Hinduism: Brahman Atman

27 posts / 0 new
Last post
Alan D. Griffin's picture
Hinduism: Brahman Atman

Brahman-Atman.
By Alan D. Griffin
​ In Hinduism, The ultimate deity is Brahman. Brahman is not a god the way we would understand god in the west. In Hinduism Brahman represents everything that there is, we are all Brahman. Everything around us is Brahman. Brahman is the source of ultimate truth. We are simply playing out a part of this ultimate truth in a three dimension physical world. The Atman, which is similar to the idea of a soul, is the absolute individual self. The absolute self however, is just a piece of the three dimensional physical world. In other words all the absolute selves of every human, every animal, every plant, and every animate and inanimate object collectively make up the physical world we experience. The Brahman only knows its own Atman which means Brahman only knows that it is the source of ultimate truth which is his Atman. This means that the Brahman only knows that it is Brahman. The ultimate goal in Hinduism Is total self-realization. So at the moment the Brahman knew his atman with the statement “I am Brahman” it accomplished total self-realization. After you accomplish total self-realization there is nothing more for you to do if you are all that there is. This is the reason for Tad Ekam. Tad Ekam in Hinduism is the physical manifestation of Brahman. So, Brahman is static once it has self-realization, the chaos stops. Tad Ekam came out of Brahman and yet it is Brahman. It is just Brahman in a three dimensional physical world. The only nourishment Brahman needs is novelty. Novelty is the only way to overcome the static state Brahman was in after self-realization. The atman we are searching for is only a small piece of the atman of Brahman. The experiences we gather throughout life in search of self-realization is actually gathering novelty for Brahman. Once we succeed in self-realization there is no more reason for reincarnation because there is no more novelty for us to gather therefore we are no longer serving a purpose for Brahman so we return to its which is just our Atman returning to the Atman of Brahman in which it was a part of in the first place.

Subscription Note: 

Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.

CyberLN's picture
You posted this, word for

You posted this, word for word, in 2009 on another site and received no comments. What sort of comment are you looking for here?

Alan D. Griffin's picture
Any, I am looking for

Any, I am looking for feedback good or bad. That is how I get better at writing. Different perspectives I might be missing or something I am totally off base on. I have read a ton and watched a thousand lectures but nothing is more valuable than feedback from others.

HomunculusThor's picture
Brhamatmana is the self

Brhamatmana is the self-realisation you speak of, and is atman aware of himself being aware of himself (Atman) within Brhama, which is, respectively, to say: Atman is the 'particular' aware of itself as such within the 'universal' Brhama.
And this is the same thing that kernels the Christian scriptures (not the religion, mind you: only its scriptures):
that the Son (Atman) is within, one with, the Father (Brhama);
and when applied personally, to each and every one of all of us, Jesus (or whoever) said it best in 1 John 4:13--"Hereby know we (atman) that we (atman) dwell in him (Brhama), and he (Brhama) in us (Atman), because he (Brhama) hath given us of his Spirit"; but instead of Spirit I would say Mind, for the Brhamatmana is the universal Mind particularly aware of itself without diminishment to its universality.
How far the religion called Christianity hath strayed from its earliest beginnings. Exclamation point.

HomunculusThor's picture
To clarify a little more:

To clarify a little more:
Atman (Jesus) must be "crucified (= evidently set forth") so that atman (our lower self) may realise Bhrama (God), and when this occurs, then the atman becomes the Atman-in-Bhrama (our Higher Self with/in the Universal Mind)--not uniquitously performed {unique + iniquitous, meaning evilly selfish, as Christianity teaches}, but as shareable unto all: for the Godhead is Brhamatmana for every one who will go that far. The many and the One as one, yet individually realised in each as both at the same time.

HomunculusThor's picture
One more thing: the uniquity

One more thing: the uniquity called Christ is the very beast after whom the whole world wonders. Amenace!

HomunculusThor's picture
I can't figure out how to put

I can't figure out how to put a pic on here, but check out
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Evil_Jesus
as the pic that goes with my previous statement about the uniquitous one.

