Open Thread 12 (free speech for comments)

Since preachy comments are continuing to show up on posts I've written that have nothing to do with the topic, on Tuesday I'm going to start deleting those comments if they aren't in an Open Thread -- like this one.

Leave a comment on this post about anything you want to talk about. I'll try to remember to always have an Open Thread showing in the Recent Posts section in the right sidebar. If one isn't showing, I've added an Open Threads category in, naturally, the Categories section. So you can always find an Open Thread that way.

Starting Tuesday, comments on other posts need to be related to the subject of the post, or they will be candidates for deletion. So an Open Thread is the place for pro-religion remarks and whatever. 

Back in 2015 I wrote "No preachiness" reminder for commenters. Click on that link to learn what is acceptable as a comment on a post other than an Open Thread. 

Look, every day I check out a bunch of web sites and blogs, mostly about news and politics on the local or national level. I enjoy reading comments on stories or posts. But it's irritating when people leave a comment about something totally extraneous to the subject of the story or post.

For example, comments on a story in our local newspaper about a City Council decision may veer off into But what about Hillary Clinton's emails??!! This isn't dissimilar from me writing a blog post about free will and finding that in comments people are praising their guru, or God.

Check out the name of this blog: Church of the Churchless. With an emphasis on churchless.

If you're religious, that's fine. Just keep in mind that if you went to a blog called Best Tips for Grilling the Perfect Steak, and you started extolling the virtues of vegetarianism in a comments section, the blogger would be justified in saying to you, "Hey, your comments are off-topic."

So I urge you to think for yourself and stay on-topic when you leave a comment on a blog post. Don't just regurgitate some religious dogma or say something unrelated to the post. Again, those sorts of comments belong in an Open Thread. 

Comments

[Jen]

I'm not interested in politics and not a Trump fan but am amazed at the level of hatred in the world at the moment.

To all Trump haters, is this a better outlook for the future?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4735588/Muslim-businessman-says-Australia-s-white-race-die.html

'Australian women need Muslims to fertilise them because their beer-swilling, drug-injecting men are incapable': Leading Islamic businessman's outrageous claims about shock fertility statistics

Muslim businessman Mohamed Elmouelhy says white race to die out in 40 years

He also suggests that Muslim men have a duty to 'fertilise' Australian women

He says Australian men are too busy smoking, drinking and injecting drugs

Halal businessman also called on 'bigots' to commit suicide, choose burial site

'Your men are a dying breed, Australian women need us to fertilise them and keep them surrounded by Muslim babies while beer swilling, cigarette smoking, drug injecting can only dream of what Muslim men are capable of,' he said. 'Muslims have a duty to make your women happy.'

[Jen]

I am a Churchless person but some religions can be a threat and make people, especially women, fearful...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-24/islam-australia-hear-me-out/9043680

click on "What are your biggest fears about Islam?" and "How do you feel when there's a terrorist attack?"

[Spencer Tepper]

Fear, when we allow it to flourish, can turn human beings into monsters.

[pooh bear]

I live in Australia and the article by the Muslim businessman is not representative of the muslim population. Just another misinformed loudmouth spruiking the supposed superiority of the muslim religion.

The reality is that muslims make up 2% of the Australian population and I assure you, of the 12 million males of the total 24 million Australian population, very few would be drug injecting. Some smoke and some drink, but the majority are your everyday family types as are the majority of muslim families decent people getting on with their lives.

The truth about lowered sperm counts is that the research has only been done in western countries so this man is making a presumption that muslim countries don't have the problem.

Western men have been smoking and drinking for generations without affecting their fertility. The current problem was identified by science years ago as being xeneostrogens in the food chain and environment that are endocrine disrupters in male and female. The article is simply sloppy reporting once again.

[Jen]

Thanks pooh bear, "The article is simply sloppy reporting once again".

Yes, probably just clickbait.

[777]

-

Fear . .

Did you know that merging in the frequency of the 'Existence'
makes you totally invulnerable

True

777

[Jen]

777,

Yes, Love and Fear are opposites. I do my best to be in the moment, very present and at peace. Not easy, especially now that the world is so divisive, a lot of anger and hatred.

So, once again 777, my question is: Can you really LOVE everyone? Do you love everyone? Do you love Trump?

