« If words sound like spiritual drivel, they probably are | Main | The relief of no longer believing in religion »

March 28, 2016

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

David Lane says goodbye to rss forum.

Brian, I agree with your understanding about religious attitudes and believing in a God which cannot be proven but I wonder about your feelings about Charan and his teachings. Do you have fond memories of him and being a satsangi and a believer? Do you think Charan was a genuinely highly evolved being, with a saintlike purity, or do you think he was a fake?

This is connection to bogdana's comment above...

I read the comments on the Radhasoami Studies site, very interesting and intellectual discussions. Lots of conflict though. Understandable when the subject is about criticising spiritual beliefs. Brian you monitor your site really well and I don't mind when you occasionally don't let one of my comments through :)

Being quite puritanical in my own way, I did not like David's post about 'sex in R.S. literature'. I agree with Charan's view. I suppose I am old fashioned and nowadays I see the political correctness and the agenda in our modern western culture. Anything goes.

David's words: "Perhaps in the future we will have an outspoken Gay R.S. Master in one  of the lineages.

We already had a gay shabd yoga teacher, but he denied his sexuality which led to all sorts of controversies."

Quite inflammatory, because so many of these so called 'shabd yoga teachers' are totally fake.

Jen, currently I believe Charan Singh was a good person who did his job as guru the best he could. I don't believe he possessed any divine qualities. He was appointed to be the RSSB guru. As a faithful disciple, he carried out that role diligently.

Some approach amidst all the book you buy and it's parallel with the quantum ideas

The following ( 1882) is the ‘opinion’ of parabrahm°° , ruler of the our local second plane of consciousness.
A Few religions are based on this rather pure crystallised ’Sphere_of_consciousness “ because vegetarism is a must
What is very explicite however for entities in this script , is the necessity to stay calm :-)
and endure some xillion of existences yet to come for the proctor°° s fun

That is because there is NO proper answer and utilisation of LOVE
by absorption in the sweet sound current, our most inner self,
On this blog : nice to read and compare with our actual situation_/“knowledge”

Btw: what I agree with this administrator°° brahm among zillions : imaging you have all the knowledge of this solar system
, even of the local cluster, plus andromeda , . . . what to do with it after the sun eats the planets within 3 short billion years
Wouldn’t Love be much nicer
I have seen many many of them°° inside, . . crying, pleading and begging for Grace and/or Merci at the feet of a satsangi like you and some here with RSSB initiation

Just a few lines :

23. This, thy corporeal body is mine; thy flesh waiteth for me, and the moment thou relinquish thy hold, I will molder thee in dust. Yet I am not thy enemy, for whilst thou art master over thy flesh, I will touch it not.
24. Out of the darkness man is brought forth a blank, and his entity is a spark of Jehovih. His entity will never cease to grow. Yea, from the hour of conception it is a new star in the world, and it magnifieth itself forever.
25. The trials of the flesh to man are as nutriment to his spirit's growth. And yet, think not that thou shouldst rejoice in thy neighbor's trials, saying, it is good for his spirit's growth. But as Jehovih gave all He had, and thus made all things, be thou like unto Jehovih, and give to the man in trial, lest thou robbest thyself.
26. Thou knowest not how far thou hast been lifted up thyself. Can any man with his own hands lift himself up in the air? Flatter not thyself, then, that man alone can lift himself up in spirit, or that he hath power to evolve himself, one generation above another. Do not all nations perish? As they come up out of darkness, do they not go down in darkness?
27. Is it not unwise to say: O Jehovih, why didst Thou thus, or not thus? All thy questionings will not turn Jehovih or His plans one jot or tittle. Turn thine eyes inward, then, O Tae, and seek to adapt thyself to the Father and His kingdoms, of which this earth is one.
28. Tae said: How can I comprehend Thy wisdom, O my Father in heaven? I am tripped up at every corner; and yet I perceive that my generation is wiser than the ancients. Wherefore, then, didst Thou stir me up? The ancients found joy in an idol; were content to eat and sleep, their faith being equal to their wisdom.
29. But these that came after, cried out unto Thee for wisdom, and Thou gavest. Thus am I born above the faith of the ancients. I have grown beyond the measures of Thy olden revelations; my soul crieth out to Thee for more light.
30. I know that Thou hast sufficiency for all things. Give me wisdom, that I may help myself. Had I been born in darkness, the idols of my forefathers would have sufficed.
31. Hear me, O Jehovih, in what I have done. I have measured the earth and high standing rocks, and the mountains Thou reardest up, and the valleys Thou has scooped out. Thy footstool hast shown me a record not written by man, and it proclaimeth the earth millions of years old.
32. Yea, I have measured the stars in Thy firmament, and the sun and moon, and weighed them, and they proclaimed a greater glory unto Thee. Their number is more than there are drops of water in the ocean; and many of them a thousand times larger than the earth. I have found them rich in air, and water, and heat and cold, and they proclaim themselves birth places for men, even as is the earth.
33. I have measured the light and computed the time of its coming, and lo, they also have existed for millions of years.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/oah/know.htm

