DO WE CONSIDER GOD AS HUMAN

[Rohit]

"Yes! Since, only a few can achieve such perfection".

When any kind of perfection is achieved, we as humans don't know it. We are not allowed to judge ourselves. To do otherwise, is egoism. We are of course allowed to have an opinion of ourselves (think of ourselves highly or lowly), just like our families, friends and others are allowed, all of which are important. Even when we are judged by those making decisions that affect our lives, the basis are so limited. How sound can it be? Both the theist and atheist would agree.

The theist believes that man is limited in knowledge and only God has full knowledge, revealed in science. The doctor and lawyer are always reading and discovering new things all the time; things never thought of before that change their previous findings/decisions. The atheist (mainly scientist) claiming there is no God, is always investigating - if there is God there is no need to investigate and discover something new and different. Therefore, what we think is absolute and right today, may change tomorrow. If there is any flaw in logic here, it clearly lies with the atheist thinking.

Relatively speaking, it is the believers/theists that are making fallacious, erroneous and/or egocentric claims and judgements about the whole thing and others, even when they are absolutely not entitled to do so under the biased conditions of completely illogical beliefs. Therefore, whatever are the flaws there, they definitely lie in the thinking of the believers/theists and not in the thinking of the non-believers/atheists who only point to those fallacies/flaws that the believers/theists refuse to see due to their pre-flushed biases and one-sidedness, which invariably result in the narrow-mindedness and eventually in the mental blockades.

Only if one is open-minded, honest and observant enough to notice, the evidences of this bitter fact are numerous; in fact they are countless, and they are there in every thread of this FH and elsewhere, whenever and wherever there was/is a discussion between the two on such topics, issues and/or subjects.

[Rohit]

- A man's ethical behaviour should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary.

- Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions.

- For a doctrine which is able to maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to human progress ....

- Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocre minds. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence.

- I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it.

- If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

- In order to be an immaculate member of a flock of sheep, one must above all be a sheep oneself.

- It is in this striving after the rational unification of the manifold that it encounters its greatest successes, even though it is precisely this attempt which causes it to run the greatest risk of falling a prey to illusion.

- It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie, which is being systematically repeated.

- Man tries to make for himself in the fashion that suits him best a simplified and intelligible picture of the world; he then tries to some extent to substitute this cosmos of his for the world of experience, and thus to overcome it. This is what the painter, the poet, the speculative philosopher, and the natural scientists do, each in his own fashion. Each makes this cosmos and its construction the pivot of his emotional life, in order to find in this way peace and security which he can not find in the narrow whirlpool of personal experience.

- Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts.

- Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.

- Since our inner experiences consist of reproductions, and combinations of sensory impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seem to me to be empty and devoid of meaning.

- The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature. For him neither the rule of human nor the rule of divine will exist as an independent cause of natural events.

- The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible.

- The mystical trend of our time, which shows itself particularly in the rampant growth of the so-called Theosophy and Spiritualism, is for me no more than a symptom of weakness and confusion.

- The real problem is in the hearts and minds of men. It is easier to denature plutonium than to denature the evil spirit of man.

- The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. The religion which is based on experience, which refuses dogmatic. If there's any religion that would cope the scientific needs it will be Buddhism....

Albert Einstein

[goodsense]

"biased conditions of completely illogical beliefs”.

There is no basis for this statement and one can turn around and say the same about the atheist i.e. that he/she is biased with illogical beliefs.

“Only if one is open-minded, honest and observant enough to notice”.

Again, you are judging people, on what basis, what standard and whose standard. And why do you think you are the person to say which is correct or absolute and which is not?

You are always trying to sound as if you got it right over everyone else and trying most of the time to come across as superior over us here while trying to pass judgment. This is so sad. No one has the right to think this way or do such things in a place like this. You can only hav a premise, supported by facts and evidence, make your arguments and give your opinion and leave it as that. This is what this forum is about. If what you are insinuating is true in any way, I am sure you wouldn’t be posting here still. You know what I mean.

If someone disagrees, no need to refer to them as being illological, unable to grasp, asking them to stay quiet etc. This is what I see in most post.

I remember duirng my uni days, I cam across students who either had no point or couldn’t clearly put forward arguments and support their premises. They would write in such a way and so good at it, that they would get the professors to give them what they want, without the professor being able to understand or justify why he/she gave that mark. It's an art that avoids being grounded on the issue. Sometimes I feel the same here, like those professors; just wanting to get it over than to challenge. There must be an art to such work of such students to avoid being challennged even when it is warranted. So I guess, the high credit is for the art which can be misleading. I feel very offended when I have to say this.

[Rohit]

Again, you are judging people, on what basis, what standard and whose standard.