[777]

NO
I cannot

But somebody who sees better God in everything
She can

But sometimes i feel
even for poor trump

It has everything to do with the words & the sound in me
also with my Master
Yes
When Love frequency ( of the "existence" ) in me becomes stronger, starts to synchronize in me, start interferentia, resonance
and that can be with anything , music too, I m much more sensible then ago

THEN SO , it s paradise on earth for me
I m too old but I wonder going to horrible situations here on earth >> what would it do

then i think ( paraphrase you ) something like few days earlier <
satsangis close themselves up - have no eye for people around them

a) Not true at all materially
b) An elevated Soul walking in the mall does more than the whole city
in, terms of compassion ( PLUS material effects - by quantum effects )

777

[Jen]

777: "then i think ( paraphrase you ) something like few days earlier <
satsangis close themselves up - have no eye for people around them"

Nope, I did not say anything like that. Hey, its okay, I'm over all this rubbish... over and out

[Appreciative Reader]

This open thread is probably the right place to say this.

I’ve noticed that most of the comments here on this blog tend to be negative. Leaving aside non sequiturs and discussions amongst individual posters that don’t necessarily relate to the topics covered, I’d say that far more often than not, in fact practically invariably, the comments here tend to disagree with something Brian has said or dispute some point of view that he’s expressed.

I realize that also applies, at least of late, to my comments as well. Thing is, when we agree with something, then we generally tend to simply read it or listen to it, agree with it in private, and pass on. On the other hand, when we come across something we disagree with, that is when one is impelled to take the effort to resolve (or at least to express) that disagreement. That’s human nature, I guess. (Much like taking the excellence of the food we eat for granted when it agrees with us, and taking issue with the chef only when we’re served something that we particularly dislike. So that feedback in general tends to be disproportionately negative. Unless one specifically strives against this. And of course, not counting the inane food snaps that some people seem driven to constantly “share” online these days.) I expect a large number of the naysaying posts on here will be of this type.

Not that there’s anything necessarily wrong with that. From what (little) I know of him, I expect Brian himself wouldn’t be particularly interested in having some sycophantic echo chamber around here.

But still, the positives sometimes do tend to get lost in the constant din of negatives. So, I wanted to express here, afresh, my gratitude for the excellent work Brian’s doing here, this Churchless blog I mean. I know his articles here (and the comments too) have been of great help to me, personally, in fine-tuning my own views as well as enlarging my knowledge base about particular areas that are of interest to me. I can only speak for myself, of course, but I do expect that many others will probably agree with this sentiment.

[Jen]

Appreciative Reader, you really come across as a posh old geezer, a professor probably. I imagine you sitting in your high tower looking down on the riff-raff below and playing the judge when you can.

Sorry if the negative comments bother you. You may be living a comfortable armchair life but some people in today's world are having a tough time and commenting here on Brian's blog is a kind of release for us.

Have you even noticed the hatred and venom that is happening in the world today. If one of your problems is being upset about the excellent food you eat, wow then you must be really spoilt. Yes, you are definitely speaking for your self and a very lucky self it seems.

[Spencer Tepper]

Jen:

You wrote:

""some people in today's world are having a tough time and commenting here on Brian's blog is a kind of release for us."

I concur.

But if you take a look at Appreciative Reader's essay again, I think you will see that this applies to them as well.

People who look to the positive, who choose to show appreciation may be jutting their hand skyward, as the one free limb of a buried alive existance.

[Appreciative Reader]

Dear Jen,

My comment was most emphatically not meant as some kind of judgment or rebuke aimed at other commenters. And nor did I write it because I was “bothered” by others’ comments. Absolutely not! I’m sorry if I gave that impression!

Indeed, I hadn’t even read the rest of the comments on this page before writing that comment. I wanted to say what I did, and thought an open page would be the right place for saying it in, and so I chose the newest, current Open Page that I found here, which is this one. I only notice this now, after having read your comment addressed to me, that you have made quite a few comments up there, ending with an “over and out” addressed to 777. I can see how my comment, coming immediately following yours, may have led you to think that I was particularly addressing you there.

Let me assure you, Jen, that I only meant to convey exactly what I’d said up there, just that, with no between-the-lines implications or hints hidden in there!