Brian, the only people arguing that God is a myth are people like you comparing the universe with a flying pig on a stick. Or some other such trite shallow argumentation based on faulty reasoning.

When you say that God is a myth you must be basing your usage of the word God on religious concepts of God instead of philosophical conceptions of God and the universe, existential questions about the universe and metaphysical abstractions of existence, meaning, life, origins, and physics. Because if you are actually attempting to argue that God doesn't exist you ought TO HAVE SOME EVIDENCE FOR IT, right? I am an agnostic about God and you are certain there is no God. I am not a theist, I don't have to produce evidence for any claim. I am not an atheist, therefore I do not have to provide evidence for any claim. Where is your evidence?

You do realize, don't you Brian, that saying that God doesn't exist is a knowledge claim?

If you don't, please tell everybody what it means instead.

david r, I encourage you to use the Google search box for my blog in the right sidebar and look for "proof god exists" or words to that effect, like "god non-existence proof."

I've talked about this many times: in science and everyday life, the burden of proof is on those who say that something exists. Often, or usually, it is impossible to prove that something doesn't exist.

I say to you, "David, prove that there aren't invisible fairies in my garden making the plants grow. Prove it! I believe in fairies. Prove they don't exist!"

Well, there isn't any proof they DO exist. But I'm not content with that. I have some crazy reasons for believing in garden fairies. I just feel like they're real. I sense their presence. I don't have any evidence for fairies, but it seems so true to me that they exist.

So how do you convince me?

All you can do is say, "Brian, there is no evidence that fairies exist. With other things, we do have such evidence. Other people sense them. There are demonstrable cause and effect linkages. Like, stop giving water to plants, and they die. This shows that water is one of the things that cause plants to grow. But fairies... there's no evidence they even exist, so obviously there is no evidence that fairies are what make plants grow."

Asking for evidence that God doesn't exist is the last refuge of people who have no evidence of God, yet don't want to face that fact. It's fine if you're one of those people. Just realize what an absurd argument you're making, and how crazy it would be to live your life believing that it is necessary to have proof for each and every thing that doesn't exist.

Purple cows with three heads -- maybe they exist. Nobody can say that one won't show up one day. So, David, do you believe that purple cows with three heads exist?

Okay Brian I will try to ask you the same question one more time.

Do you realize that when you say that God does not exist that that is a truth claim?

If you can respond with a yes or no answer and then expound on it, it would be much appreciated. Cheers.

david r, I suppose saying "there is no evidence for X" is a truth claim. What isn't a truth claim? "I like coffee" is a truth claim. "2 +2 = 4" is a truth claim. "God exists" is a truth claim. "God doesn't exist" is a truth claim.

What we do in everyday life, as in science, is evaluate the likelihood of truth claims being true. If there is no demonstrable evidence for a claim, it is unlikely to be true. If there is lots of demonstrable evidence for a claim, it is likely to be true.

Nothing complicated or difficult to understand about this, right?

Brian Keep searching. .. Without the experience of the other worlds then atheism is a valid choice. But... . the day you have experience, no explanations or arguments are needed. You are certain.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZNmwCD1pA

Oh dear, this old chestnut about the existence of god never seems to die away. The arguments from all sides are always the same. So, as long as it (your particular belief) is not harming other people in any way believe what you want - if it works for you. A belief, whether it is science or supernatural is probably conditioned into us in some way and (as there is no self to make a decision) we will automatically believe according to our conditioned responses.

To this effect I am again reminded by the comment made by Dustin Hoffman to his son in the film ‘Accidental Hero’.

“The thing about life is it gets weird. People are always talking about truth. Everybody always knows what the truth is, like it was toilet paper or something and they’ve got a supply of it the closet. But what you learn as you get older is that there is no truth, all there is is bullshit, layers of it, one bullshit on top of another and what you do in life like when you get older is, you pick the layer of bullshit you prefer – and that’s your bullshit so to speak.”

