How many believe in God

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Cantando

Everyone returns to their roots at the point of death, whether they are Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Jewish or Atheist.
You are going round in circles. If you can accept that, you will die a peaceful death.
You always return to the teachings your parents gave you as a child.

So I guess on my deathbed, I will reconcile myself to Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the fact that if I kiss a boy I'll get pregnant.

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by Angela

...and the fact that if I kiss a boy I'll get pregnant.

Ahhh, well at least I know I won't be alone on my death bed. To keep me company I'll have all the children I fathered by holding girls' hands. Joy

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by Angela

So I guess on my deathbed, I will reconcile myself to Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the fact that if I kiss a boy I'll get pregnant.

Yes, you probably will.
To prevent fear from taking hold, you will cling to those good things you were given in your childhood which made you feel safe and strong.

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by Max Power

CT, You've got some bold statements presuming much about my beliefs. Belief in a god that isn't you is the ultimate cop out, always a puppet of the puppet master. What's the point of that? To bask in his glory and live under his creation? Seems rather pointless.
I do not believe in a god anywhere, I may have questioned the existance of god here on the forum, but that is in response to other forum members and that's hardly an admission that I believe in an almighty spirit being outside of myself.
Religion, like a belief that something outside of you has some kind of input is a form of control imposed by others for the control over others.
I respect your beliefs, but hardly agree on any level with them, telling me I'm wrong is fine as long as we can agree to disagree.
Enjoy!
Max

Max, first of all, aplogies for coming across a bit heavy in that post.
When I was saying 'you', I meant 'one' or 'all of us'.
When you say 'Belief in a god that isn't you is the ultimate cop out', OK I can understand that view, but I could easily say 'Not believing in God is the ultimate cop out'. So, it becomes a pointless argument.

I was trying to get across a point in a rather bombastic way.
'One' can search for years and years for the truth, experimenting in all sorts of belief systems, till one day 'one' realizes one is old and sick and about to die. At that point, I believe things come full circle, and the things that matter are the good teachings we received as children, whether they were atheistic, Muslim, Christian or whatever; and these memories will come flooding back.
Those truths we can anchor onto as we pass out of this life, and help us not to fall prey to fear, illusion and despair.

I know it sounds a bit morbid, but I just felt I had to make that point.
It's like remembering what some old hobo might have told you years ago, 'Always go where the best is', or something like that.
I just strongly suspect that a lot of the ideas on this forum are just mind games and exercises in mentalism.

I realize a lot of people reading this are young, strong and energetic and want to try out different things. But when that fateful day arrives, will you be sure you have a rock solid foundation of truth to carry you through?
I also suspect that some of these new ideas, like wanting to remain youthful for ever, are a cop out in themselves and disguise an inner fear of physical death, which each and every one of us will experience.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Cantando

Yes, you probably will.
To prevent fear from taking hold, you will cling to those good things you were given in your childhood which made you feel safe and strong.

Two things about that, Cantando:

One: the myths that adults used to control me with when I was a child (Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, Jesus, threats of pregnancy from holding hands) never made me feel safe or strong. Instead, they caused anxiety, resentment, and a sense of betrayal from being lied to and manipulated. When faced with death, I hope to remain present to, and to be satisfied and fulfilled by, what is real in my life. Because I won't know how I'll be on death's door until it happens, I live my life committed to being present in the moment now. Which leads me to:

Two: one of the things I find most obnoxious about religious proselytizers is their smug presumptions of deathbed conversion and what happens in the afterlife. Since we can't know with any certainty about such things, even for ourselves, I prefer that people keep their fantasies, delusions and religious convictions in the realm of personal belief, rather than Universal Truth. If it's yours, that's fine; please do not assign your dogma to me.