Thing is, we do congregate here at Brian’s salon, all of us, don’t we. We sample his wine, we help ourselves to the food he so generously lays out for us (figuratively speaking, food for thought I mean), and we, each one of us, come off with something gained from this experience (else we would not keep returning here, would we?). I know what I come for, and what I take away from here, and I spoke about this in my comment there. Sure, the particular motivations for visiting this site could be different for different folks, and indeed quite possibly different at different times for the same person. As you rightly point out. Understood. I myself think that, apart from Brian’s own incisive articles, it is this whole collection of diverse comments here, from ordinary people like you and me, that lends this place its rather unique atmosphere.

The negativity I referred to -- and perhaps my choice of wording, in calling it “negativity”, was unfortunate -- referred only to the disagreements with Brian’s POV that one sees in most of the comments here. My own comments included, let me emphasize.

I thought it apt, this new year, to say aloud what perhaps many of us think and feel but do not always think to express : to express my gratitude to Brian for the work (the effort, the time, and the expense) he puts in to keep this place up and running, and to express my gratitude for all that I’ve taken away from here.

That’s all. No further sub-text there to my comment!

Here’s wishing you a very happy and fulfilling year ahead!

[Spencer Tepper]

Hi appreciative!

I find it necessary to address Brian's negativity in many of his posts, directed towards other people he has never met.

It resonates with some who have had bad experiences in following one system of belief or other, but also adds fuel to their prejudice against those who believe in something else.

And further, paints a very biased picture that some here with no personal experience of those beliefs, adopt, essentially building bigotry and hatred for our fellow human beings of different orientations.

So while I thank Brian in general, I am compelled to burst that balloon of bigotry when Brian raises it.

But its all love, because Brian harbors no hatred for anyone. That is evident. His negative posts harshly judging the personal experiences of others he has never met simply arises out of ignorance and a misguided perception of enlightenment.

But its OK because we are all here to knock sense into each other, and that includes Brian calling me out on my own pie in the sky thinking.

[D.r]

Spencer, you write absolute bullshit mate. Every time. Who do you think you are fooling?

[Spencer Tepper]

D. r.
Ouch. Wow, that really is so insightful, D. r. You are so powerful in your sewers... Oops I meant swears.
Try again.

[D.r]

OK, since you requested it, I will try again.

You talk bullshit mate.

There you go. Any objections?

[Spencer Tepper]

Hi D. r.
No objectives..? . Oops there goes spell check again. No objections.
I saw the 'again' but completely missed the 'try' in your last one.

Sadly swears don't count for much. They need help and can't stage on their own.

Is there any actual argument in your comment? I think "reasoning" or "position" anything at all to defend your lonely swear? Don't leave her out there alone. Come to her defense.

[Jen]

D.r, your comments make me laugh, and then I wonder why is that? Probably because so many commenters take themselves so seriously (myself included) and you're this little voice of "get over yourself mate"...

[777]

-
-

I feel only HIS Love

( through all this )

777

[Appreciative Reader]

Spencer, what you say in your comment addressed to me is exactly the opposite of what I had said. Which is fine, and you can certainly hold views wholly different from mine and have every right to express them : it’s just that the way you responded to my comment seemed to imply that you drew from my comment some meaning very different from what I’d said.

No, I don’t think Brian’s comments are in the least “negative”. I find his comments very fair and very cogent. Sure, you may disagree with some of the things he says, or even all of them, that is a wholly different matter. That doesn’t make his original comments “negative”! For that matter, I often disagree with Brian myself. For instance, I don’t really understand why Brian keeps harping on free will or its absence. That makes no sense to me at all. No-free-will seems to me to be an obvious and trivial position, following automatically and directly (and trivially) from materialism, one that has no real merit at all (not because it is not true, but because it is so very obvious and, yes, trivial). The materialism paradigm, which means in practice that as far as we know there is no God, also means in practice that there are, for instance, no angels, and , to take another random example, no “seventh heaven”. When you see the world through a materialist paradigm, it seems silly to keep on harping specifically on how there is no seventh heaven, or to keeping on arguing repeatedly about how there are no seraphim and no cherubim. At least not unless there is some particular context for such specificities. In similar strain, it seems to me to make no sense to keep saying that there is, from the materialist paradigm, no free will.