3/18/16 - Could this be the end of physics as we know it?
A deeply disturbing and controversial line of thinking has emerged within the physics community. It's the idea that we are reaching the absolute limit of what we can understand about the world around us through science.

Equally frightening is the reason for this approaching limit, which Cliff says is because "the laws of physics forbid it." At the core of Cliff's argument are what he calls the two most dangerous numbers in the universe. These numbers are responsible for all the matter, structure, and life that we witness across the cosmos.

And if these two numbers were even slightly different, says Cliff, the universe would be an empty, lifeless place. Dangerous No. 1: The strength of the Higgs field - The first dangerous number on Cliff's list is a value that represents the strength of what physicists call the Higgs field, an invisible energy field not entirely unlike other magnetic fields that permeates the cosmos. As particles swim through the Higgs field, they gain mass to eventually become the protons, neutrons, and electrons comprising all of the atoms that make up you, me, and everything we see around us. Without it, we wouldn't be here.

"In reality, the Higgs field is just slightly on," says Cliff. "It's not zero, but it's ten-thousand-trillion times weaker than it's fully on value — a bit like a light switch that got stuck just before the 'off' position. And this value is crucial. If it were a tiny bit different, then there would be no physical structure in the universe."

Dangerous No. 2: The strength of dark energy - Cliff's second dangerous number doubles as what physicists have called "the worst theoretical prediction in the history of physics." This perilous number deals in the depths of deep space and a mind-meltingly complex phenomenon called dark energy.

Dark energy, a repulsive force that's responsible for the accelerating expansion of our universe, was first measured in 1998. Still, "we don't know what dark energy is," Cliff admits. "But the best idea is that it's the energy of empty space itself — the energy of the vacuum." If this is true, you should be able to sum up all the energy of empty space to get a value representing the strength of dark energy. And although theoretical physicists have done so, there's one gigantic problem with their answer:

"Dark energy should be 10120 times stronger than the value we observe from astronomy," Cliff said. "This is a number so mind-bogglingly huge that it's impossible to get your head around ... this number is bigger than any number in astronomy — it's a thousand-trillion-trillion-trillion times bigger than the number of atoms in the universe. That's a pretty bad prediction."

On the bright side, we're lucky that dark energy is smaller than theorists predict. If it followed our theoretical models, then the repulsive force of dark energy would be so huge that it would literally rip our universe apart. The fundamental forces that bind atoms together would be powerless against it and nothing could ever form — galaxies, stars, planets, and life as we know it would not exist.

On the other hand, it's extremely frustrating that we can't use our current theories of the universe to develop a better measurement of dark energy that agrees with existing observations. Even better than improving our theories would be to find a way that we can understand why the strength of dark energy and the Higgs field is what it is.

The funny thing about duality is that the same arguments can make a person say "There's no God" and if you present the same arguments to another person he will conclude "There's a God".

God is everything and nothing at the same time, so both are correct.
:-)

I have thought about the case for no God, and I find it unconvincing. No matter where the burden of proof lies, the theory that there is no God and the theory that there is a God are both things we must take by faith. Neither can be proven. Neither can be more proven than the other. There are serious flaws in the theist's position using the scientific method, and there are serious logic and scientific flaws in the atheist's position as well. It all comes down to -- you have to choose.

I don't really care if I have to prove my God exists. Where is faith if everything is by sight and observation? Christianity is a faith; as such, it's very basis is that things that are unobservable and unprovable must be accepted. So is the theory of evolution and the Big Bang, for those who care to know.

I can't prove my position, you can't prove yours. I guess I'll just have to try God by faith -- and I have. And I'm here to tell you, He's real. No, I can't give you scientific support. Yes, it sounds cliche and lame to you atheists. But the fact is -- either God exists or He doesn't. You can't prove either way, so you must choose by faith. And I chose God, and I found out He was real.

If you choose not to believe in God, that's your faith. And I commend it -- you are risking your entire eternity on the shaky, unprovable foundation that God does not exist. I mean, seriously, you had better hope he doesn't. If He does, you're in serious trouble with Him according to His Word. I'm not trying to be rude here -- just making a point. If you choose not to believe in God, you are staking an awful lot on your faith, and you leave a boatload of questions unsatisfactorily answered.

