Monotheistic Deities Have It Hard.

[MineralMan]

They're carrying all the weight of everything on their shoulders.

Polytheism makes more sense. Division of labor makes things go much more smoothly, really. Having a bunch of deities lets each take responsibility for just one or a few of the deific responsibilities. That way, the main deity can assign tasks to its subordinates and attain better efficiency and productivity.

So, adopt Hinduism today, and follow a rational system of religion. That's my advice. Give your God a break!

[Fullduplexxx]

1. ""That's my advice" religious advice from an atheist lol

[MineralMan]

2. LOL! Indeed.

[Pope George Ringo II]

3. Not in this lifetime.

[Permanut]

4. Already did that last time around..

this time I"m going with agnostic.

Your logic is impeccable, though, division of labor seems like something the big guys in the sky would think of.

[MineralMan]

5. You'd think so, huh?

[sanatanadharma]

6. A deep dive into Vedic philosophy teaches that only one reality exists

That one reality, that underlies the Gods, is considered to be limitless, boundless, infinite, precluding any otherness.
A sentience without form, or perhaps better understood as being the essence of all forms.

Theism suffers the logical defect of trying to uphold the realty of limited human-consciousness AND the reality of infinite divine-consciousness. Each limit the other.

The essence of the Vedic revelation is that one truth only is, and that IS-ness (being-existence) is conscious and limitless.
Logic precludes having infinite-reality plus one other reality. The rainbow is not a separate reality apart from sun, moisture and witness.
The unbounded never has an outside-ness or otherness that stands apart as limited but equally real.

The self is real. The self is conscious. This is the scientific basis of the Vedic method of self-realization.
The method is based on the common to us all, self-evident and non- negatable truth, "I am"

Of course this criticism of theism is totally destroyed whenever an theist says "my God is limited and finite".

Today's homework assignment, class, is to construct a logical and testable demonstration of your own non-existence!

[MineralMan]

7. OK. I don't follow that philosophy, though.

So, I am not going to attempt to argue against it.

[Act_of_Reparation]

13. A deep dive into reality teaches us people say a lot of shit.

That don't make it true.

[sanatanadharma]

16. That is exactly the true conclusion reached by the vedic researcher

Commentary to all, not a negation of Act_of_Reparation. I know I need repair.

Everything in the manifest world of here and now, all that has form and name (labels, explanations) can be reduced to shit, nonsense, component parts, illusion, delusion, or other confusion, except the innate, self-evident, a priori knowledge of self. One does not need a proof to know "I am".
Is there an argument that can convince one that one is not?

However, one needs a guide to grok the understanding that all that can be objectified (objects of the senses) is not other than shit, This is because we in the human condition are quite attached to our shit, even the lofty feces of philosophy.
We identify with our shit and come to think we are nothing other than that shit.
The sages say ignore the shit and seek the sentience.

For today's homework write a paragraph explaining the nature of your own self (as you know yourself to be).
Explain the witness, not the witnessed. Explain the constant, not the variable.
In every cognition we see the changing and variable, but also the constant witness of the changes.
Explain the consciousness of you, that has been constant through all your memories and you know was there even when now no memories exist.

[Act_of_Reparation]

20. Somehow, I doubt it.

[guillaumeb]

17. If one sees human sentience as a spark of the divine sentience,

there is no real separation of Creator and created. It is an illusion because all are a part of the same sentience.

The human sentience is of course limited, as is the human body, but that does not preclude an eventual joining with the sentience of the Creator.

We fail at times to see this connectedness because of the limitations of our own awareness.

[sanatanadharma]

21. If separation is an illusion, then rejoining is unnecessary

The Advaita Vedic philosophy argues that separation is an illusion and that rejoining is unnecessary for that which was never separate.

Seeing the whole (be it system, universe, or God) as an assemblage of parts, opens up the possibility of disassembling the whole, leaving only a hole.

We too often confuse the objects of our awareness with the awareness itself.
That my known world and another one's known world seem to differ is too obvious to refute.
However, there is no evidence to support the idea that the existent conscious-power of one person is different from the existent conscious-power of others.

Sentience (awareness, consciousness) exists in the absence of objects of the senses.
Awake we are aware of the world of our senses, or may be simply spaced out.
When dreaming we are aware of the memory of our senses, knowledge and desire. In deep sleep, we are sentient without awareness of the external or dream worlds.
Do we deny the existence of sentience in one who is in a coma? An individual with amnesia doesn't know "who I am", but this person knows "that I am".

While not denying the apparent differences of various body-mind-sense complex-experiences of individuals, the oneness of consciousness can be upheld in Vedic philosophy and logic.

We seem to understand that men, animals and plants all differ, but "life" itself is common to all, and we know that when "life" withdraws its power from the form, the sentient becomes inert. We know that life-forms are many but we do not seem to think that "life" itself is multitudinous.

Assuming a limitless sentience called God seems to preclude affirming a limited sentience called "me".
Perhaps Infinite-consciousness is role playing, acting out the many different individual characters, while remaining always "itself"; as an actress continues to be the actor in and out of role.

[guillaumeb]

23. We see ourselves as independent actors.

And we are, in that we have free will and the intelligence to make decisions.

But even as we are separate actors, we are a part of creation. And that creation is a part, an aspect, of the Creator.