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by Angela

Two things about that, Cantando:

One: the myths that adults used to control me with when I was a child (Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, Jesus, threats of pregnancy from holding hands) never made me feel safe or strong. Instead, they caused anxiety, resentment, and a sense of betrayal from being lied to and manipulated. When faced with death, I hope to remain present to, and to be satisfied and fulfilled by, what is real in my life. Because I won't know how I'll be on death's door until it happens, I live my life committed to being present in the moment now. Which leads me to:

Two: one of the things I find most obnoxious about religious proselytizers is their smug presumptions of deathbed conversion and what happens in the afterlife. Since we can't know with any certainty about such things, even for ourselves, I prefer that people keep their fantasies, delusions and religious convictions in the realm of personal belief, rather than Universal Truth. If it's yours, that's fine; please do not assign your dogma to me.

Actually, there is a lot of truth in old myths and legends, if you're willing to search for it.
Not quite sure why you are mentioning 'control' and the 'Easter Bunny'. Sounds a bit scary - was it really that bad?
I'm talking about solid, good advice from parents, grandparents, friends or even strangers, which might have been forgotten over the years but which comes back to mind at a critical point when we most need it.
I've been reading enough about others' fantasies and delusions on this forum as to what life is all about, so I think I'm quite entitled to express a few of my own.
I quite understand when others say that they are God and creators and they control everything. I sometimes believe it myself, but I know deep down, in my more lucid moments, that it's just illusion. That's where I stand and that's my reality.

[Angela]

Hey, Cantando. The Easter Bunny not so much, but the use of imaginary beings as a means to control me -- "be good, and you'll be rewarded by the Creature! Don't be bad, or you'll be punished by the Creature -- if you're bad enough, the punishment will last forever!" The Easter Bunny was way more into pleasure than pain, fortunately; not so with Jesus and Santa Claus. And let's not even talk about the Tree Monster or the Toilet Monster.

Maybe you're right about good, solid advice or words of comfort coming back to you as you face death. It's just that I never saw religious training as being either good, solid, or comforting. I could see early on that it was all made up, and that the major use of it (that affected me, anyway) was control and manipulation. So my pain body was activated when I read your words (religion seems to be a very big activator of my pain body!) and my meta-message to you was "don't tell me what will happen when I die. Don't try to constrict me, buddy!" Of course that was just me reacting and has nothing to do with you. Of course you are entitled to express what is true for you, and I'm sorry if I got in the way of that.

Your sentence about how you realize in your lucid moments that it's an illusion that people think they are creators sort of hornswoggled my brain, because to me it all looks like illusion, and it feels like Zeus and Hera throwing lightning bolts at each other. This might be due to my cold medicine.

I think I will stay away from religious threads, at least until my sinuses clear up.

[Man of Kent]

i think one of the earlier contributions got it right when they said about "God" being just a word. I agree completely except it is a word with as many definitions as there are point of view, it is all so personal, no one is right and no one is wrong.

So for me , God is "all that is", i see the evidence of God (my God, you understand) in a baby's smile, the perfect sunrise, and so on.

Thanks for the thread

Neil

[songwriter]

I know it looks like a... skeptical answer... but it depends of what "God" is.

God can be Yahwe, Allah, Eric Clapton, Maradona, yourself, Michael Jordan, a hot women or whatever depending the person, really... lol.

For instance, if you say "God is All", do you mean if I believe in the existence of "all"?... it's very complicated...

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by Angela

Hey, Cantando. The Easter Bunny not so much, but the use of imaginary beings as a means to control me -- "be good, and you'll be rewarded by the Creature! Don't be bad, or you'll be punished by the Creature -- if you're bad enough, the punishment will last forever!" The Easter Bunny was way more into pleasure than pain, fortunately; not so with Jesus and Santa Claus. And let's not even talk about the Tree Monster or the Toilet Monster.

Maybe you're right about good, solid advice or words of comfort coming back to you as you face death. It's just that I never saw religious training as being either good, solid, or comforting. I could see early on that it was all made up, and that the major use of it (that affected me, anyway) was control and manipulation. So my pain body was activated when I read your words (religion seems to be a very big activator of my pain body!) and my meta-message to you was "don't tell me what will happen when I die. Don't try to constrict me, buddy!" Of course that was just me reacting and has nothing to do with you. Of course you are entitled to express what is true for you, and I'm sorry if I got in the way of that.

