Dear Pericles,

<<At least you are able to accept that "existence" substantially pre-dates religion, of any kind.>>

What a perfect chicken-and-egg question!

I can't tell which concept consciously arose first in the history of the human mind, or where and when for the first time a culture had a word for either of those two. While both concepts have an [unknown] age, that which the concepts point to must have sprung simultaneously, for religion is not possible without existence and existence is not possible without religion. It's like death is not possible without birth and vice-versa, matter without anti-matter, a bubble forming without it bursting, etc. Religion can be likened to the process by which the illusional bubble of existence explodes - the moment a bubble forms, that process which culminates in its explosion has already started.

Organised-religions are later additions, but so is the thought of 'existence': which came first is hard to know.

---

<<...because that is the view of a very small minority, and one that rejects the notion of religion completely.>>

About a billion Hindus is not a very small minority, nor can you seriously claim that Hindus reject religion or its notion.

Yes we ARE God, but under the spell of illusion (Maya) we are unaware of it, believing instead that we are some limited body-mind: religion is the process which wakes us out of this illusion (and as above, it could be a conscious process with concepts attached, or otherwise).

---

<<but the many-on-one relationship of an individual with the intellectual concept that is a religion.>>

I understand.

Although religion is not an intellectual concept, some religious practices involve intellectual concepts and you are interested to know how people decide to take to those concepts.

---

<<it does not merely imply our existence, it confirms it. Defines it, in fact.>>

It's not "I Am", but the thought of it which confirms the existence of our minds. Indeed, my body-mind exists because otherwise I couldn't read your reply. The illusion of "I exist" is only a result of me falsely identifying with this body-mind.

Pericles,
I agree that cultural heritage is a huge factor shaping people's values and beliefs. I think it is expected and valid that parents. families, and communities will try and pass on what they value as true and worthwhile to the next generation through various means of transference and education. Yet, as I said in an earlier post, the same is true for yourself as one holding an atheistic view. I doubt that all your thoughts are original. I suspect that many of the philosophical ideas to which you're wedded have been passed on in the flow of time preceding since maybe the Enlightenment.

And I doubt you believe that the application of intelligence and reasoning has no impact on shaping important beliefs. If you believed this, then there would be no point to discussing things at all. But your lengthy input and discussions here would deny that, unless you think that your views likewise are just inescapable cultural legacy.

You ask what is the evidence which convinces the believer. It is many and varied:
Various philosophical arguments such as the cosmological arguments or teleological arguments, which point to the created order within the universe;
Moral arguments which relate our sense of right and wrong pointing to a higher law from which such morality originates;
Historical arguments, such as those verifying the events of the Scriptures, or verification of the historicity of the Scriptural texts;
Testimony of those having encounters or religious experiences;
Perceived unity, beauty, and integrity of the Gospel message, perhaps including prophecy fulfilled;
Some are convinced by the medium of the message, such as artistic expression in its various forms.

Different things appeal to different people at different levels of intellect and emotion. Yet the Gospel has the capacity to communicate deep truth to those who are open to it.

I agree with the first part of this, Yuyutsu

>>...for religion is not possible without existence and existence is not possible without religion<<

But not, of course, the second.

Unless you choose to include all forms of superstition.

I can perfectly understand that our cave-dwelling ancestors gazing upwards and wondering what forces might have been at work to cause that big orange ball in the sky, or those pinpricks of light that are visible at night. They did not, of course, have a radio telescope handy to help them work it out, so they naturally framed their thoughts in terms of a deep misunderstanding of what they were seeing, based on a profound lack of knowledge.

But neither you, nor I, would call that religion. And they certainly could determine that they existed, and that they would at some point cease to exist.

>>About a billion Hindus is not a very small minority, nor can you seriously claim that Hindus reject religion or its notion<<

My observations were specifically about people who declare "we ARE God".

Hindus in general, I have noticed, tend to polytheistic in much the same manner as Ancient Romans, with a God for every occasion. There may be a small sect who don't subscribe to this view, but they may accurately be described as "a very small minority".