Ilovequestions's picture
That's a fascinating post :)

That's a fascinating post :) I have questions for you though:

How do you know this Brahman exists? How do you know someone has been self-actualized?

Christianity, unlike atheism, Islam, and the Eastern Religions, puts its foot in the ground and says, "Test me."

Atheism? There is no way of knowing this philosophical statement is true or not. You HOPE there is no God even if you are 99% sure there isn't.
Islam? You have no way of KNOWING if it is true or not. It offers no physical test (outside of Muslims having someone write a Surah and hoping it doesn't sound like the originals)
Eastern Religions (along with New Age)? You have no way of KNOWING it is true. You just hope to have some fantastic mental experiences that "confirm" what you believe (bring on the psychedelics!).

Christianity, on the other hand, gives humans the resurrection and says, "if this happened, Christianity is true. If it didn't happen, Christianity is false." Very few, if any, religions (and certainly not atheism) are that bold to base their truthfulness on a well-documented (even outside of the Bible) historical event. You want falsifiability... Christianity has it in the historically documented life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.

The thing is with Eastern Religions is that there is very little if any falsifiability with them. You make statements (like you did in your post), but you can never prove someone's been self-actualized. We can never prove you wrong, either. You can never prove this brahman exists. Did it send a messenger on its behalf? If so, what credentials does this dude have to back up what he teaches? There have been countless smooth-talking do-gooders :)

Thanks, bro. What do you think?

Nyarlathotep's picture
Ilovequestions - "Very few,

Ilovequestions - "Very few, if any, religions (and certainly not atheism) are that bold to base their truthfulness on a well-documented (even outside of the Bible) historical event. You want falsifiability... Christianity has it in the historically documented life, death, and resurrection of Jesus."

To my knowledge there is not a single contemporary source for the life, death or resurrection of Jesus.

HomunculusThor's picture
Hey bro, I'll answer you

Hey bro, I'll answer you tomorrow night: I just wrote a page and a half answer to your post and accidentally deleted it, and the undo button forsook it responsibilities for the night; perhaps Undo's kid broke her ankle and they're at the hospital right now or something.
I'm so upset I deleted what I heart-feelingly wrote to you as a response that I'm going to throatle-down some PMs and call it a night. Sorry for the wait.
Talk to you tomorrow.

Ilovequestions's picture
You're good! No worries

You're good! No worries

HomunculusThor's picture
Brhama as a titular tag for

Brhama as a titular tag for universal Mind is not the matter: you can call this universal Mind whatever you want.
The question is: How do you know that this universal Mind exists?
And I can only respond by saying that I have experienced it several times; but cannot seem as yet to stay there. The state of staying there would be what is referred to as Self-actualisation or Self-realisation.
But one cannot know with certainty if someone else is Self-realised or not because it is SELF-realisation. Only oneself can know it with certainty; and this certainty is not directly, but only indirectly, sharable through the social convention of language.

I understand the difference between Hope and Knowing; and Hope, I think, should result in an almost voracious curiosity that seeks of what it hopes unto the actual Knowing of it.
But this begs the question(s): What is Knowing? And how am I able to discern between Knowing and the hope for Knowing? That is, How is it even possible that "I know” that “I do not Know" something...? (This is a whole discussion in itself, so I’ll gloss over it for now.)

A few points on your paragraph which begins “Christianity, on the other hand...”
It seems a little garbled up to me:

1) Yes, Paul the Apostle did say that if the resurrection of Jesus did not occur then ‘we’ are the biggest fools that have ever lived.
Concerning this apostolic statement, I do believe that the resurrection is meaningful psychophysically as bringing the mind and body into unison, which unison is equitable to what people mean by the term ‘spirituality.’
But this in no way keeps me from also thinking of Christians as ‘the biggest fools that have ever lived.’ For the Apostle states a resurrection which he then does not go on to expound upon, or in any way explain, leaving people to the consideration of either an unprovable abstraction or an unprovable literalism.

2) Atheism is not a religion (but then I am not sure that is what you meant, anyway); but contrary to your assertion I would say that, yes, Atheism, or, the absence of religion, IS the boldest stater of all: for such an open mindset as defines Atheism has "nothing to lose but everything to gain: So take hold of the flame," as the Queensryche song says it.