Your sentence about how you realize in your lucid moments that it's an illusion that people think they are creators sort of hornswoggled my brain, because to me it all looks like illusion, and it feels like Zeus and Hera throwing lightning bolts at each other. This might be due to my cold medicine.

I think I will stay away from religious threads, at least until my sinuses clear up.

That's OK, Angela. I do tend to go in, all guns blazing, then immediately regret what I have posted! Sometimes, I think I can't word what I want to say tactfully or diplomatically enough and just have to shout it out.

Depending on how I feel in the morning, I may revert to my Christian roots, or at other times, agree with what Max is saying. I swing from one extreme to the other very quickly. Hopefully, I'll get it right one day!
Thanks for your patience and understanding.

I agree with you - I don't know what will happen when we die. I was more referring to the last moments here on earth and how well we will be prepared.
I admit - yes, I do feel fear sometimes, but some people seem to think it is weak or un-macho to feel afraid.
I'm not trying to sell any religion, but I do sincerely think there is an awesome, majestic presence which fills the universe. Even an atheist must look up at the stars at night and marvel sometimes.

I think there is a good argument for saying that this awesome power is scaled down into human terms and assigned a personage and referrred to as God.
A physical analogy would be the sun - if you look too long at it you will go blind. If you go too close to it you will fry. We need the atmosphere, clouds and shade for protection.

Some saints and mystics have got closer than most of us to this awesome presence, but I'm happy to know that in this life, while operating through my ego and body, I will do the best I can, and that this power/presence loves me and every one of us.

[Erki]

God is dog backwards.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Cantando

'One' can search for years and years for the truth, experimenting in all sorts of belief systems, till one day 'one' realizes one is old and sick and about to die. At that point, I believe things come full circle, and the things that matter are the good teachings we received as children, whether they were atheistic, Muslim, Christian or whatever; and these memories will come flooding back.
Those truths we can anchor onto as we pass out of this life, and help us not to fall prey to fear, illusion and despair.

Cantando, on a quick read of your most recent posts, I think that people are objecting to your points, for the following reasons:

1. Not all children received good teachings when they were children
2. People can receive good teachings, after they have grown up
3. It is not accepted that teachings acquired in childhood are inherently superior to teachings acquired in adolescence, or young adulthood, or middle age, or for that matter, in old age.

[Acting Like Godot]

Deepak Chopra has an interesting book "How to Know God" where he explains his theory that the way people perceive God is dependent on their own level of spiritual development. He outlines seven levels - but the basic idea goes like this.

At the low end, you perceive God as a separate entity from yourself, and God is random and revengeful and apt to punish you if you dare breach his rules & commands, which don't always make sense.

Somewhere in the middle, you start perceiving God as a loving, good, wonderful entity separate from yourself, but the problem is that you don't find God very accessible. Sometimes you can hear him, and sometimes you can't, and you never know when exactly you will hear him again.

At the high end, you ARE God. You perceive him and you as inextricably bound and intertwined and present every moment in the same reality. Your life is bliss.

Etc etc.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Cantando

I'm talking about solid, good advice from parents, grandparents, friends or even strangers, which might have been forgotten over the years but which comes back to mind at a critical point when we most need it.

This kinda assumes that your parents, grandparents, friends and strangers were all wise, kind, "deep" people able to dispense solid, good advice.

A big assumption, especially when you're trying to speak for everyone's parents, grandparents, friends and strangers. You see?

[Maguru]

Do you see your god in an evil grin and a tsunami also?

(QUOTE) So for me , God is "all that is", i see the evidence of God (my God, you understand) in a baby's smile, the perfect sunrise, and so on.

Thanks for the thread

Neil[/QUOTE]

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

This kinda assumes that your parents, grandparents, friends and strangers were all wise, kind, "deep" people able to dispense solid, good advice.

A big assumption, especially when you're trying to speak for everyone's parents, grandparents, friends and strangers. You see?