Also, I have noticed that many Hindus have an adversarial relationship with other religions. Is this the stance of someone who "IS God"?

>>It's not "I Am", but the thought of it which confirms the existence of our minds. Indeed, my body-mind exists because otherwise I couldn't read your reply. The illusion of "I exist" is only a result of me falsely identifying with this body-mind.<<

With what else could you possibly be able to identify, Yuyutsu, that would enable you to read this?

Not invariably, Dan S de Merengue.

>>Yet, as I said in an earlier post, the same [cultural heritage is a huge factor] is true for yourself as one holding an atheistic view.<<

I was brought up in a Christian, church-going household. But my parents' (and their parents') views and beliefs were never forced upon their children. We were encouraged to go to church, and sent to a Christian school that was closely allied with the local church, but were never told what to believe.

>>I doubt that all your thoughts are original. <<

I doubt whether any of my thoughts are original, as I doubt yours to be either. Not sure how that is relevant, but maybe I'm missing some subtlety.

>And I doubt you believe that the application of intelligence and reasoning has no impact on shaping important beliefs.<<

Of course I believe it has an impact. That is the purpose behind my enquiries - where does the reasoning path diverge? At what point, and after what analysis, does the Christian mind determine - independently - that the Bible stories are factual, and that Jesus actually said all those things he is reported to have said, and performed all the miracles that were ascribed to him, etc.

While family background can strongly influence whether you become Roman Catholic or Sunni Muslim, surely there is some mechanism, separate from culture, that is able to persuade intelligent people that there is a mystical presence watching over their every move?

You offer philosophical, moral, historical and testimonial grounds, and add a couple of emotionals for good measure. But none of these, singly or together, points to Christianity per se, with the sole exception of the Gospel message.

So if there is no more to it than upbringing, then there's nothing to be done.

I think there is more to it than just upbringing. But I'm struggling to follow what you're saying. Are you asking what is the evidence for there being a God? Or are you asking about the significance of the Christian revelation?

Dear Pericles,

Indeed, I probably wouldn't call the cave-man's desire to understand the big orange ball in the sky a religion - more likely I'd call it the infancy of science.

It would be quite fascinating to find at what stage in pre-history did our cave-dwelling ancestors began to have a word/concept for 'existence' and further at what stage they began to have a concept of God or religion. I don't know the answer (the bible claims it was Enosh, Adam's grandson).

Undoubtedly existence is possible without organised religion or even without a conscious religion, yet along with the pain of existence automatically comes this urge to relieve it, the yearning to heal this seeming gap between oneself and God. So religion exists long before humans, even plants, rocks and dead stars have a religion.

---

The declaration "I am God" is deeply rooted in the Indian culture:

'Aham Brahmaasmi' - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aham_Brahmasmi
'So-ham' - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soham_%28Sanskrit%29
'Shivo-ham' - http://livingunbound.net/inspiration/atmastakam_shivoham

When saying grace before meals, Hindus are reminded that the food, the eater and the eating-process are all God, thus even the ordinary act of eating is raised to the level of a sacrifice to God:

http://www.sathyasai.org/devotion/prayers/brahmar.html
http://www.ramdass.org/blessing-our-food-part-of-god

Regarding the Hindu worship of deities, one must distinguish between philosophy and practice: the ordinary person in the street or in the fields isn't expected to be a philosopher or a theologian, so they are only taught the "How" - "how to achieve God?", "what needs to be done?", "what works?". Fact is that imagining an aspect of God in the form of a deity works for most people and brings them closer to God (I could elabourate on it if you are interested).

Regarding "adversarial relationship with other religions", that is not a teaching of Hinduism, but emotional ignorance and human weakness of some Hindus. Gandhi for example declared he would fast to death until this adversity stops towards Muslims.

---

One should not identify with anything, but seek to uncover all false identifications in order to reveal one's true original nature
(this includes the identification with being the "reader of this page").