My view.

[sanatanadharma]

40. de aquerdo, mas o menos

Important it is, I am taught, to identify with the view (be it), not the point of view, (did it)

Point of view we all have. The view is unknowable. The creation is division, as though, of the one, and thus view is lost, as though, due to identifying with the point of view.

View points vying for the best view leads to theology.

Who is the creator when no creation is? Can the actor, (did it) , know her next part (be it)? Most of us are extras in the bigger point of view. Point of view is maybe-maybe. View is can never not-be.

I fall back to the question, "can the unchangeable ,total, whole exist as reality (view), if a separate partial changing reality exists as well (point of view)?

If all is the limitless-truth, no need for parts and divisions and individual identities.

[guillaumeb]

41. The idea of division, and parts, and disconnection,

can all be laid at the feet of our own limited human comprehension.

[sanatanadharma]

42. de aquerdo todamente

Theology is bound by the limitations of the human condition.
'Knowing' is limited.
'Knowledge" is limitless.

[guillaumeb]

43. D'accord.

Well said.

[NeoGreen]

8. They would if they existed. (nt)

[MineralMan]

9. Well, that is an issue, of course...

[Major Nikon]

10. How would you even know you are the one and only god?

For all you know a super-supernatural being hocus pocused you into existence with no knowledge of how or when you materialized. Your memories could be all implanted leading you to believe you are the only one of your kind.

[MineralMan]

11. Omniscience? But wait...who created that?

What if a deity suddenly realized that truth, felt stupid, and blinked itself out of existence? All those people worshiping a deity that had vanished itself...

[Major Nikon]

12. Rejection of himself would be an unforgivable sin.

At least according to Billy Graham who had a hotline directly to the almighty. It's more likely after a week of listening to Graham's shit he/she opened up a vein.

[Cartoonist]

14. That's why they invented the Trinity

God the punisher
Jesus the redeemer
The Holy Spirit - ?

[MineralMan]

15. The Holy Spirit - the impregnator?

[guillaumeb]

18. Another framing:

The Creator,
the example for mankind,
the aspect that inspires us.

[Cartoonist]

19. When you make stuff up

you can frame it any way you want.

[guillaumeb]

22. And when one wishes to attack,

one can frame it any way that serves the attack.

[Cartoonist]

24. I prefer the word ridicule

Calling it an attack is hyperbole.

[guillaumeb]

25. We disagree.

Anything designed to humiliate or denigrate is aggression. It is an attack.

[Cartoonist]

26. I see you have no qualms about attacking Trump

I see religion as the greater threat to humanity than an orange con man. I will continue to ridicule it at every opportunity.

[guillaumeb]

27. I do not share your "vision".

And I do attack Trump's positions, and his lies, and his racism.


But ridiculing theists and theism insures that you will never engage in actual dialogue with them. Perhaps that is your intent, I have no idea.

[Cartoonist]

28. I don't have dialogue with trumpers either

What's the point?

[guillaumeb]

29. Conversion.

In 2008, I had numerous conversations with older white veterans in our union. All planned on voting for McCain but after I showed them McCain's actual voting record on veterans' issues, they voted for Obama. A number of them told me that it was the first time that they had voted for a Democrat.



Dialogue can sometimes be productive, but if we never engage in it, we lose those opportunities.

[Major Nikon]

30. Cool story bro

Meanwhile satire has been used for thousands of years to great effect all over the world, especially against those who are privileged.

Opting out of dialog is always an option and the easiest for those who already have privilege as the status quo will continue to serve them.

[guillaumeb]

31. Satire is punching up.

But insight is recognizing allies, and recognizing that allies may not agree 100% of the time.


And many who have privilege are unaware of it.
White males, educated males, US citizens in general, have privilege. Those with Internet access have privilege.

[Major Nikon]

34. I've already heard your sermon on privilege

It inevitably involves conflating them to avoid dialog on any specific one, nor is this tactic all that original. It often follows, ‘I’m not a racist, but....’

[guillaumeb]

35. Do you have privilege?

[Major Nikon]

37. I do not have religious privilege

You do.

I get you still desperately feel the need to conflate privileges as a silly diversionary tactic to avoid dialog, but once more for the cheap seats...

Not

Playing

Your

Games

Anymore

[guillaumeb]

38. Not what I asked.

Do you have privilege?

Does a society exist where no one has privilege?

[Major Nikon]

39. Not...

...

....

Playing

....

...

Your

....

....

Games

...

...

Anymore


You should read the title of the group you are posting in. If you want to discuss religious privilege I will respond. I feel zero obligation to answer a question that’s not relevant to this group, especially when your diversionary motives are crystal clear. So ask away, and I’m more than happy to just extend a heartfelt invitation to go piss up a rope.

[Major Nikon]

32. "Actual dialog" to some means STFU and receive your sermon

Some deserve ridicule. What makes you think theists are any better than Trumpers? Most Trumpers are theists, and not by coincidence.

[guillaumeb]

33. Yes, it does.

I am a theist who is not a Trump follower. I know many such theists.

But I do not ridicule anyone about their positions. I might disagree, but insults are only that.

[Major Nikon]

36. Cool story bro

Meanwhile those in this group you continue to insult have a different take.