Those of us who had a good family upbringing and received good advice are indeed very fortunate.
For a lot uf us, sadly, the opposite is true. How do we reconcile that? Some of us experiment with different ideas and beliefs, but not of all of us find the solution to those negative childhood experiences.

But, there is a solution - compassion and forgiveness. Even if your dad was a grisly old drunk who knocked you around, surely you can remember something, no matter how trite, that did mean something, even if it was something obvious like, "Keep you head up, son".
In a time of crisis, memories may come flooding back to you. If you cannot forgive that person who hurt or abused you, then your spiritual progress will be seriously impeded.

Don't let the sun go down on your anger. Forgive and pray for those who hurt you. You can do that right now. You don't have to chase after a guru half way round the globe, or go into therapy for years, wasting thousands of dollars.

[ahimel]

I believe in a divine being. I'm not sure whether it created the universe or is simply implicit in creation. I believe that all matter and all life is in some way tied to this being, although I'm still working out the relationships (does IM work because God listens to me? Or because I AM God?)

My $.02

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Erki

God is dog backwards.

*groan*

I just watched Woody Allen's "Sleeper" last night.

..."It makes you think."

[Hsiang-Lin]

Hi AidanMatthews216 and Mark Lapierre,

Let's start with the basics and what we know. Science is a discipline based upon the capabilities of our human senses and minds. Therefore, non-science explains anything beyond our human senses and minds.

Religion/spirituality is the attempt to explain the non-science. This include the whole plethora of theories out there on our existence, consciousness, etc.

As we learn more, science and religion APPEAR to have some ties, BUT we don't know the exact answer for sure. Therefore, what is the line at which these two merge? That is the real question.

Let's start with science and history dating back to the Big Bang theory as our premise. I believe then there must be a Creator or something that gave birth to everything in this universe. This origin of the universe is also the leap of faith that is required in everyone. Some will jump on subjective reality, spirituality, or other ways to explain creation.

Now by outright denying God, it seems a bit presumptuous. How can one claim to be logical by accepting what makes sense to him/her (science), but denying something that COULD fit in the model as well (God)? It is those people who accept science, but cannot accept a Creator that I am speaking specifically to.

As for those who believe in no God or God in the self (like subjective reality), there are a host of contradictions. If you truly are God, then how did everything come into place? Why would you make the reality you have now the way it is? How can you even create a reality with all these rules and wonderful things if you cannot even explain to yourself and others how you created it?

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Hsiang-Lin

Let's start with the basics and what we know. Science is a discipline based upon the capabilities of our human senses and minds. Therefore, non-science explains anything beyond our human senses and minds.

*ponders*

Smoke and Mirrors: The Science of the Mysterious

*whistles*

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by Hsiang-Lin

Now by outright denying God, it seems a bit presumptuous. How can one claim to be logical by accepting what makes sense to him/her (science), but denying something that COULD fit in the model as well (God)? It is those people who accept science, but cannot accept a Creator that I am speaking specifically to.

As for those who believe in no God or God in the self (like subjective reality), there are a host of contradictions. If you truly are God, then how did everything come into place? Why would you make the reality you have now the way it is? How can you even create a reality with all these rules and wonderful things if you cannot even explain to yourself and others how you created it?

I agree. That's the issue with any claim that rests upon an unprovable assumption. There are countless explanations one can propose through speculation, but in the end it is simply that, speculation. It may be justified by personal experience and by anecdotal evidence, but unless it's verifiable it's still speculation. That's fine for many people, and fine for establishing and maintaining a belief, but no where near enough to validate whatever the belief is based upon.

[AidanMatthews216]

Originally Posted by Hsiang-Lin

Therefore, non-science explains anything beyond our human senses and minds.

What do we use to understand these things if not our senses and minds. What do we "understand" with?

Religion/spirituality is the attempt to explain the non-science. This include the whole plethora of theories out there on our existence, consciousness, etc.

I don't see why those things have to be approached as something outside of science or something we can't explain with our human mind and senses.

Let's start with science and history dating back to the Big Bang theory as our premise. I believe then there must be a Creator or something that gave birth to everything in this universe. This origin of the universe is also the leap of faith that is required in everyone. Some will jump on subjective reality, spirituality, or other ways to explain creation.