I keep disagreeing with Brian’s comments, and it occurred to me that, at least of late, I never seem to talk here about the points on which I do agree with him, I seem to talk only about the points of disagreement but never about the points of agreement. Nothing wrong in that, either, but that thought is what triggered my original comment here. I would agree fully if you pointed out that just as (as I say here) not agreeing with your views does not make Brian’s views “negative”, similarly, not agreeing with his views in comments does not make the views and comments of those of us who do so disagree “negative”. Still, nevertheless, that is what I had meant by “negative” -- a usage probably incorrect, and certainly unfortunate since it seemingly keeps on getting people to misinterpret my meaning, but I did clearly and expressly explain what I meant by that word in my second comment, so there really shouldn’t have been any confusion about this after that second comment.

But irrespective, and as you suggest in your comment, there is no harm in expressing disagreement. I wouldn’t really call it “knocking sense into one another”, that suggests an unnecessarily confrontational attitude to this whole business, but that nuance aside, sure, I agree that discussing different and possibly opposing viewpoints helps one to re-examine and to fine-tune one’s own points of view. That’s what’s great about the comments here.

Just like I did with Brian, let me also take this opportunity to say to you, Spencer, that I enjoy reading your comments. Lots and lots of what you say I find I agree with (and generally say nothing about) ; on the other hand, some of what you say I find I disagree with (and these points of disagreement I have, sometimes. commented on, as I remember).

It’s a curious thing, actually : one generally tends to give negative feedback far more often than one does positive feedback -- unless of course one consciously guards against this tendency, for instance in organizational settings -- and one does tend to speak about disagreements disproportionately more than one does about things that one agrees with. So that if one were to go exclusively by feedback, then one would probably end up with an incorrect (or at least a seriously lopsided) picture of the actual state of affairs. I’ve always found the thoughts as you express them in your comments to be thoughtful, Spencer, and quite apart from the specifics of who agrees or disagrees with who about what, I think you’ll probably appreciate that thought.

[Spencer Tepper]

Hi Appreciative

You wrote
"Spencer, what you say in your comment addressed to me is exactly the opposite of what I had said. Which is fine, and you can certainly hold views wholly different from mine and have every right to express them : it’s just that the way you responded to my comment seemed to imply that you drew from my comment some meaning very different from what I’d said.

No, I don’t think Brian’s comments are in the least “negative”"

Yes, Appreciative, we do not share the same perspective. I do enjoy many of Brian's posts, and particularly the ones reflecting a direct and stoic, almost heroic approach to personal responsibility; to living by one's own definition and standing on one's own two feet. I love those articles.

I love where Brian shares his awe and respect for the sheer beauty, elegance and complexitiy of this creation without the need to conjecture about God: To honor the creation on its own, as awesome, beyond comprehension and stunning, without trying to coopt it, label it with our personal beliefs.

However, this does not represent the entirety of Brian's approach. He has a mean streak.

Brian posted an article about a Satsangi couple who was murdered. Their murdere could have happened to anyone. People are tragically murdered every day. This murder had nothing to do with their beliefs.

Brian tried to exploit their tragedy to make his own case against their sacred beliefs in favor of his own belief in Atheism.

It's bad enough they were murdered. Now they are insulted for their beliefs.

And there have been other articles inciting contributors to share their difficulties in following a spiritual path for the purpose of reducing those honorable difficulties into petty gossip and prejudice against all the followers of those beliefs, depicting them all in generalized terms as ignorant, selfish and delusional.

I find this negative, unbalanced, inaccurate and disrespectful.

Because the same respect I have for Atheism arises out of the same respect I have for followers of a spiritual path.

Some may not be sincere. But in most paths there are so many sincere and stoic believers. They may not be in the pulpit. Those more mature and sincere members, or more innocent and sincere members, may be sitting quietly in the audience, living a private, secret life of devotion and joy while outwardly toiling away at life in full acceptance, quietly doing what they can to keep everyone living and working together in peace.

To me these are God.

Whether they call themselves Muslims, Jews, Christians, Satsangis, or Atheists, or Hindus or....

They are God, and I love to speak their case when they undergo prejudice and abuse at the hands of well-intended but ignorant persons.

[Spencer Tepper]

I would add to this one more category, and that is the category of those who give their life to protect others. To me the soldier, policewoman, fireman who dies protecting the innocent is carried in the arms of Christ Himself. I have seen it. Take it as the witness of a delusional dreamer. But with these very eyes I have seen it.

