Sasun Posted November 13, 2004 Report Share Posted November 13, 2004 Ok... As human beings one of our characteristics is to see the simplest and easiest ways in things, right? If God wants us to know Him why doesn't He just make it possible for us to know Him? Why should knowing Him be so difficult, especially now, when most people don't believe in God anymore? ... I attended Peter Balakian's discussion today at USC, and sitting there, looking at the horrific pictures and the various maps of historic Armenia and today's tiny Armenia, reminded me yet again why I call myself an atheist. style_images/master/snapback.png You have certain expectations from God that can't be realized, and that's the problem. Why should knowing God be easy? It's the ultimate goal of life. Wouldn't it be boring if it was easy to know everything? Or you are expecting that God should come down and not allow genocide, etc... We were given a free will and that is something that God is not taking away no matter what horrific crimes we commit. I think it should be appreciated rather than complained. That's not to defend crimes. Of course, criminals are punished in God's justice, but we still are given the choice to commit crimes or be humane. It's a fair game in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ara baliozian Posted November 13, 2004 Author Report Share Posted November 13, 2004 Anoushik jan, my answer is, there is no justifiable reason for any death, nor there is death. Death of body is just that, nothing more. Life and death are a charade, the opposite sides of the same coin. They are part of the grand illusion which we call world. Fear (of death) is the result of ignorance (of soul's eternal life). style_images/master/snapback.png but soul's eternal life is only a theory and not a proven fact. moreover, it is a theory designed for the sole purpose of counteracting the dread of total extinction. another form of vested interest even if the interest is psychological or spiritual...which doesn't make it less vested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ara baliozian Posted November 13, 2004 Author Report Share Posted November 13, 2004 You have certain expectations from God that can't be realized, and that's the problem. Why should knowing God be easy? It's the ultimate goal of life. Wouldn't it be boring if it was easy to know everything? Or you are expecting that God should come down and not allow genocide, etc... We were given a free will and that is something that God is not taking away no matter what horrific crimes we commit. I think it should be appreciated rather than complained. That's not to defend crimes. Of course, criminals are punished in God's justice, but we still are given the choice to commit crimes or be humane. It's a fair game in my opinion. style_images/master/snapback.png again, all i see here is a concatanation of theories and assumptions that cannop be proven, so much so that the overwhelming majority of mankind has rejected them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted November 13, 2004 Report Share Posted November 13, 2004 but soul's eternal life is only a theory and not a proven fact. moreover, it is a theory designed for the sole purpose of counteracting the dread of total extinction. another form of vested interest even if the interest is psychological or spiritual...which doesn't make it less vested. style_images/master/snapback.png You are wrong here, it is not a theory, but proven by experience, over and over again throughout millenia by various individuals. Everyone can prove it, it is not up to thinking or proving intellectually. It's a fact that can be seen by everyone if only one is tuned properly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted November 13, 2004 Report Share Posted November 13, 2004 again, all i see here is a concatanation of theories and assumptions that cannop be proven, so much so that the overwhelming majority of mankind has rejected them. style_images/master/snapback.png Same as above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siamanto Posted November 13, 2004 Report Share Posted November 13, 2004 (edited) but soul's eternal life is only a theory and not a proven fact. style_images/master/snapback.png Isn't Plato's soul - for instance - still alive? What's next? A statement that God does not exist because nobody have spotted a white bearded old man, sitting on a cloud, watching us!!! I'm not implying that God exists - or does not. I'm simply inviting to a more "mature" understanding of God, Spirit and Soul! Edited November 13, 2004 by Siamanto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted November 13, 2004 Report Share Posted November 13, 2004 moreover, it is a theory designed for the sole purpose of counteracting the dread of total extinction. another form of vested interest even if the interest is psychological or spiritual...which doesn't make it less vested. style_images/master/snapback.png Just what makes you think that? This is what TB is also saying. That seems like a bogus theory to me. So I believe in God because I am afraid of total extinction? That's just false, and tells how little you know of faith. And vested interest??? That is such an absurd accusation against all spiritual people. For everything that you don't understand you have a conspiracy theory in your pocket. But I tell you, doubt and suspicion are not knowledge, hence you are only projecting your ignorance, which is a form of resisting to knowledge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted November 13, 2004 Report Share Posted November 13, 2004 (edited) Isn't Plato's soul - for instance - still alive? What's next? A statement that God does not exist because nobody have spotted a white bearded old man, sitting on a cloud, watching us!!! I'm not implying that God exists - or does not. I'm simply inviting to a more "mature" understanding of God, Spirit and Soul! style_images/master/snapback.png