That argument has an inconsistency, which is that you believe some creator must have given birth to the universe, but that the creator itself "just is." No God needs to have created God. Why?

Now by outright denying God, it seems a bit presumptuous. How can one claim to be logical by accepting what makes sense to him/her (science), but denying something that COULD fit in the model as well (God)? It is those people who accept science, but cannot accept a Creator that I am speaking specifically to.

Well, I generally don't believe something is true which I have no reason to accept. There is no argument that convinces me that there is probably a creator of the universe. I don't deny that there *could* be one, but I don't think so. It is not about "denying" anything, instead for me it's about staying open-minded but going with the theory that makes the most sense for the moment.

[Michael Chui]

@Mark: "Reason: Mental note: Check for further responses before repeating the same thing..."

By all means, just repeat it. I'm still trying to figure out a better way to post that link such that people actually click on it and read all the way through. :/

[Hsiang-Lin]

Mark Lapierre & Michael Chui:

Let me try to understand what you are saying. You're saying God is based upon an unproveable assumption, hence it is simply speculation. True, but this is under the view of SCIENCE. Based on the scientific view, there is clearly not enough information to validate the existence of God.

Michael you write, "Failing to agree on self-evident propositions immediately makes a conversation pointless." Right there, you are viewing faith in view of the scientific method. That statement assumes that we as human beings have the final say on everything that is: that we know what's best for us. There is no room for faith or hope in a scientific world as yes, it is ultimately pointless to try to prove God's existence in such a model.

BUT, I am saying do not just analyze everything within the scientific view. A religious view of the world does not mean you have to separate science and religion. You can believe in God and believe in the connection between science and religion. But analyzing God, faith, and hope under the lens of the scientific method is not really fair.

Also, how do you classify hope in you model?

AidanMatthews216:

By beyond our minds, I meant beyond the scientific approach as mentiond above. We can surely imagine creations beyond science can't we? Belief in God, magic, fiction, etc. lies in this category.

You write, "I don't see why those things have to be approached as something outside of science or something we can't explain with our human mind and senses." Well, if you take the middle ground, then yes those things don't have to be approached outside of science. But once again, if you believe in God, that does not mean you have to forsake science.

The difference between a God that "just is" and a reality where things just "are" is hope and faith. Why do you have such feelings? Why do you have morals? Why do you persist in the face of opposition? Science cannot sufficiently fully explain why things are the way they are.

As for your last statement on open-mindedness, how do you know you are the final say in what is reasonable or not and what's best for you? Other people can often see your faults that you cannot see yourself. There are so many cases in the world of people who believed in one thing and changed for the better by listening to good advice. People who lose massive amounts of weight is such an example. Just b/c the market is flooded with crappy advice does not mean there aren't nuggets of gold in the pile. It is a tough process though, indeed.

Perhaps a good question to ask is, under your current model of thinking how does it explain hope, faith, and love?

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Hsiang-Lin

Mark Lapierre & Michael Chui:

Heh. I can only answer for myself; I'm too unfamiliar with Mark's beliefs to splice through that. Fair warning.

Originally Posted by Hsiang-Lin

You're saying God is based upon an unproveable assumption, hence it is simply speculation.

Read closer to the agnostic creed. (I am, of course, nitpicking what Mark said, not what Hsiang-Lin said.) God is not based on an unprovable assumption. God, as defined as an incomprehensible, undefinable (though he most certainly is), etc., is either assumed or not.

I, personally, choose to assume that God exists. I don't bother talking about this, because it's not a useful fact to argue with. So yes, God is simply speculation. Whatever you mean by God, and I almost certainly don't agree with many people's idea of God. Thus, I cannot discuss it with many people. So I don't.

Originally Posted by Hsiang-Lin

Michael you write, "Failing to agree on self-evident propositions immediately makes a conversation pointless." Right there, you are viewing faith in view of the scientific method.

No, I'm not. You're taking it completely out of context from the entire post.