[Spencer Tepper]

What if God is beyond human conception? Thomas Aquinas wrote that the human mind cannot know God, which is a theme found in the Bible. He suggested that we can only relate to God on a mental level through analogy. Just as you might explain aircraft flight to a person in terms using analogies they are familiar with, so God cannot be explained to us except by analogy.

Professor Michael Martin, in his book, The Oxford Compendium of Atheism, explains the implications of this. When someone says God is beyond human ideas of power, we tend to put that into mechanistic and linear terms, thinking perhaps God is more powerful, rather than considering that God's power may simply be different. In the Renaissance, with the rise of mechanics in science, efforts to understand elements of the physical world meant reducing and objectifying it into concrete, and finite terms, testable by both control and manipulation. This is entirely appropriate for discrete elements of the creation, but hopelessly flawed and invalid when attempting to describe something outside and beyond the scope of these elements.

Mystic Saints write that God is within everything and everything is within God (including all the 70% of the creation astrophysics says we currently know nothing about) .

Martin writes that popular definitions of God since the Renaissance have been reduced to mechanistic terms, using deductive and inductive thinking as these became tools of the trade for business and science. And away from Aquinas philosophy of analogous thinking as a way, not to know God through the mind, but to understand analogous concepts, flawed as they are, within our limited capacity.

As Mechanistic thinking gives way to quantum thinking, the very definitions Atheism stands upon, the very foundation of its argument will evaporate.

[Brian Hines]

Spencer, here's a more basic question: what if God doesn't exist?

[Spencer Tepper]

Hi Brian

You ask
"what if God doesn't exist?"

The human mind can't know either way.

[Brian Hines]

Spencer, the human mind can know that something exists by demonstrable evidence of it existing. Conversely, absence of demonstrable evidence for something existing leads us to be reasonably confident that this thing doesn't exist.

Neither existence nor non-existence is set in stone, of course. But in both science and everyday life, we have to proceed on the basis of what I outlined above.

We don't step carefully around a certain portion of our living room because we're afraid of waking up a sleeping invisible unicorn. Sure, such MIGHT exist in our living room, but we can't live our lives on the basis of "might." We live our lives on the basis of "is," while being open to the possibility of new things that are.

So you put forth a false equivalency. God is a "might," not an "is." Yet people falsely pretend otherwise. When people do this for imagined objects other than God, we call them delusional or even psychotic. But since God is a widely held delusion, society gives a special dispensation to this inability to recognize reality as it is.

This is why atheism takes so much courage, and why religiosity is so easy. Religious people are going with the societal delusional current, while atheists are facing upstream toward reality.

[Spencer Tepper]

Brian Reply 021018

Hi Brian!

Thanks for your comments. I think, to do them justice I will try to address your points individually. Please forgive the length of the reply. I would have written a shorter response had I more time.:)

You Wrote:
"Spencer, the human mind can know that something exists by demonstrable evidence of it existing. Conversely, absence of demonstrable evidence for something existing leads us to be reasonably confident that this thing doesn't exist."

Yes, I whole heartedly agree. I would go further to say that just because a group of people say something is true doesn't make it true. And using no evidence to prove a point naturally carries no weight with me. It's not scientific. We didn't know subatomic particles existed for thousands of years (except the mystics). We didn't know there were other inhabitable worlds than ours (except the mystics); we didn't know our own world was round for thousands of years (except the mystics), or even that currents of electricity existed in our own bodies for thousands of years, except..... If someone had said "That doesn't exist" I take that as "if man were meant to fly he / she would have had wings"...A useless and vacant statement of understandable ignorance by a non-scientific mind pretending to be pragmatic.

And if they present evidence, I am very particular about scrutinizing it, as you can see from my earlier comments.

You wrote:
"Neither existence nor non-existence is set in stone, of course. But in both science and everyday life, we have to proceed on the basis of what I outlined above."

No, we don't proceed to say a dark room is empty. That's ignorance. We say "Let's explore and see what's there".

If we find there is nothing, as you did in your meditation, than for you, that's a vacant room.

But for you to presume what you found within applies to everyone, that is prejudice.

You wrote:

"We don't step carefully around a certain portion of our living room because we're afraid of waking up a sleeping invisible unicorn. Sure, such MIGHT exist in our living room, but we can't live our lives on the basis of "might." We live our lives on the basis of "is," while being open to the possibility of new things that are."