3) There is seemingly a contradiction in the last part of the paragraph: to wit you say both:
(a) “to base their truthfulness on a well-documented (even outside of the Bible) historical event”
and
(b) “You want falsifiability…” [? or ! (?)] That is, Are you saying "You DO want falsifiability", or are you asking "Do you want falsifiability?"
continuing,
“Christianity has it in the historically documented life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.”
So that (a+b) comes across as a contradiction, as if you are saying “The truthfulness of Christianity is based upon its disprovability.”
Thus I am not sure what this paragraph means; just telling you how it comes across.

As for “proof” of internal states (like Enlightenment, Self-realisation or whatever you want to call It) we are left at both the mercy of the convention of our languages, and also upon our individual will to express our inner states thereby the convention of our languages--hopefully in such a fine-tuned way that someone else can grasp what it is that we are talking about even if they have not experienced it for themselves.
I do not want to convert anyone to what I know, or to what I think, or to what I think I know: I merely want to express my experiences in a way that others can at least comprehend in order that I may be at least somewhat understood.
--And even this [blue] is still a mystery...
For example: How is it that you thought blue? Blue what? What blue did YOU think? What blue did I think?
The mind is mind-blowing.

Ilovequestions's picture
1) "The question is: How do

1) "The question is: How do you know that this universal Mind exists?
And I can only respond by saying that I have experienced it several times; but cannot seem as yet to stay there. The state of staying there would be what is referred to as Self-actualisation or Self-realisation. But one cannot know with certainty if someone else is Self-realised or not because it is SELF-realisation. Only oneself can know it with certainty; and this certainty is not directly, but only indirectly, sharable through the social convention of language."

That's the problem! You rely on experiences. But the thing about experiences is that they are subjective and can be triggered by so many different things. Using psychedelics (like I joked about), I could experience almost anything! Experiences, my friend, is not a good indicator of truth. 2 + 2 = 4 is truth that you can bank your life on. You are basing your life on experiences you hope you are interpreting correctly.

2) "Concerning this apostolic statement, I do believe that the resurrection is meaningful psychophysically as bringing the mind and body into unison, which unison is equitable to what people mean by the term ‘spirituality.’... For the Apostle states a resurrection which he then does not go on to expound upon, or in any way explain, leaving people to the consideration of either an unprovable abstraction or an unprovable literalism."

My friend, I have to disagree. When Paul spoke of the resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15, it was a physical resurrection. I'll go through why:

1 Corinthians 15:5-7 goes "And that he (Jesus) was SEEN of Cephas (Peter), then of the twelve: After that, he was SEEN of ABOVE FIVE HUNDRED BRETHREN at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that, he was seen of James, then of all the apostles." (emphasis and words in parentheses are mine, KJV)

If Jesus' resurrection was only spiritual, this makes no sense! But it makes perfect sense if Paul meant the passage literally. Jesus was seen by hundreds of people, and Paul was telling the Corinthians that they could ASK people who WERE STILL ALIVE what they SAW (verse 6). Unlike adherents of the eastern religions and New Age, Paul could ask people to physically test what he believed.

There are more reasons; I'll give them to you if you wish. This should be sufficient.

3) "Atheism is not a religion (but then I am not sure that is what you meant, anyway); but contrary to your assertion I would say that, yes, Atheism, or, the absence of religion, IS the boldest stater of all: for such an open mindset as defines Atheism has "nothing to lose but everything to gain: So take hold of the flame," as the Queensryche song says it."

Yes, I meant more "belief system" than "religion", but that is trivial. You commit the fallacy of equivocation here: you meant something different by "bold" than I did. By bold, I'm talking about "falsifiability". Christianity puts a true/false event out there. It can be proven wrong. By your meaning of "bold", you come from a consequentalist angle by saying atheists have more to lose. By I wasn't talking about that at all. Christianity is more bold than atheism (my meaning), though atheists may be more bold than Christians (your meaning).