How can I be viewing faith in view of the scientific method when I already say, "[Faith] is not logically deduced, nor can it be ultimately tested scientifically."

Take one of my non-scientific examples of truth deduction. Let's say we agree on "In vino veritas", translated "In wine, truth", meaning "Liquor up a person and they'll spill the beans." But notice that I said "we agree on". That part's important. If I don't think that some light drinking will help determine the truth, then I won't consider what's said as a result to be reliably truthful.

A different example: the priests of Zeus would often "listen to the wind" to divine the truth. Others examine the entrails of recently slain animals (read the Odyssey) or open a book to a random page (biblomancy) and so on. In the case of Christianity, most of such methods are quietly ignored, even the ones recommended (or recommended against, such as mediums) in the Old Testament. (You notice they're generally not in the New.) The essential Christian creed appears to be, "If God agrees, then it's true." The riddle is how to find out whether or not God agrees; most people end up asking an ancestor or an accessible member of the clergy.

Faith is a matter of essential assumptions. A certainty in the present: this is what I know. The existence of God (theism), lack thereof (atheism), or irrelevance of the question (apathetic agnosticism), is one of these.

Originally Posted by Hsiang-Lin

That statement assumes that we as human beings have the final say on everything that is: that we know what's best for us.

Nothing I have said in this thread or the linked thread even suggests this. To even say that "we know what's best for us" begins with the assumption that there is a "best for us". This assumption is, in and of itself, an article of faith.

See, what I talk about in the other post is applicable to just about everything. It's an intrinsic part of conversation itself. There are not that many assumptions built into it. It's not even a model: it's a description.

Originally Posted by Hsiang-Lin

There is no room for faith or hope in a scientific world as yes, it is ultimately pointless to try to prove God's existence in such a model.

You say that "science is a discipline based upon the capabilities of our human senses and minds". And I tell you this: it is not. It is a body of knowledge based, yes, on human senses and minds, but more importantly on the scientific method. What is the scientific method? "Put simply, [it] is what happens when you try to narrow down and isolate the cause of an observation. It is founded on the expectation that, if something is the cause of a phenomenon, repeating the cause in similar conditions will repeat the phenomenon."

Consider the idea that prayer moves mountains. Does it happen? Okay, we assume that prayer is X, that a mountain is Y, and it is moved if Z happens. This is called operationalization. Now, you have a group of people enact X, observe Y, and measure Z. Perform this test as many times as you can. If the same results occur over and over, then the conclusion you may draw from all of the experiments together is probably true.

Originally Posted by Hsiang-Lin

BUT, I am saying do not just analyze everything within the scientific view. A religious view of the world does not mean you have to separate science and religion. You can believe in God and believe in the connection between science and religion.

It is so strange: my post was about how there wasn't merely a connection between so-called "science" and so-called "religion", but in fact that they were so powerfully and necessarily intertwined that it's not actually possible to separate them at all.

And here you speak as if you disagree.

Read my post more carefully and more fully.

Originally Posted by Hsiang-Lin

But analyzing God, faith, and hope under the lens of the scientific method is not really fair.

Also, how do you classify hope in you model?

...
Perhaps a good question to ask is, under your current model of thinking how does it explain hope, faith, and love?

An interesting turn of phrase. It sounds like it's from the Bible. If it is, I invite you to read this post:
Unconditional Love Revisited

However, I also want to say that "classification" is the wrong term. What is hope but a noun? If it has no basis, then it is an assumption, an article of faith. Hope in beer volcanos in the afterlife is one kind of hope, whereas hope that the child you raised will live his life well is a different kind of hope.

And fairness is a remarkable term to use.

Make no mistake: I am a religious person. I'm simply not a blind one; I do not throw the name "God" around as if I were an authority on the subject, though I am, having partially invented my own beliefs. I choose to believe what I will believe because, in the brotherhood I believe I share with humanity, they are no better than I and I am no better than they.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Cantando

Those of us who had a good family upbringing and received good advice are indeed very fortunate.
For a lot uf us, sadly, the opposite is true. How do we reconcile that? Some of us experiment with different ideas and beliefs, but not of all of us find the solution to those negative childhood experiences.