If we haven't turned on the lights we don't pretend the entire room doesn't exist because we can't see it. That is a more accurate analogy. You have no idea what is within the subconscious or even the physical brain, let alone the external and subtle influences on that brain. Far more than has been discovered. So this is the right analogy.

You wrote:
"So you put forth a false equivalency. God is a "might," not an "is."

God is only a "might" for those like you who try to reduce God to a concept that can be tested with mechanical means, as a part of this system. That's fine for elements of the creation. Not for a being in whom the entire creation resides. Since by definition God is beyond the individual reducable elements, you will not find that mechanical science is going to be a source of evidence there. You know where to find that evidence. For that you need a more quantum science thinking, where analogy and probability are at best attempts to approach that reality that can't be reduced for our tiny brains.

People believe in God because they actually experience God. Some are delusional. Some are right.

And many people believe in no God because they don't experience God. Some are also delusional and in denial. Others are right, they have no actual experience to speak of.

You wrote:
"Yet people falsely pretend otherwise. "

Brian, this is your prejudice about the inner workings of other people, as if yo were omniscient. If you believe there is no God, why then do you presume to judge the inner reality of people you have never met and cannot possibly understand? That is just prejudice. It's religious prejudice when one person belittles those of different orentiations. And of course it's unscientific. And your comment is evidence that you have reduced the nobility of Atheism into a religion of prejudicial beliefs.

You wrote:
"This is why atheism takes so much courage, and why religiosity is so easy. Religious people are going with the societal delusional current, while atheists are facing upstream toward reality."

Being completely honest with oneself takes courage, whether that is acknowledging God, or acknowledging no experience of God, or no faith in God, or discovering deep within a love, a passion for God. It all takes courage.

But accusing others of being delusionial is simply character assassination. That's cowardice.

[Karim W. Rahmaan]

Once met this this Atheist who was an amazing guy!

Here's the story:

I called the Secretary at the time for the present living Master who informed me that Baba Ji was in route to have Satsang in America. He told me to attend if I could. I had just visited my paternal father who was getting close to 80, so figured "Here's a chance to visit spiritual father as well." So I asked the Secretary if I could hitch a ride with him for the Satsang.

He later called me and said there was a new initiate like myself who I could ride with. To be honest, I was a little afraid at first but wanted to keep my open-mindedness while also visiting Baba Ji for the 1st time.

The guy who drove kept comparing the path to movies like "The Matrix", the universe as a jeanie -like in that movie by Atheists "The Secret", and "Close Encounters of the Third Kind". All the while I thought this guy is a cool cat. Never had I talked this much about the path with anyone, people always dismissed it and my opinions in that regard.

The dude brought coffee, smokes, paid for all the gas, food, and everything. I kept asking to pitch in, but he kept insisting & who was I to stop him, but I did keep offering to pay my fair share.

We even crossed a toll bridge, and he paid the guys toll behind us -I know to their surprise.

Man I kept thinking that for a new initiate like myself, this guy seemed to be on the path longer than that Secretary I spoke to.

Anyway, I enjoyed his Atheist views and he commended me for being from the N.O.I.

It was almost like riding with and having a friendly debate between a shadow of myself, but without a victor.

We went threw the checkpoint at the SOS Centre, I disarmed and went attentively to meet this guy's inspiration. We were 7 minutes late, the guy on stage stopped talking, looked at us latecomers -out of respect I bowed my head as I did to all the other 'gurus' then took my seat.

[Spencer Tepper]

A true Atheist in the highest sense, advocating for truth alone, does not hold to anything unproven. They do not hold to either of these...

God exists.
God doesn't exist.

They take a scientific approach, seeking.

Science does not say those things outside existing proof don''t exist.

That logic would have brought science to a halt ages ago.

They hold to wonder. There are things that we can witness but have not enough evidence to conclude.

Things we can' to offer a proven explanation for.

They remain wonderfully unproven, the far land our sons and daughters and theirs will travel one day.

They love the known. They love the unknown and celebrate both.

Because that is the honest truth.

Atheists hold to a single principle : conjecture is not truth. My real experience is not proof yours is not real. I can't conjecture what is going on in your head.

Beware the fake Atheists.
Herald the True Atheists.

