might involve some in aspiring to a situation where people did not believe in god and behaved morally well for its own sake - not for the promise of heavenly reward.
But atheism in general term has no content.

The belief in no god comes from the idea that there is a someone existing who does believe in god else the idea would have never arisen.
This is either completely meaningless, or does not add to the discussion. Believing in god does not stem from the reality of god, but from wishing god exists. It is a way to justify a moral position without taking responsibility for it. The claim is that its god's idea, which leave you off the hook.

Both ideas have evolved through the Knowledge of opposites.... only the play of duality is known via knowledge. The source of knowledge is nondual therefore unknowable, the source of anything known cannot be located, knowledge is of the mind, god is a mental construction.
Therefore, the one believing in god has to be the same one believing in no god...because we all have one thing in common and that is imagination.

Nope! Since this is simply an empty assertion with no basis I have nothing more to offer on this last point.

Dontaskme: If there is a wish to fulfil some desire then there would have to be a belief there is something true and existing in order to make the preferred state possible, so what do you think that true existing thing is..and do you believe it to be true and existing?

Hobbes' Choice wrote:You are making a thinking error here. You area assuming that the thing desired already exists somewhere are implicitly denying the possibility of something new. If for a thing to be true had already to exist there would be no need to aspire to it.

Then there would be no need for a belief. So who is the one believing or disbelieving and what is the belief aspiring to? and for what purpose ? Something new quickly become something old within the constant flux of life. The new is recycled old, because nothing ever goes missing in life, it recycles itself over and over infinitely in eternity.
Life is not an experience to be had by a someone, a someone is an appearance in it, a someone is an experience arising in it, it is life experiencing itself...beliefs arise in it, no someone is holding a belief or disbelief...the one who is calling them self a believer or disbeliever is an idea arising in Life. Life neither believes or disbelieves, Life just is.

I'm talking about the life that is living itself right now, this life that is self evidently true and existing as it appears to no one, as senses, experienced. There is no one experiencing this, the one who is believed to be experiencing life is the experience. No one is having an experience, it is the experience. This one life doesn't have or need a belief in itself to be what it is, as it's already being what it is.

I'm asking you who is the one wishing a preferred state? ..who is that one wanting a state other than what is already, wouldn't that alter the what is into what isn't. The reason things are the way they are is because that's just how things are, it's just what's happening, no one is making this happen, it's happening all by itself.

How can reality be any different than how it is already appearing spontaneously all by itself as it happens? Life does not want anything, it is all things, just the way they are. There is nothing wrong or right in life. Life just is....wanting a better state of life implies there is a life that is not good enough. This is already perfect. There is nothing wrong with life. If life is shitty, it is because that's how it is appearing, if it wasn't, then it wouldn't appear that way. How it appears is not what it actually is. There is superimposed on what is a perception of what is and that is never what it is because there is no one perceiving what is, there is only the perception which is an illusory appearance within it.

It's not the belief or disbelief in god that's the problem, it's the one who believes a belief or disbelief is real. Life already is here one without a second. It doesn't hold a position of belief in itself. It is free and empty of any position. It lives wholly complete within itself. The one believing and disbelieving is an illusory appearance in it.

How can the preferred state already exist - if it hasn't yet been created ... Life is not consciously creating itself, it appears spontaneously from the boundlessness of un created empty space, creation is full of it's own emptiness.

Dontaskme wrote:

Dontaskme: If there is a wish to fulfil some desire then there would have to be a belief there is something true and existing in order to make the preferred state possible, so what do you think that true existing thing is..and do you believe it to be true and existing?

Hobbes' Choice wrote:You are making a thinking error here. You area assuming that the thing desired already exists somewhere are implicitly denying the possibility of something new. If for a thing to be true had already to exist there would be no need to aspire to it.

Then there would be no need for a belief..

There is not.

That is the whole point. You are using a thing for which there is no need or use. Actually the only use your beliefs have is to convince you that you have something interesting to talk about. But reality doesn't care what you believe.
You can believe what you want; you can convince yourself of many interesting things; you can even employ good reasoning. But if your core beliefs are unfounded, then every thing that follows is null and void.
Opinions are cheap; knowledge is hard.

Nick_A wrote: "The very thing which is now called the Christian religion existed among the ancients also, nor was it wanting]rom the inception of the human race until the coming if Christ in the flesh, at which point the true religion which was already in existence began to be called Christian." -ST. AUGUSTINE, Retractiones

You know, i just realized that the only difference between our absence of belief is in the number of Gods we don't believe in. You have a complete absence of belief in all Gods except one. I have an absence of belief in all Gods without exception. So just as you have a complete absence of belief in Vishnu or Brahma or Ahura Mazda, I have a complete absence of belief in the concept of God. So as far as any other religion is concerned, you are an atheist too.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
There is not.

That is the whole point. You are using a thing for which there is no need or use. Actually the only use your beliefs have is to convince you that you have something interesting to talk about. But reality doesn't care what you believe.
You can believe what you want; you can convince yourself of many interesting things; you can even employ good reasoning. But if your core beliefs are unfounded, then every thing that follows is null and void.
Opinions are cheap; knowledge is hard.

I absolutely agree with you.

Dontaskme wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
There is not.

That is the whole point. You are using a thing for which there is no need or use. Actually the only use your beliefs have is to convince you that you have something interesting to talk about. But reality doesn't care what you believe.
You can believe what you want; you can convince yourself of many interesting things; you can even employ good reasoning. But if your core beliefs are unfounded, then every thing that follows is null and void.
Opinions are cheap; knowledge is hard.

I absolutely agree with you.

Then it is s puzzle why you say what you do.