People have their preconceived ideas of God which are quite primitive and false. Then they will claim that God does not exist but they will not bother to understand what God is meant to be, just a plain definition. Of course nobody can define God, but there are fundamental defining elements. For example, the monotheistic God in all religions is omnipresent, yet you will find disbelievers assuming that God is not omnipresent, hence they expect God to be some individual in some corner of the world, and claim that such an individual does not exist. Or other things, like they think that God is supposed to be a dictator who will interfere in human affairs, stop wars, etc. But if you hear people who actually know something of God, or if you read scriptures you won't find any statement saying that God is supposed or has promised to do those things. So, the fallacy consists in inventing a primitive image of God, and telling that such God does not exist. Of course such God will not exist, because you just made up such a God with your subjective expectations and narrow, limited outlook. And speaking of Ara Baliozian, he is calling what I said a theory, while I was actually saying that there is a mystic way of experiencing God, and there are established, tested, proven paths leading to that state where everyone without exception can experience God. That means practice, not just a theory. Am I saying something hard to understand, or people don't want to understand? I think it is very simple, it means that what I claim is not just a claim but can be verified by any person. This is actually the very scientific principle - which means any scientific experiment can be repeated and produce the same outcome. Assume that seeing God, talking to God, knowing God is also a scientific experiment. And that experiment is called a mystic experience, where one's laboratory is his own body and mind, and ones tools are discipline, concentration and meditation, and ones source of energy is will power and faith in oneself. So, in yoga all conditions are laid out clearly, nothing is kept in the dark, noone is complelled to believe blindly. And the message is, just do the experiment yourself, don't be limited to knowing from others, know it for yourself. And then there are ignorant people like Ara Baliozian who will brush aside all these and imply a hidden agenda of deception or what not... Edited November 13, 2004 by Sasun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twilight Bark Posted November 14, 2004 Report Share Posted November 14, 2004 (edited) Or other things, like they think that God is supposed to be a dictator who will interfere in human affairs, stop wars, etc. But if you hear people who actually know something of God, or if you read scriptures you won't find any statement saying that God is supposed or has promised to do those things. It is not about the fine print, or whether a promise was made. It is about how a caring god could stand to see so much unbearable pain inflicted on the innocent. The shocking disappointment is not about two equally nasty groups of people whacking each others' heads off and God staying out of it. It is very hard to argue that a self-conscious God, if it exists, cares at all about us little critters, as anything other than insignificant little things to be observed with detached interest. Who cares if "He" promised anything or not. A legalistic God is an uncaring God. And I would not be fond of talking to "Him", really. The important question from the human perspective is not so much whether a God exists as it is about whether "He" is caring or not. There is little indication that "He" cares about us individually. As for your "experiences", the only scientific claim you can make is that a certain set of rituals and psychological conditioning reproducibly produces a state of mind in human subjects that are commonly interpreted as a divine experience. You can repeat the sensation produced with a given method, but that doesn't prove anything related to God. Edited November 14, 2004 by Twilight Bark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted November 14, 2004 Report Share Posted November 14, 2004 It is not about the fine print, or whether a promise was made. It is about how a caring god could stand to see so much unbearable pain inflicted on the innocent. The shocking disappointment is not about two equally nasty groups of people whacking each others' heads off and God staying out of it. It is very hard to argue that a self-conscious God, if it exists, cares at all about us little critters, as anything other than insignificant little things to be observed with detached interest. Who cares if "He" promised anything or not. A legalistic God is an uncaring God. And I would not be fond of talking to "Him", really. The important question from the human perspective is not so much whether a God exists as it is about whether "He" is caring or not. There is little indication that "He" cares about us individually. You have your expectations and understanding of how a caring God would behave. But maybe God cares in a way that you don't expect or understand. For example, if God didn't care about you you would not even exist. Life is a divine gift, something that people take as granted. And everything in the world are given, yet God doesn't jump in to take credit for that, and doesn't even show that He exists. Gratitude is the proper attitude when you have innumarable gifts, yet people prefer to complain instead. As for your "experiences", the only scientific claim you can make is that a certain set of rituals and psychological conditioning reproducibly produces a state of mind in human subjects that are commonly interpreted as a divine experience. You can repeat the sensation produced with a given method, but that doesn't prove anything related to God. style_images/master/snapback.png It only shows that you have very little idea of