4) I'm simply not smart enough to follow your logic, so let me clarify what I meant: we can KNOW Christianity is true because it gives an event (the Resurrection) that can be tested to have happened or not. Ask any scientist, falsifiability is huge! If it can't be proven wrong, it can't be proven right. If the Resurrection happened (which the evidence points towards this), Christianity is true. It's THAT simple. NO OTHER major religion dares to do that.

Can you KNOW your religion is true? You can't. My religion can be tested to be true or not because it is based on the Resurrection. Your religion cannot be tested... you just hope your subjective experiences are leading you to objective truth.

5) I have to say, I've loved talking to you! Feel free to message me about this. I just want to invite you to test Christianity. It's easy and doesn't take long. You have nothing to lose! You can always go back to Hinduism. If the Resurrection happened, that validates EVERYTHING Jesus said. He said He could forgive sins (which is necessary for Heaven). He said He loves you and has a place for you for eternity. Lee Strobel's "A Case for Christ" is a great read :) Peace, my friend.

HomunculusThor's picture
Response-abilities

Response-abilities
I will keep pace with you numerically point by point:

1a) I do not know what you mean. Do you mean to suggest that I rely on things that I cannot experience?
...Of course! you could experience almost anything of certain brain-dope-mines (pun intended, on dopamines).
My equivalency of say unto your say would myself assert that “the imagination is real.” Just because “it only takes places in your head” does mean that it, whatever it may be, is not real. For I can tell someone else what I mean and they can know, just short of exactly what I mean.

1b) Not to be rude, but you do offend philosophical courtesy to say both the following:
“You rely on experiences”, and “You are basing your life on”....as if telling me what I believe, or telling me what the functionary categories of my belief system(s) are--when you yourself have said one cannot know if someone else is Self-actualised; so then, in this same vein, I would say (and, if you believe in your just mentioned statement must yourself be compelled to say as well) you cannot tell me what I do think, or how it is that I think (only assert what you think you be true-of-me as based upon your interpretations of my words so far). For all you know I rely upon experiences and other things that you cannot even fathom. Please aim to be a little more decentralised in your criticism and we shall get along famously. This is not me being a dick: but I bet if I wrote a 400 page book on what I believe you would think much differently of me, and vice versa.
Anyway, no, I do not think “experience” an indicator of truth at all (other than 1) as the truth of that experience as memoratively justified, and 2) as possibly logically consistent verbiage between abstractions, Kantian category style); experience, majorily, at least to me, can only indicate memorative passages, recalling up the past for our intellectual scrutiny, in order to learn from our experiences by reflecting upon them, which are always there--and for whatever purpose the scrutiniser may have in mind to drop into that memorative dump-zone, whatever present experience coupled to the memory so recalled there-fore-..., and so on and on.

1c) You then said: “2 + 2 = 4 is truth that you can bank your life on”.
And you are right, as any mathematician will gladly tell you, as long as your mathematic paradigm is set to base ten. But there are other mathematic (mathemagical) bases in which 2 + 2 = 4 is nonsensical because the mathematical base root is different than 10, → it may be base 6 or base 8 math, etc., --indeed, these bases are differential, as we can see in the wonderfully-close-to-the-mental- world of Calculus.
As to “You are basing your life on experiences you hope you are interpreting correctly,” 1) you are telling me what I am basing my life on, which is both false as well as rude, as there is no possible way for you to know what I base my life on, seeing that you do not know me; you have taken my words to signify ‘experiences that I hope I am interpreting correctly’; and perhaps they also signify that, but I’m all about phenomenal negation (both linguistically and experientially) unto the forms of understanding.