If this how you view and analyse the current state of argumentation between the two of us, then the very statement of yours applies to no one else but to you only. Since, it is you who started the argument with the following remark, followed by a judgement:

Rohit,

Your empticons are always constant; never changes. A bit unusual. Or is it that you just like those selections of emoticons.

Had I said; sorry goodsense, if you don't like my usage of those emoticons, I shall stop using them. That would have satisfied you and perhaps made you even happy and it wouldn't have lead us to this argumentation.

But I didn't say that; instead, I gave a correct reason and explanation for my usage of those eoticons, which, strangely, you didn't like, which in turn triggered this dissonance-ridden arguments from you, my repose to which you couldn't either stand or understand due to the stated biased conditions of completely illogical beliefs.

Which conclusively proves what I have stated in my previous post, I am afraid.

And why do you think you are the person to say which is correct or absolute and which is not?

For my arguments are based on a universal Truth, which is:

There is no cognition that qualifies for true knowledge for all; nor is there cognition that qualifies for true ignorance for all. It is the inability to grasp the extent of dichotomy that marks the limit of one's cognition.

If you still fail to grasp the meaning of above proposition/premise, I am more than happy to take it further, only if you wish and are prepared to understand its meaning; and then based on that, prepared to grasp who or what is correct and absolute and who or what is not.

If what you are insinuating is true in any way, I am sure you wouldn't be posting here still. You know what I mean.

No, I don't know what you mean, I am afraid. However, I am sure, the exact meaning of the above allegation is applicable only to those holders of the stated illogical beliefs, against which I have proven arguments and they are only to be grasped by the believers/theists.

If believers/theists haven't stopped their arguments; it proves only one thing; that is, what you have just said, is only applicable to them and only them, I am afraid.

[goodsense]

That was not a judgment to begin with. It was an opinion followed by a question to clarify. Further, my last post has nothing to do with the old post. They are quite separate. I hope you would believe. Furthermore, I didn't take you third to last post personal. I took it that you were referring to a few of us here, so how could I possibly be relating it to your response to my old post about the empticons you referred to. Come on, I am way too matured for that.

My post about the empticons was truly based on my sense of humour than anything else. This is the problem - relying fully on what one write and running the risk of not knowing what that person could be thinking or their reason for saying certain things. Once I made this point and another hubber got offended. But it is so true, we could never be sure of what people are thinking when they say something, especially in this hub.

[Rohit]

That was not a judgment to begin with. It was an opinion followed by a question to clarify. Further, my last post has nothing to do with the old post. They are quite separate. I hope you would believe.

Whatever your intentions were, they are absolutely irrelevant now; since the current state of affairs is a direct result of your response to my answer to your following remark; or should I say, the judgement, which was in direct relation to my usage of the specific emoticons. Nonetheless, the two arguments cannot be separated the way you want them to be separated, I am afraid. I expect you to at least understand that now. If you really do understand that, then I don't think you should expect me to believe you as you have expected me to believe you. Should you?

A bit unusual.

Yes! Since, only a few can achieve such perfection.

Now go back to your response to my above answer and check whether it has anything to do with the current state of arguments or not. If you claim you are mature enough, then you should also know that a denial to this would earn you no credit whatsoever; and in that case, I have nothing more to add to what I have already said.

[goodsense]

Rohit,

My observation started a long time ago, maybe the time was just ripe for me to say what I have been noticing. Just a coincidence and perhaps that post you are referring to, may have just triggered off what was there for sometime.

The atheist and theist so to speak, were around long before we graced this forum. All we have been doing is pointing to which we accept, why and to what extent. What is so biased about that?

Any way I am not even supposed to be hubbing at this time; as indicated to Pradheep earlier, will come back in a few weeks. Yes I am addicted because it's so easy. I spend long hours at my desk and it's so easy to take a peep more than I should, but not for this amount of time. I only meant to peep and go, not to be hauled in like this. I think I will shift my computer to another desk.

Pradheep, SRS,and Avil went with you for a swim and got back to shore, its now my turn to get back to shore.

Any thing else you have to say will be on hold. I don't want to be forced to come here and get so involved.

[Rohit]

Just a coincidence and perhaps that post you are referring to, may have just triggered off what was there for sometime.

..........All we have been doing is pointing to which we accept, why and to what extent. What is so biased about that?


..........its now my turn to get back to shore.

..........I don't want to be forced to come here and get so involved.

Exactly like the great Buddha said:

Your past actions decide your present and your present actions decide your future. It was only in your hands to choose how to shape your present; and it is only in your hands to choose how to shape your future.

The same chain of actions and consequences (cause and effect) applies if 'you' is substituted with individuals, families, societies, civilisations, nations and eventually the entire humanity.

The obvious choices are then, either to get drowned by the skewing and debasing evil forces of emotional blackmails or to swim yourself across the deep and vast ocean with clear and firm resolve.