Kevin, I don't understand your position. You're saying that the burden of proof isn't on the believer to come up with some evidence that God exists. But isn't this what we do in everyday life, ask for evidence?

If someone comes up to me and says, "An invisible genie told me that you must give me your wallet, with all your money, or you will suffer the consequences," I'd reply, "Get real. You're making that story up. Where's the evidence for your invisible genie?"

Yet you seem to be saying that there is an equal chance that invisible genies exist, or that they don't. This seems crazy to me. The weight of evidence, or the lack thereof, is that invisible genies don't exist. How could you go through your life if you believed that everything which clearly exists has the same claim to reality as everything that clearly doesn't exist?

This is why religion doesn't make sense. People make claims about God that would be laughed at if the claim was about, say, invisible genies.

Is not the evidence of millions of people who have direct mystical experience of God a strong form of evidence of God's existence?

Here is the proof that God does exists. God is in each and every one of us and God keeps us alive. Think of God as an ocean and the soul is a drop of that ocean. When the soul truly leaves the body, there is no going back. A brain dead body can not be brought back to life no matter what we do. Why not? All of the SAME chemicals of life are there. We can send a jolt of electricity through it, but it won't work. If the chemicals are the same, then it doesn't make sense that life can not come back. Because with an atheist's point of view, humans are just chemical reactions. Yet for a dead body, we can't activate those chemical reactions anymore…. So what what is it that keeps it alive? What separates the living from a robot that is reacting to the chemicals, and electricity in it's body. Aren't they the same if there is no soul? The truth behind life lies in the soul.

Jim states that “Without the experience of the other worlds then atheism is a valid choice. But... . the day you have experience, no explanations or arguments are needed. You are certain”.

Rory Clark states that “Here is the proof that God does exists……. When the soul truly leaves the body, there is no going back. A brain dead body can not be brought back to life no matter what we do….. Because with an atheist's point of view, humans are just chemical reactions. Yet for a dead body, we can't activate those chemical reactions anymore…. So what what is it that keeps it alive? What separates the living from a robot that is reacting to the chemicals, and electricity in it's body.” (typos are the writer’s, not mine).

To Jim: Anyone can and may experience “other worlds”. Some people experience god (their version), or heaven, some alien abductions, some out-of-body experiences. I have had dreams that have shaken me to the core and have taken several days to realize that, whatever experience I dreamt about didn’t actually happen to me. Interestingly enough, mine have taken a more sexual turn, so you know where my mind has been. But after enough time passes I recognize that no, that did not really happen to me. It was more an amazing dream. Likewise, I may someday see a Tyrannosaurus Rex walking down the street. I will be completely convinced of it and ask everyone I know if they saw it too. When they say “no”, I will run down the street looking for evidence. When I see none and no one else saw it and no one took photos, I will begin to question myself, and figure something is wrong with me. Personal experience does NOT qualify as evidence. I have a friend who is paranoid schizophrenic. He believes in his core that there is a CIA agent living in his mind that makes him throw up in the mornings, and that he (my friend) “gave magic” to me, several other friends, Sandra Bullock and Bruce Willis, and that Peta Wilson “loves” him through his ankle. Yes, though his ankle. These delusions are not real, but they are to him. Should I then believe that they are real? Of course not.

To Rory: What you provide is NOT proof that god exists. The chemicals in the body (including the brain) HAVE changed. Not to mention if there has been an accident and the body is simply broken. That is why we cannot revive a body (although, technically, in this day and age, we can where in previous centuries we would not have been able to). Believe me, I would love to believe that we have souls, but only if other animals can have them as well. If not, then god and the supernatural do not deserve to be believed.

We discover the existence of an objective law from within the totality of phenomena that it is capable of interpreting. If, then, the establishment of scientific truth is possible only by means of direct sensation, the majority of scientific truths will have to be discarded, since many scientific facts cannot be perceived by means of sensory experience or testing.

When the experimental sciences demonstrate that the elements and natural factors cannot exert any independent influence and do not possess any creativity; when all of our experiences, our sensory feelings, and our rational deductions point to the conclusion that nothing occurs in nature without a reason and cause and that all phenomena are based on an established system and specific laws, when all of this is the case, it is surprising that some people turn their backs on scientific principles, primary deductions and propositions based on reflection, and deny the existence of the Creator.

Now, too, in the age of science and technology, when man has found his way into space, a considerable number of scientists have a religious outlook as part of the intellectual system; they have come to believe in the existence of a creator, a source for all beings, not only by means of the heart and the conscience, but also through deduction and logic.