But, there is a solution - compassion and forgiveness. Even if your dad was a grisly old drunk who knocked you around, surely you can remember something, no matter how trite, that did mean something, even if it was something obvious like, "Keep you head up, son".
In a time of crisis, memories may come flooding back to you. If you cannot forgive that person who hurt or abused you, then your spiritual progress will be seriously impeded.

Don't let the sun go down on your anger. Forgive and pray for those who hurt you. You can do that right now. You don't have to chase after a guru half way round the globe, or go into therapy for years, wasting thousands of dollars.

In case you misunderstood, I was speaking about the general position. My own parents are pretty decent people, sure they have their faults, but I certainly do not hate them or anything like that. Fact is, both are in the top five list of people I love. The other people in that list are my wife and my two kids.

The thing is - most people in the world are really not THAT wise. It follows that most parents in the world are also not THAT wise. Your earlier post suggested that the best teachings that anyone could receive in life must have come in his childhood, from his parents/grandparents, and I'm saying that I really just don't see why this should be so.

Now, parents DO exert a very strong influence on their children's personalities, that I do agree. I can accept that when you're very young, you're very susceptible to external influences, and parents are usually (or at least often) the strongest influences.

But this is quite different from saying that the best teachings that one could receive in life must be the ones which came from parents.

[Hsiang-Lin]

Hi Michael,

So let me get this straight...

------------------------
1) Science is the body of knowledge that points to increased repeatability.
2) Logic is the process by which we can judge the value of truth in a line of reasoning (but truth can be broken further into assumption)
3) Faith is a self-evident proposition like science and logic.

Everything we know ultimately comes down to assumptions. Science, logic, and faith are self-evident propositions that derive from assumptions.

Is that right?

------------------------
Further Analysis Based on Your Description:

I would go further than just saying all three are highly intertwined. In fact, based on your writing, I would go so far as to say the jump from assumption to truth can be described as faith. So

assumption --> jump (faith 1) --> science, logic, faith 2

Faith 1 = leap from assumption to truth (for simplicity sake)
Faith 2 = hope, love, goodness, compassion, etc.
-------------------------------------

Assuming this description is correct, then every belief in our heads is based on an assumption (but we call it "truth" for convenience sake). Like you said, all this is merely a description. All this is what we know for certain in the present moment.

This description serves to do exactly that, describe. Nothing else. It is certainly a sound description of what happens. But in terms of giving value and judgment, it is useless. Thus, I think making any beliefs about the existence or non-existence of God from this description provides no value.

[Old Soul]

Don't let the sun go down on your anger. Forgive and pray for those who hurt you.

yes however the forgivness part has nothing to do with the effectedness or traumatisation that a person will experience from severe abusive upbringing..

I was not effected by my upbringing because of not forgiving my dad, I was effected because of the abuse

the forgivness is a must yes, mostly because if we do not forgive we are not forgiven ( it is the circle again), also the forgivness keeps our hearts and spirits light......

[Hsiang-Lin]

Old Soul,

"I can forgive, but I cannot forget." (not sure exactly where it came from)

I think that is a rather useful way to look at terrible things that have happened to us. Forgetting is denying what has happened. Self-denial.

Forgiving is a matter of letting hate and disgust out of your heart. You don't need to love the perpetrator as you do your friends and family, but you can forgive him/her by not allowing their vicious deeds to take over your soul and heart.

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

But this is quite different from saying that the best teachings that one could receive in life must be the ones which came from parents.

I did not say that.

I said 'the things that matter are the good teachings we received as children'.
The things we experienced as children have a profound influence on us for the rest of our lives, be they good or bad.

The point I was trying to make was that if we can remember any good teaching or advice from our childhood, it may be of immeasurable help during times of crisis. Later teachings gleaned from searching after the 'truth', chasing after gurus, etc, may prove to be rather fruitless.

Often, what we 'learn' later in life is just a reconfirmation or validation of what we already knew anyway.