2) On physical resurrection you said: “If Jesus' resurrection was only spiritual, this makes no sense!”
Punny. But it only “makes no sense” if one has one’s eye upon immortality.
Personally, I don’t care what the Bible says; I’ll use it as well as anyone; I’m interested in what you have to say for yourself, according to your own experiences, not what some people wrote in a book that I have already spent half my life studying and have apprehended the truth kernel of, as it is buried in the pile of shit the rest of the Book is made of.
Consider John 1:14 “the Word was made flesh?” Do you know what this means at its simplest?
It means Jesus was an understander of the will of God;
and John 6:51 “I am the manna which came down from heaven...; the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” Do you know what this means at its simplest?
It means that the Word of God is the flesh of Jesus, and this Word very is the law the which/the whom brake himself open like the seals of a parchment in order to explain the meaning of the scriptures, which simple thing people call the Son of God spilling his blood; but is really only Jesus as a master or guru spilling forth what he knew of God, and this masterly knowledge got caught in some minds and woke up some minds which were previously asleep, because they understood what Jesus was saying when he broke open the law of God {his flesh; e,g., 39 stripes, 39 books of the Old Testament, he opened them all before the Roman Empire} in order to share it with others without ‘breaking the law’. But the Romans, apprehending the seamless garment of the Jesus the innocent, did cast lots for his seamless garment (this verse itself being a half-misinterpretation of a verse in Isaiah, which stated, concerning the Son: ‘Whose body was so emaciated that his ribs stood out through his garment like cast lots’; but both suffice), for the seamless garment was ripped into four gospels in order to deceive the world with new myth of Christ under Roman rule. Which makes Paul the False Prophet, if you think about it. (Also he is a liar, for he said it of himself twice: 1) he who builds again what once he destroyed makes of himself a liar, as he did with the Church, and 2) If by my lie (=1) people are being saved, then why am I yet judged? --’Cause you’re a liar. That’s why.
As for the physical Resurrection, it is no different than the Incarnation, or bringing the mind and body to a one as the identitial verity of Who Is What Who Is. And then you die and are no more. Fuck immortality! Let there be enlightenment and thereby a bettering of the world by those so enlightened and let them not fear death which is the end and a nothing: Now, if you can stomach that, then you deserve to be enlightened; whereas if you seek immortality by imbibing the uniquitous spirit of the unholy one, called Christ who is also the Anti-Christ, by your partaking in this demonism, by your ingesting this forbidden fruit under the deceivable auspice of the unforgivable sin, to scapegoat another for your own safety, then you deserve, not hell, but definitely death, and while you live no life at all approaching abundantly.
Basically all bodily references in the New Testament end in mortification. Eternity is a finite state of Universal Mind through a particular seer. That is all that religion is. Even Jesus said, those who would save their own soul shall be the very ones to lose it. And yet Christianity preaches nothing but salvation in its attempt to damn all away from any kind of abundant life; by which I mean the virtues, which virtues apprehended are like fiery swords destroying whole kingdoms of the heavenly pit with but single blows.

3) I must take pause on our walk to pull the thistles from my socks when you say “Yes, I meant more "belief system" than "religion", but that is trivial. ”
No sir. It is not trivial at all: having no theistical dogma and doctrine opens the mind up to a limitless panorama of belief systems. Atheism is that, not “a” belief system.

“By your meaning of "bold", you come from a consequentialist angle by saying atheists have more to lose. But I wasn't talking about that at all.”
Actually neither was I, What I said was that Atheists have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
Most atheists I have ever met have a scientific outlook on life which is ever open-ended to peer review and refutation. How is that not bolder than Christianity--which operates within the confines of a closed once-and-for-all- said scriptural canon?
I’m not understanding the import of this your paragraphs #3.

