Thread: Dear Atheists

Originally Posted by EgoffTib

You seem to assume that the idea of God was simply thrust into me and conditioned over time. I was raised Lutheran. At the age of 15 I became an atheist. Now, at the age of 21, I have much more appreciation and love for God. I made a choice to bring God back into my life, just as you have made the choice to limit God by thinking he can be disproved in the domains of reason, science and logic.

Right. So reason and logic, given to us by the creator, are not to be used to try to discover reality, but instead something that can't be proven that we actually have or that it was even given to us by a creator, spirituality, should be used. Why program us a certain way, but then require us learn about the programmer in some other way we weren't programmed. Reason and logic are part of our species. Babies use reason to investigate and learn about the world around them. Spirituality doesn't exist for them until they learn about it from another person.
Spirituality is being broken down by science. There was once a time when the sun, moon and planets were thought to be of a spiritual origin. The basic laws of nature were thought to be the work of spirits. As science begins to explain more, the spiritual components disappear.

Science is objective, making use of methods of investigation and proof that are impartial and exacting. Theories are constructed and then tested by experiment. If the results are repeatable and cannot be falsified in any way, they survive. If not, they are discarded. When spiritual beliefs can be falsified then faith supersedes any logic or reason that can be applied. The rules for science are rigidly applied. The standards by which science judges its work are universal. There can be no special pleading in the search for the truth: the aim is simply to discover how nature works and to use that information to enhance our intellectual and physical lives. The logic that directs the search is rational and ineluctable at all times and in all circumstances. This quality of science transcends the differences which in other fields of endeavour (like spirituality) make one period incommensurate with another, or one cultural expression untranslatable in another context. Science knows no contextual limitations. It merely seeks the truth.

Originally Posted by EgoffTib

That would be the case in most people. Most people identify themselves with their body. However, spiritually advanced individuals do not view their body, thoughts, emotions, mentations, positionalities, etc., as being their true Self. Thus, they are not limited by the restrictions of being bound to an ego.

Yes. That is the case for most people and also animals as it's natural to have a survival instinct. Just because a few "Imaginatively" advanced individual homo sapiens don't share the same instinct really has no effect on the survival on the species as a whole.

Originally Posted by EgoffTib

The ego is behind any sense of separation. We are like water drops and God is the sea. Once the drops go back into the sea, there is no separation.

Again, why create us into something that we are not. Why create us with a survival instinct and individiality when in reality we are nothing of the sort?

Originally Posted by EgoffTib

I know that I made the right choice. I can feel it every day I wake up. Some people seem destined for certain things, and I have found my path. Any subjectively experienced proofs would be lost on you.

Right. If all I have to go by is subjectively experienced proofs of imperfect beings to try to find the reason for existence, then I'll gladly take my "God-Given" reason, logic and science any day.

Originally Posted by TaskmasterX

Why would a "GOD" be the creator of all beings but only make himself known to a certain group of people and call them his Chosen People and then expect the rest of his beings to learn of his existence from the Chosen Ones? Of course, the ones that are not the Chosen Ones would become jealous and go on the create their own denominations in which the Chosen Ones are not the Chosen Ones and their beliefs are correct and not the Chosen Ones.

Wouldn't it have been more Godly of GOD to just make himself known to all and not let his imperfect, jealous creations go around spreading the word of his existence (and killing or enslaving those that refused)?

I think this assumes one thing which may be very different. My counter here is what if God reveled himself to everyone and only his Chosen People chose to listen. In your example here this is a possibility.

Originally Posted by EgoffTib

Having studied and practiced Zen, Vajrayana(Diamond Vehicle) and Dzogchen Buddhism, I can certainly tell you that is not the case. One could be enlightened and also be a millionaire. This does not happen too often because when the physical realm is transcended, a paradigm shift occurs. Goals, desires and perspective change to accomodate this spiritual awakening. Those who dwell in Nirvana know the Infinite Peace and Bliss that can be found in life. As such, their focus shifts from worldy accomplishments to spiritual accomplishment and integration.

Um how can you be enlightened under the Buddhist concept without following the 8 fold path which includes complete detatchment to the material world?

Originally Posted by Agent Ferris

Um how can you be enlightened under the Buddhist concept without following the 8 fold path which includes complete detatchment to the material world?

Nonattachment is not detachment.

Originally Posted by Djoop

"Those who serve idols are spritually blind"

If your faith can't stand ridicule, it isn't very strong. Everything that claims power deserves ridicule and it doesn't really matter if it's done in a nice way or not. That touches the heart of freedom, it's vital for our progress, it has brought us were we are today. Anything that tries to curtail that freedom aspires to bring us back to were we were; god fearing idiots who, on average, live 30 years and die of poor teeth.

Respect is nice, but it's not a requirement for obtaining wisdom. Galileo could have been an asshole to the Pope, it would not have proven him wrong. It's the spreading of untruth that justifies the condescending attitude towards religion and it's concept of the supreme.

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=.../1/P4dSiHqpULk

Originally Posted by mbig

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=.../1/P4dSiHqpULk

Good ole Pat. I share his sentiment but I prefer Hitchens, my post is a short summary of one of his closing statements.