What a total disappointment would it be
if we could understand, the great primal Source

What a total stupidity is that , . . . the high IQ s would shout out
much more then actually happens
-
Now there is only one method left as always was
It's Love

<3

777

ps
same for certain cases of gastritis

I like to tell something that might be of help for Ex RSSB Satsangis & Satsangis alike.
It might be of interest for sincere seekers


I have often jubilated about The Path of Sound & Light and want to tell something specific here

I"m still anonyme ( three exceptions) here and felt some urge about a necessity here.

The Sound ( anahabad Shabd ) may in meditation bring you to great ends : that is
-You find out that it is REALLY your Master , a phenomenon that's impossible to explain
and that sound can tornado like become such a hurricane , that only those who did meditations a lot can stand ( stay there, )
You can also survive by repeating the 5 words and be aware that those words are identical to that Sound, . . always was and also was/is the Master AND Yourself
Must be quite a relieve for Brian
" You don't lose your individuality, but you interpreting your SELF in a new very revolutionair way "
When Brian is God, . . Who would like to be Brian, haha : not me, but Brian not so as well . . .
Would be a bad deal
You wouldn't miss it guys & gurls, the point of departure ; it's worth every breath you ever did .
But I wrote already about this - perhaps less clear in many of my comments during 4 years or so

But what is rather new to me is a phenomenon about the Sound which made clear to me
why Gurinder almost could't stop sing : "With a little help of my Friends"

The Sound can take many forms but like a motor car when stationary and in expensive cars you hear almost nothing then, the Shabd sounds ALWAYS
I believe in every human being also non-initiated has it
At Initiation the Saint of the time gives us just a kind of hearig inplant add , saying how to use that device
OK, . . some years ago i tried on a synthesiser sound generator to define what tone it is on the musical scale
First I thought seriously that it is the highest C on a keyboard, next i was aware that it corresponds and even does interferation/resonance with any note /key
It a pleasant experiment and the Master has great fun when you are doing all that
Anyway it's always at leat 2 octaves higher than the highest on a synth_generator
and it is after all rather amazing that we can hear that all the time 24/7 .

Now recently as i said I have a new phenomenon : It is that this Shabd_Sound wants to join me in songs or music that I always liked . . . but now double, triple, ten fold because HE ( remember I said Shabd = HIM )
sings plays, resounds reverbs or whatever; He joins
This is so subtle and has to do with discretion
For instance : When you make physical love we are not very inclined to imaging that the Master is doing it and he takes some distance
and when we as young satsangis go in some music you don't think the Master joins your appreciation
However the part of discretion is that you at a certain moment -here on earth when you do everything together with HIM , . . that HE applies a discretion unbelievable so nanometricly dosed that you explode with JOY

Ok that was it, I never heard this from Satsangis that the Anahabad Shabad ( in stand by mode ) is capable
to join us with Songs which we hear, or play
It makes life again superlative enjoyable

Funny I write this in a text where God is "most certainly" denied and
of course, Who is the Atheist, or the Agnostic it's HIM -
Here in France they say WAAUUUW <3

777
-

""""" This atheist has no doubt that God - of any kind - does not exist. """""

No doubt about :

"Something comes from nothing"

Woooow
9#@••


7

It came to me that saying
NO GOD . . is equivalent of . . . I'm GOD

cause Y'r rather sure of your existence or the imagination of your existence

Cheers

777


-

Dear 777

You wrote

"It came to me that saying
NO GOD . . is equivalent of . . . I'm GOD

cause Y'r rather sure of your existence or the imagination of your existence

Cheers"

LOL!

So true...


-

Spencer

Thanks from my HIM , who is also Your HIM
Good construction is that

All That LOL for LOVE

777

-

-

https://www.facebook.com/smallslive/videos/923841848259655

at 33:10

That ever is and never dies

777


Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Welcome


  • Welcome to the Church of the Churchless. If this is your first visit, click on "About this site--start here" in the Categories section below.
  • HinesSight
    Visit my other weblog, HinesSight, for a broader view of what's happening in the world of your Church unpastor, his wife, and dog.
  • BrianHines.com
    Take a look at my web site, which contains information about a subject of great interest to me: me.
  • Twitter with me
    Join Twitter and follow my tweets about whatever.
  • I Hate Church of the Churchless
    Can't stand this blog? Believe the guy behind it is an idiot? Rant away on our anti-site.