4) You say “we can KNOW Christianity is true because it gives an event (the Resurrection) that can be tested to have happened or not….If it can't be proven wrong, it can't be proven right. If the Resurrection happened….Christianity is true. It's THAT simple. NO OTHER major religion dares to do that.”
To this I must say two things:
1) You say that Christianity is true “because either it happened or it didn’t happen”--which makes no sense at all.
2) If the Resurrection happened…. Christianity is true. Why? What if a live historically verifiable person called Jesus Christ really lived and died and was resurrected as the Bible avers? So what? Maybe Jesus fucked off into some other universe where the beings are not so cruel. Even if all that is said in the Bible about the Son of God is true, this in no way yields truth or proof to Christianity.
As for “NO OTHER major religion dares to do that”--I would have to answer that this is because every other major religion is so much older that Christianity that they do not have to; Christianity is the infant of the world’s religions, which is why it is so desperate. The other major, much older, religions are not desperate: they advocate thusly: listen, and the believe or don’t believe.
What disturbed me about this #4 paragraph is when you say “ I'm simply not smart enough to follow your logic.” Some advice--never say that to someone else, for 1) you hand-kick yourself in the teeth, and 2) make the other person feel like they hand-kicked you in the teeth. “Not smart enough” has no bearing on the issue. I’m 43 years old and have studied religion my whole life. I may have more readily available data than some who have not so studied religion, and so therefore some deeper insights here and there. That does not make anyone smarter than anyone else. It’s about experience, not smarts. So don’t kick yourself in the teeth.
In the last paragraph of #4 you speak forth, to whom I don’t know:
“Can you KNOW your religion is true? You can't. My religion can be tested to be true or not because it is based on the Resurrection. Your religion cannot be tested... you just hope your subjective experiences are leading you to objective truth.” It is dogmatic sentences such as this that make others want to handkick your teeth down your throat. I’m not mad or being a jerk. But sometimes you blow out these black-or-white statements. And these do not get very far in a debate room; and also seem to contradict your moniker, Ilovequestions.

5) How funny.
Dude I was a Christian for almost 30 years, and my father was a minister. And if I ever see Jesus I’m gonna kick the living shit out him; which means I am going to destroy him, since he consists of nothing but living shit.
Sorry If what I just said gives you offense, but I’ve already been down all those roads; I’m not Hindu either. I’ve studied most religions and found a common ground amidst them all, which I only call myself a Human and a Humanist.
I have enjoyed our little joust as well.
I was not expecting the surprise ending of your post. So I will just say “follow your heart and be good other people.” Let me suffice it for you:
Jesus said Love your neighbor as yourself, and love God above all else, and know that these two commandments are the fulfilment of the law, because they are the same thing.’ To love your neighbor as yourself is to love God above all else. Only there is warning: make sure you know who your neighbor is.
I do not, for example, consider the convicted child molester who lives 500 feet away from my apartment my neighbor. And I will not love him, nor share with him, nor ever forgive him for what he has done, and given the opportunity, God-willing I would more than willingly play a game of guillotine with him.
-peace to you as well, and don’t beat yourself up. Just do what you know is right.

Ilovequestions's picture
Haha, my friend, I thought

Haha, my friend, I thought you were a Hinduist! Haha, okay, I wouldn't have been responding to you in this way had I known that! My bad :)

1) I thought you were a Hinduist, so that's why I responded this way! Eastern Religions are all about looking inside and yadda-yadda, looking for enlightenment and this or that. All fluff and stuff that relies on emotions and physical highs.

1c) Umm, yeah, naturally it is understood that we are talking numbers in base 10 :) So, naturally I would be going off that.

2) So you agree Paul was talking about a physical Resurrection but that you just don't care? That's fine, but it's as clear as day he was talking about a physical resurrection and that's all I was saying. I wasn't talking at all about eternity.

3) Yes, atheism is a belief system. When you say there is no God (or there is likely no God), you then choose how you wanna view the world. You most likely choose humanism. Also, you have to choose what view you wanna take on metaphysics. You choose materialism. How we evolve/come to this point? You most likely choose naturalism.

Now forgive me if I didn't get everything correct in terms of philosophy, but you get my point. To say atheism opens you up to a bunch of different views is simply not true. You HAVE to believe in naturalism. You HAVE to believe in materialism. You don't have to be a humanist... but there are very other views you can adopt! I don't know exactly how "open-minded" you can be!

Whereas if you believe in religion... that truly is open-minded. There are tons of crazy and not-so crazy things you can believe once you allow the supernatural. For the atheist? Not so much.

As for the "bold" thing, let me just say that Christianity is more bold than atheism because Christianity can be shown to be wrong. If you can naturally explain the Resurrection, Christianity is debunked entirely. Atheism isn't in the same predicament. HOWEVER, atheists are more bold than Christianity because they have nothing to gain and everything to lose by being right. Does that make sense?

4) a) No, I'm not saying "Christianity is true because it may or may not be proven false", I'm saying Christianity is true because it can be tested (historically) and if it passes the test (which it does), it is true. There is no "test" for any other religion or atheism.

b) If the Resurrection is true, it validates EVERYTHING Jesus said. It validates at least the ENTIRE New Testament. It validates what Jesus did (miracles, etc.). It validates what He said about the end times. It validates that He can forgive sins and raise us from the dead (and therefore is God). It validates EVERYTHING. Which is why it is so essential. Jesus made a lot of claims... and He could back them up and He did if He rose again.

As for your comment that other religions are older... remember that Christianity grew out of Judaism! Which is old too. Also, just because something is older doesn't mean it can't put out objective tests so people can trust it.

Also, you have to understand that I am 18 years old. I admit I do not know everything. I can imagine us sitting at a fast food place somewhere and having a wonderful conversation. If you got to know me, my humor is self-deprecating. I have no problems with putting myself down in order to make others feel more comfortable. I don't want to come across as arrogant... which leads me to my next point:

I said what I said because I thought you were a Hinduist! I don't believe you ever said differently. My responses had to do with refuting Hinduism, not humanism/atheism! I apologize of giving you that reaction... but I said what I did because I thought you were a Hinduist.

5) Why would you do that to Jesus? I understand doing that to some of His followers... but Jesus hung out with the poor and the outcast. He fed the hungry and healed the sick and was tortured as a criminal.

I've had fun! I enjoy this and don't get offended at all. I'm sorry I offended you, but now that I know you are a humanist hopefully things will be different. I went on my "experiences" diatribe because that's what Eastern Religions all cling to! But humanists don't :) Thanks for the patience :)

HomunculusThor's picture
Again, I will respond to you

Again, I will respond to you numerically point by point.

1) You say “Eastern Religions are all about looking inside and yadda-yadda, looking for enlightenment and this or that. All fluff and stuff that relies on emotions and physical highs.”
Which glossing leads me to think you have not studied eastern religions.
Also, what could more of a physical high than the Incarnation? -- The Word of God (Mind of the Universe) realising itself in the flesh? …?

1c) No, it is not “naturally understood.” Because there ARE so many maths, you must state it for it to be understood, it is not a given, it is an assumption that your audience is either unaware of other maths or automatically takes base 10 mathematics to ge a given. And this is just not true.

2) You said “So you agree Paul was talking about a physical Resurrection but that you just don't care?”
I do care, I simply apprehend that physical resurrection, being tantamount to incarnation, lasts as long as one’s breathing body lasts. We need enlightened people in this world; and those that ARE enlightened understand that death is the end of the track, and yet still, bodhisattva-like do good in the world nonetheless, smiling like happy children in the face of oblivion.

3) I must disagree, and say again, that, No, Atheism is not a belief system. There is no belief, nor system to point to. If, for example, I do not believe in an afterlife, I am not thereby asserting a belief, not to mention a system. Atheism is an absence of belief in a culturally pre-made belief system. If I do not believe in that system, I have not advocated anything at all. For me there is nothing there.

And saying, as you did, “You HAVE to believe in”..., THAT is what is simply not true. I may observe the world and its systems and believe in nothing at all. Belief is not a necessity. You keep putting belief across as a cut-and-dried issue, to wit if you do not believe in A then of necessity you must believe in B. This is a logical assumption, but is no more than an assumption, and thus empty of necessity.

Nor do Atheists automatically discard the supernatural. To be the spokesman for Atheism here, I would say something along the lines of:
“Such people as we, who are called A-theists by those who call themselves Theists, regard the supernatural as most possibly ‘the natural which has not yet occurred’ because our evolution as psychophysical beings has not yet caught up with its own potential.”

As for the “bold” thing you said “Christianity is more bold than atheism because Christianity can be shown to be wrong.” How so? In what way? according to who?
If you state that “Christianity can be shown to be wrong,” you are, to your audience, inferring that you already apprehend that it is wrong.
Aside from that linguistical snafu, I think your larger point is that because A-theism is unfalsifiable (seeing that it is itself a neutral state of mind, and that there is nothing THERE to disprove), therefore it is boldless as lackluster. More on this larger topic later.