mystic traditions, and you seem to have ignored my earlier comment. It is not about sensations. Mystics are very reasonable people, they can tell illusion from reality. It is about knowledge of truth which is one, universal and testible. It maybe an inner knowledge that can be tested by inner practice, but also an outer knowledge that can be tested outwardly by ordinary ways. As I said above, a mystic can tell you what will happen to you tomorrow. When that happens precisely then it can't be some sensation. Or if a mystic can know more about you than you yourself do, or if he reads your thoughts presicely, then one can only conclude that he has a special way of knowing, it can't be some illusionary and false sensations. And when the same mystic talks about God it is unwise to say that he was just having some sensations. It is a mistake to think that people spend their lives in mysticism only to fool themselves. Such people normally have a lot more commonsense than a typical atheist or agnostic or a blind believer. That is quite obvious when you read them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ara baliozian Posted November 14, 2004 Author Report Share Posted November 14, 2004 it all boils down to this: we don't understand God. even if we admit god exists, as Voltaire did as a deist, it is conceivable that after creating the universe he walked off and is now busy creating other universes. the evidence -- such as the massacre of millions of innocent beings -- supports this theory. as for mysticism, which is very real: it may well be a chemical imbalance in the brain. Some form of natural LSD or harmless hashish.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armen Posted November 14, 2004 Report Share Posted November 14, 2004 as for mysticism, which is very real: it may well be a chemical imbalance in the brain. Some form of natural LSD or harmless hashish.... style_images/master/snapback.png I think same goes for writers. They are harmless and a little bit sick people. They don't produce any valuable goods like food, cars or sex. And their writings failed to change the human being even a bit in all these many thousand this world exists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twilight Bark Posted November 14, 2004 Report Share Posted November 14, 2004 Sasun, You have not addressed anything I said in any way other than the age-old cliche "God works in mysterious ways". Fine, if that's good enough for you. If mysticism's proof is the prediction of the futue, then I suggest they predict the stock market's behavior half an hour in the future, extract billions of dollars from the selfish critters running the system on a daily basis and use the money to do endless amounts of good all over the planet. Absent that, I must assume that either they don't give a hoot just as the god they presume to touch, or they fall short of their claim. More likely, they deal with a fairly uniform and predictable kind of person to begin with, and if they even have a 10% success rate with predicting their "future" (the 90% walking off discouraged or disgusted), that is a mighty big number of new customers. Having said all that, I still profess ignorance, and hope that others find the humility to do the same. Oh, as an aside, I don't mind at all if my little kids start from Christianity in their intellectual journey to make sense of the world. It's ultimately up to them to find their way and find their answers. When they ask me questions of "cosmic" kind, I have always found ways to "explain" things without shattering the beliefs in their innocent minds. As a last resort I say "well, the wise men of the religion say ...". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twilight Bark Posted November 14, 2004 Report Share Posted November 14, 2004 I think same goes for writers. They are harmless and a little bit sick people. They don't produce any valuable goods like food, cars or sex. And their writings failed to change the human being even a bit in all these many thousand this world exists. style_images/master/snapback.png Oh come on Armen. That is childish "tit for tat" B.S. and you know it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armen Posted November 14, 2004 Report Share Posted November 14, 2004 Oh come on Armen. That is childish "tit for tat" B.S. and you know it. style_images/master/snapback.png So, when he is sarcastic that's OK, when I try it, it is childish, right? Nice logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twilight Bark Posted November 14, 2004 Report Share Posted November 14, 2004 So, when he is sarcastic that's OK, when I try it, it is childish, right? Nice logic. Perhaps you are hypersensitive about sarcasm for some reason. I think he was dead-serious, by the way. And whatever the case, what you wrote doesn't qualify as sarcasm. "Would you like it if I say the same sort of thing about you?" is no way to have a logical argument, when what you claim ("sarcastically") is so patently false. And the argument is not about whether the writers or the mystics effected any change in human history. The results of writers' and philosophers' works are immense and measurable. While mystics might have changed the lives of their followers, and might have caused tangible changes among their fellow humans, that still does not address the issue of whether their "experiences" have anything to do with some cosmic truth. Logic, indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armen Posted November 14, 2004 Report Share Posted November 14, 2004 Perhaps you are hypersensitive about sarcasm for some reason. I think he was dead-serious, by the way. And whatever the case, what you wrote doesn't qualify as sarcasm. "Would you like it if I say the same sort of thing about you?" is no way to have a logical argument, when what you claim ("sarcastically") is so patently false. And the argument is not about whether the writers or the mystics effected any change in human history. The results of writers' and philosophers' works are immense and measurable. While mystics might have changed the lives of their followers, and might have caused tangible changes among their fellow humans, that still does not address the issue of whether their "experiences" have anything to do with some cosmic truth. Logic, indeed. style_images/master/snapback.png For some the work of writers and philosophers is tangiable (for their followers) for others it is a complete insanity. So I could as well conclude that "it may well be a chemical imbalance in the brain. Some form of natural LSD or harmless hashish...". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twilight Bark Posted November 14, 2004 Report Share Posted November 14, 2004 For some the work of writers and philosophers is tangiable (for their followers) for others it is a complete insanity. So I could as well conclude that "it may well be a chemical imbalance in the brain. Some form of natural LSD or harmless hashish...". style_images/master/snapback.png Oh there are all kinds of writers and philospohers. I am sure the output of some are so bad that even that description would be considered flattering. Regardless of how many bad writers and thinkers there are, the immense results of the consequential ones are there for everyone to see. But if the "output" of the mystics are "internal", and if their outwardly provable "output" (i.e. "predictions") don't do anything more than gain new converts with whom they resonated, the issue of whether the mytics' "experiences" have anything to do with some cosmic truth or not remains. And that was the issue, really. Not whether there are low-quality writers and thinkers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armen Posted November 14, 2004 Report Share Posted November 14, 2004 Regardless of how many bad writers and thinkers there are, the immense results of the consequential ones are there for everyone to see. style_images/master/snapback.png I know a lot of people who will consider all writers and thinkers insane and their work worthless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twilight Bark Posted November 14, 2004 Report Share Posted November 14, 2004 I know a lot of people who will consider all writers and thinkers insane and their work worthless. style_images/master/snapback.png I am sure the feelings are mutual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armen Posted November 14, 2004 Report Share Posted November 14, 2004 I am sure the feelings are mutual. style_images/master/snapback.png It can't be. Because writers have to eat. If they consider the work of those who feed them worthless (most of whome will consider writers worthless), that can be considered the biggest hypocricy on earth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twilight Bark Posted November 14, 2004 Report Share Posted November 14, 2004 (edited) It can't be. Because writers have to eat. If they consider the work of those who feed them worthless (most of whome will consider writers worthless), that can be considered the biggest hypocricy on earth. style_images/master/snapback.png Oh sure it can; the feelings I mean. Surely the writers don't make their living off those who think they and their works are worthless. No hypocrisy there. And even if the writers did despise their own readers (who in turn despised them), and were hypocrites, that fact obviously wouldn't have precluded itself (the mutual dislike). It would simply make it a curious phenomenon. Edited November 14, 2004 by Twilight Bark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted November 14, 2004 Report Share Posted November 14, 2004 (edited) Oh, as an aside, I don't mind at all if my little kids start from Christianity in their intellectual journey to make sense of the world. It's ultimately up to them to find their way and find their answers. When they ask me questions of "cosmic" kind, I have always found ways to "explain" things without shattering the beliefs in their innocent minds. As a last resort I say "well, the wise men of the religion say ...". style_images/master/snapback.png Why do I smell existencialism in your approch? Edited November 14, 2004 by Fadix Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siamanto Posted November 14, 2004 Report Share Posted November 14, 2004 (edited) So, when he is sarcastic that's OK, when I try it, it is childish, right? Nice logic. style_images/master/snapback.png Twilight Bark speaks the Truth, but I can't disagree with you! Edited November 14, 2004 by Siamanto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armen Posted November 14, 2004 Report Share Posted November 14, 2004 Oh sure it can; the feelings I mean. Surely the writers don't make their living off those who think they and their works are worthless. No hypocrisy there. And even if the writers did despise their own readers (who in turn despised them), and were hypocrites, that fact obviously wouldn't have precluded itself (the mutual dislike). It would simply make it a curious phenomenon. style_images/master/snapback.png The people who work hard a produce real food, cloths, cars and buildings mostly think that writers are parasites that make money by writing stuff. Every drop of their sweat is not worth a hundred books written by writers because writers and philosophers mostly produce this intangiable things. Moreover, the writers and philosophers earn their money from these middle and high class who are completely irrational to pay money for some intangiable ideas that made no good whatsoever. And by being that irrational as to pay for these books these, middle and high class people have some imbalance in their brain. I mean why would you pay money to buy a freakin' philosophy book when you can buy another car or watch more movies or basketball or buy some more stuff to your kids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts