.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

Thank you for your blessing. I wish you well, in return.

Perhaps your blessing will do me some good. If not, hopefully, it will do you some good.

Wisdom knows no bounds. The Dharmic religions are just as respectable as the Abrahamic religions or any other major religion. They all share the common characteristic of embodying rich veins and deposits of profound wisdom deeply embedded in an amorphous mass of "mumbo jumbo", as david f puts it.

I wrote: <<but as the existence of "God" is a question of faith,>>

You replied: "No, existence can be verified or refuted by science. Faith is not interested in existence, in fact it's almost the opposite."

It seems I mistakenly thought you believed in the existence of "God". However, as science has proven itself incapable of verifying the existence of any such entity, your professed reliance on its findings clearly indicates that you do not.

This is in contradiction with everything you have written so far and I am quite confused - including your recent invocation: "God bless you!".

If science cannot prove that "God" exists and you accept that science, alone, is competent in such matters, adding that faith has nothing to do with it, why do you invoke what you consider to be a non-entity ?

You later go on to indicate:

" God is not a person, but certainly you will find His company better than any heaven. I am glad you have no intentions of going to heaven since it's only a honey-trap."

This, again, is confusing. It is obvious that if you consider that "God" does not exist, he cannot be a person. How, then, could I find his company better than any heaven which you qualify as a "honey-trap" (which I understand to mean: "a scheme in which a victim is lured into a compromising sexual situation to provide an opportunity for blackmail") ?

I thought we were doing quite well understanding each other up until your last post, Yuyutsu, but now I am completely confused.

Please clarify.

.

david f,

>>”In the US religious people have supported the separation of church and state.”<<

And just imagine how that country would be now without it.

David

Yuyutsu,

You really do say such baloney. Proving your god exists if you wish to influence politics is vastly different than me having an inquisition type nature. In fact, it is the interference in politics by religion that allowed that disgraceful part of history to happen.

I am not asking anyone to follow my idol at all, whoever or whatever that is in your mind.

Again, for a second time in one post, you stupidly align me with the inquisition. You had better make that clear and explain it or our interaction is over as you are becoming not worth the trouble. On second thoughts, don’t bother. Your explanations tend to be waffle when you trap yourself in nonsense.

Democracy might be a bad joke to you but as Churchill quipped, ‘It’s better than the rest”.

Thank you for calling for the separation of church and state. That’s one.

David

It is an unreasonable demand to make of theists that they prove God exists. When one makes an assertion one is obligated to prove its validity if one wishes to have it accepted by other people. However, that does not apply to one's own acceptance. Religious belief is a matter of faith. I would not interfere in the believer's exercise of their faith. However, a theistic (since all religions do not require belief in God, it is more reasonable to use the word, theistic, than religious.) believer should accept that it is unreasonable to expect other people to share that belief.

As I grew older I could no longer accept belief in God. However, people I loved had that belief, and that did not affect my love for them.

I think the statement, "creation is a more fundamental nation than nature." is rubbish. What that really seems to mean is the the author of the article regards the notion as most important in his life. If he had stated that I would have accepted that. However, the problem is that he expects other people to agree that it applies to them. That is as unreasonable as the demands that theists prove that God exists or that non-theists accept the theist notion that God exists.

david f,

I think you are reading what is not between the lines. No one is bothered if religious people or theists have a god. Of course they don't have to prove its existence. But and this is a elephant sized but, if they wish to influence politics in an unrepresented fashion, indoctrinate children with that belief, the obligation is on them to prove why they should be allowed that indulgence. The only way they can do that is to prove the particular god's existence. Nothing could be fairer than that.

David

Dear AFA David,

I do not have to justify all of my opinions before I take a political stand. I don't see why theists should have to do so either.

I agree that children should be free from religious indoctrination at public expense. There should be no place for it in the public schools and no financing of non-public schools. However, indoctrination by their parents or their religious institution on their own time is their right.

Religious belief of any sort is a triumph of the irrational. However, the belief that the human species can increase indefinitely is a triumph of the lemmings. We don't demand that Kevin Rudd show that his wish for a BIG Australia is reasonable in any way. We can make a value judgment and accept or reject his views.

According to statistics the percentage of Australians who reject religious mumbojumbo is growing. The way to encourage this trend is to promote critical thinking and education in the practical and intellectual arts of life. When we demand that religious people justify their belief we are making a demand that I think none of us could meet. It is as unreasonable as to demand that people justify their faith in a particular political party. I belong to the Greens. To many Australians that is objectionable. However, I don't have to justify my opinion that the Greens have an outlook that can best meet the problems that face Australia.

Democracy rests on the supposition that all opinions can have public currency, and the public will decide among them. I would not demand of religious belief what I do not demand of other opinions.

Dear Banjo,

Everything that exists is an object and every object is limited. God is not.

Saying that God was anything or has any property, implies that He was NOT the opposite or the absence of that thing or property, which is a limitation.

Moreover, had there been anything or anyone but God, that would also impose a limitation on God, since then God would not be that other thing or person.

While we cannot therefore make any positive statement about God, we can still make negative statements: God is not {_fill_in_the_whatever_you_like_} and most importantly, there is nothing BUT God.

The Upanishads (and later Buddha) tell us that existence is an illusion, or Maya (literally, "that which is not"). While attached to a human form, what we perceive is existence, and ourselves as separate entities within it, but what we truly are, is God.

<<They all share the common characteristic of embodying rich veins and deposits of profound wisdom deeply embedded in an amorphous mass of "mumbo jumbo">>

That "mumbo jumbo" is a plethora, or graveyard, of religious techniques that were employed at one time or another to help particular aspirants on their path to God. It was often forgotten, sadly, that these techniques suited particular people at particular times and while available to us as a raw material to possibly build on and prescribe new techniques for modern people, it does not represent logical truth-statements.

<<How, then, could I find his company better than any heaven>>

Some scriptures mention not one, but a series of heavens, with increasing pleasures beyond belief. Whether actual locations or psychological states, those heavens are finite. One may stay there for 1000's or millions of years, using up their accumulated merit, but eventually that merit expires and they are back in Samsara. While in heaven, one is too absorbed in pleasures to make any spiritual progress, so it's a total waste of time and the efforts that went into accruing that merit.

Being with God is not pleasurable, but beyond pleasure. Once there, no clock is ticking because time itself is exposed as illusion.