That’s not what I asked, so it wasn’t my inquiry..
Atheism doesn’t believe a hypothesis that there is a god due to lack of evidence. That can hardly be called a “belief”.
Nonsense Bob,you are without excuse when you look at creation.
You are confusing the issue. I am saying what atheism is; you are arguing for theism. Whether creation is evidence for theism is something each and every one of us decides for themselves.
I, for example, am a panentheist, but that is too difficult to understand for many theists and atheists alike.
You lack any evidence whatsoever for your belief that the God of all creation doesn’t exist Bob.It’s got absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with belief or unbelief and everything to do with acceptance or rejection because the God of all creation has given us all free will to either accept or reject him.He doesn’t force is love on anyone.
I didn’t expect you to prove my point so quickly.
Listen, the crazy thing about your acceptance or rejection theory is that you fundamentalists are basically about having a personal God rather than being a follower of Christ.
I know, it’s been said so often, how do you follow a God?
Basically, my answer is that you recognise who you are, that you are a prodigal child of the universe, who has forgotten that the cosmic unity of life stems from the primary source: consciousness.
It doesn’t matter what you call it, whether Elohim/Yahweh, Allah, Hayyi Rabbi, Waheguru, Mbombo, Unkulunkulu, Mpungu, Atum, Marduk, Ptah, or any other anthropomorphic image; they are pointing to the unapproachable, abstract, or impersonal forces behind the universe.
“Faith” in relation to Brahma/Brahman and the Tao is fundamentally about aligning oneself with the perceived order or flow of the universe rather than devotion to a personal deity. Aligning with Brahman often means realising the unity of the individual self (Atman) with this universal reality, which leads to liberation (moksha), but also that as conscious beings evolve, we develop greater empathy and cooperation, implying a moral arc to cosmic evolution.
Living in harmony with the Tao means embracing simplicity, humility, and non-contention, often summarised by the principle of wu wei (effortless action or non-forcing). Aligning with the Tao encourages balance, moderation, and respect for the natural world. Taoist ethics arise from observing and emulating the patterns of nature, leading to a kind of practical morality based on harmony and balance rather than rigid rules or commandments.
Panentheism emphasises the interconnectedness of all things within the divine. This often leads to an ethical orientation that values harmony, respect for nature, and recognition of the sacredness of all life. We see moral value in the world itself, encouraging compassion, stewardship, and care for others and the environment.
Panentheists recognise that the ultimate reality is beyond complete human comprehension, which fosters humility and a sense of ethical restraint, paralleling the Taoist virtue of wu wei (non-forcing) and the Hindu emphasis on self-discipline and non-attachment. But whereas religions have their narratives that fundamentalists take literally, panentheism is a philosophical position rather than a fixed religious tradition, and we see the value but also the dangers of religious traditions.
2 Likes
Laughing isn’t proof though Bob.
Its God who does the laughing
Psalm 2:4
Consciousness is experiential.You are not consciousness.The SOUL (Self) is spirit and is aware of the consciousness types of in and out of the moment and decides which state to reside within in any given moment..The SOUL (Self) controls consciousness.
Vibrating electromagnetic fields is the reason you experience two consciousness states.
Proof! Hahaha
That is a very weak reply to my post and the very reason for my position.
You adopt cognitively biased meditative techniques to obtain your knowledge Bob.
I know all about inward only meditation.No truth comes from it.
It was you who was laughing,I’m just laughing louder.
There is no truth to be found in cognitively biased consciousness.
You don’t understand consciousness and how you relate to it Bob.That’s your problem.
You are not the in or out of the moment consciousness states.You merely experience these two consciousness states.Come on,you know that already .You can’t be that UNAWARE!!! surely?
You need to balance consciousness out in order to understand your relationship to it.
DON’T associate yourself with in and out of the moment consciousness.
Thought provoking paragraph. I was listening to a guy called John Vervaeke a while ago, perhaps you heard of him, and he also talks about spirituality, and the evolution of spirituality through history, as transforming your way of being, as opposed to being primarily propositional in nature.
In other words, it’s exceptionally easy to view Christianity as a sequence of propositions that you accept or reject, “yes this is true”, “no this isn’t true” - but he argues that’s the wrong headspace for truly benefiting from spiritual teachings, and the proper practice of a religion is less about believing the right set of propositions and more about changing your frame of being.
I think that’s a really intriguing idea.
1 Like
Atheistic fundamentalists adhere to Nihilism.
Cognitively biased +=- and -=+ psychotic philosophers do.
Aproistic pinny-winnies pin the tail on the donkey. Cognitively biased 1+1 and §-§ philosopher’s do.
When are you going to say something meaningful?
What about +=+ and -=- cognitively biased philosophy Flannel?
All 4 off electromagnetic force interactions…-/-….-/+….+/-…+/+ DON’T cancel out.
You will never understand REALITY with a cognitively biased philosophy.
Oh ..I’m getting to Bob everyone!!! He’s been spending too much time in inward only meditation and he’s realising it.You only get gaslighting or troll comments when you’ve touched a nerve.
When it comes to meditation you go within and you come back out again.
Why are you obsessed with this + - thing? Nobody is even debating it here, you just seem to bring it up everywhere you go in this forum but nobody cares. Why are you doing that?
You realize that’s why you’re like ecmandu, right? You and him both have the pattern of bringing up your own little pet conversation, everywhere you go, even if nobody cares to talk about it, even in contexts where it’s just not relevant.
I only focus on what matters Flannel.
Bob knows I’m right.
That’s what Buddhist do.
They spend too much time inward coming up with nonsense.
Correct me if I am wrong, you were once Catholic?
and
you moved on to ? and what was the reason you rejected your fundamental belief.
Perhaps you grew up with very strict parents who forced religion on you?
I have never been a catholic,no.
What use is mere theism to anyone?
This is quite an event! Someone who actually asked a question!
I wasn’t brought up in any denomination in Britain, but when I was in Germany, I became interested in the stories of the bible and joined a group of Pietists, who would read the bible together. I was articulate and so I was taught to hold meetings myself and the preach, but when I became a nurse, the nagging questions that were already arising came to the fore and I realised that the concepts that I found in Christianity were too small.
Working for a Catholic organisation, I had long talks with priests and a monk, and my horizon expanded. But still, I felt it was too limited, and I began to talk to Buddhists, Taoists, and read books from Thomas Merton on Eastern religions, followed him to Sri Lanka, discovered Bede Griffiths just before he died and slowly my panentheistic universalism grew. Advaita Vedanta and Idealism grew on me and expanded the view further.
If you want to know what happened, I never rejected anything along the way, I just found it too limiting and needed to expand. Most recently, I also found an expansion in the books of Iain McGilchrist, which I initially read out of professional curiosity, but found his spiritual perspective close to mine, and an understanding about the true function of the brain.
It has been a journey of discovery all the way.