[juan]

Copied and pasted, No comments
http://es.mc278.mail.yahoo.com/mc/welcome?.gx=1&.tm=1295431992&.rand=1v04fnv4sr49v#_pg=showFolder&fid=Inbox&order=down&tt=12802&pSize=25&.rand=769082501&.jsrand=2796827

[juan]

Sorry, an error in pasting the above link.

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/company/corporate-trends/daiichi-case-delhi-hc-blocks-singh-brothers-from-selling-assets/articleshow/62980024.cms

[Turan]

Just thought I'd try to explain one or two points on my comment of 29/6.

I agree that having a belief to hold on to is a necessary aid for people and the vanity I spoke of is believing that our particular belief has some value in explaining life and easing our paths. Sadly it seems, that our various beliefs also contain the seeds of much of the inner and outer conflicts that regularly ruin lives.

Life is really simple – we are born, we survive and we die. It's the bit in between birth and death that causes our species the problems and that revolves around our thinking – a great survival tool for everyday planning and problem solving. Which brings me on to the 'illusory creation' I mentioned – the 'self'.

Understanding the mind as being a mental construct, a process consisting of all the information we have accumulated and continue to accumulate through our senses - and 'stored' in the brain. From this information a 'self' emerges (call it me, I or ego) – and it is very vulnerable, a brain injury or disease can destroy or alter it. And on another level having it's contents (beliefs, knowledge and opinions) questioned is equally as threatening. Just as we defend and maintain our physical bodies we have (quite naturally) extended this survival instinct to our self structures.

I don't feel that life is a mystery; thinking from a 'self' that is fearful and insecure projects that insecurity onto all around it and onto ourselves. The body has its own intelligence, even when death is near and inevitable it just happens – but the 'self', that's a different issue. Knowing its vulnerability and inevitable demise it habitually invents or 'holds on' as you say, to any aid or belief that in some way appears or promises to maintain its existence.

Not only do the external authorities, spiritual teachings and leaders mold our thinking and beliefs but many experiences produced in the body and brain by its chemistry can give us hopes and beliefs that strengthen the 'self's' desire for continuation.

Yes, of course, we rely on our ego's, our sense of self to operate in the world though being aware of its very limited and conditioned perspective may help it to relax and take a back seat now and again. But yes, its very unnerving to admit that we don't know.

Two sayings/stories come to mind :-
“Why are we unhappy? Because 99.9% of the time you are thinking of yourself – and there isn't one!
And.
Student: Please can you help me to pacify my mind. It gives me no rest.
Teacher: This is terrible, bring out this mind and I will remonstrate with it.
Student, after a few moments: Sir, I cannot find it!
Teacher: There, it is pacified.

[Jen]

Hi Turan,

About beliefs. I no longer believe in Sant Mat, the Master etc, and now I even question whether we have a soul or spirit, never mind the egoistic feeling of being special when I was a satsangi. Also I do remember life being simple when I thought I understood life and knew everything about it and was being protected and safe in my little satsangi bubble.

Yes, the mind is a problem when it likes to get involved with the world and its problems. I watch myself when I get emotionally entangled in whats happening in the world and remind myself that it is all illusionary anyway. Its an ongoing practice, being aware of my thoughts, my awareness.

I'm over the whole ego bashing thing. What helps me now is reminding myself to let go, emptiness, nothingness, unknowing. No need to have faith in anything. Just living moment to moment.

Damn, sounding preachy. Sorry, gotta laugh at myself as well :)

[Spencer Tepper]

Hi Jen
If you have given up all belief in favor of your experience that seems to me a huge leap forward.

Beliefs are mental constructions, symbolic representations of actual things.

So if your current belief rests upon the firm foundation of your actual experience, seems very truthful to me.

Now, that can only apply to oneself. But that is our principle duty.

And whatever belief system anyone espouses must come under the measure of what we can experience and have experienced for ourselves.

It doesn't actually make anyone 's belief wrong.

It simply means that our highest system of belief, our most truthful belief is what we have verified for ourselves.

I firmly believe, a lesson I've learned here, is that everyone must enter into a form of Atheism at some point in their journey to truth, wherever that journey takes them. There must be that point of no more mental concepts. Anyway, I think you make a strong case for us and I'm convinced this is a crucial part of knowing truth.

[Jen]

Hi Spencer,

Going to cut and paste your comment as a reminder. It is inspirational and empowering, thanks :)