Then you say “If you can naturally explain the Resurrection, Christianity is debunked entirely.” Do you also think that if you can explain the Incarnation naturally that Christianity is likewise debunked. For you keep disassociating what is ‘natural’ from what is ‘physical’, and yet the religious standpoint upon which I suppose you stand (Christianity) is grounded in the physicality of the Incarnation and the physicality of the Resurrection, both natural, physical occurrences. So I do not understand what you mean by the necessity of ‘debunked if naturally explainable’. In fact this seems contradictory to the Scriptural standpoint, which is that Mystery (that Whore of Babylon) be removed, so that the will of God may be directly known. Yet you seem to be torn here; advocating the mysterious as the ground for your belief, whereas, again, the very Scriptures proclaim that the mysterious is the very ‘thing’ blocking the way to the knowledge of God. (Correct me if I am wrong concerning your standpoint.)

4a) First of all, “historical proof” in regard to the Christian religion is a misnomer, especially concerning texts written 1500 years before the printing press was invented. How does one “test” the veracity of religious claims “historically”? For example, If there were 3,434 textual references to a person between the years 5000-3425 BC called (unlikely a name back then, but to make my point) Howie Chapman, this in no way “proves” that Howie Chapman ever existed.
And when you assert “There is no "test" for any other religion or atheism,” this assertion is simply false, especially in Buddhist circles, where instead of having a robust scientific method, they employed what they knew of yoga and particular breathing methods to bring about certain states of mind or spirit: verifiable by students of yoga masters if followed correctly; for one example.

4b) I’m glad with this paragraph because its shows your nakedness as being in common with everyone else who doesn’t know what they are talking about, but who hope to one day know what they are talking about. You used the word “if” twice here.
But again, “If the resurrection is true, then what exactly is thereby validated?” You say, Everything Jesus said and did. But this is not necessarily true. If the resurrection of Jesus really did occur then that proves to Jesus, and to Jesus alone, that his resurrection happened.
Also, Jesus does not raise from the dead (with the exception of the dubious textual interpolation of the brief account of Lazarus). I believe it was Paul (but it might have been Peter or John; I don’t remember) who said something like ‘the same spirit which rose up Jesus from the dead is also at work in you and shall raise you up also on that day’--the inference being that of the spirit of the Father.

...And Judaism, being old, is itself an offshoot of Persian and Assyrio-Babylonian religion, and back, and back, and back, and back, to prehistorical times...

18? OK.
That gives me hope for you. You are smart, and you obviously love questions, and this is wonderful. But when you state that “I have no problems with putting myself down in order to make others feel more comfortable,” this is a very Christian and ignorant attitude concerning life and how the world works.
Let me give you a personal example, from when I called myself a Christian, some 20 years ago or so. I was at a bible study group, and everyone was passing around their testimonies, and this one guy (15 or 16 years old) ascribed to the following duplicity which reigns in that religion: he said “I just want to thank God for saving a wretch like me.” And I, at the time ‘a Christian’, went off on him! Basically saying two things, Well, if you are saved, then why do you still refer to yourself as a wretch. This is deplorable. And secondly, Have you not read that he who would save his soul shall lose it? So not only are you not saved, you think you are a wretch who is now in danger of losing his soul!
Something like that. And I was asked to leave by the pastor whose house this was at.
And you don’t come across as arrogant, just questioning in terms I believe you have not understandingly plumbed yet; so keep going. But you don’t have to be self-deprecating either, which is the next ugliest thing to pity. Be proud that you are seeking truth, and if you keep going you’ll find it. That is, you will find the truth for you, and will also become accustomed to the fact that fully objective truth will probably always be beyond your grasp; but you will be OK with this, because, although you have slain the beast of mystery, and have found truth for yourself, all things are not thereby answered--thank God--, for there is still, and always will be hope, hope to keep on learning, and learning, and learning, which is joy.

5) This is an important question when you ask “Why would you do that to Jesus?” I now see that I mis-wrote Jesus for Christ in my last response.
Jesus is my hero. So let me rephrase it thus: If I ever Christ I would kick the living shit out of him, for Christ is the mangled Roman concept of Jesus, who was truly a hip dude, if he existed, that is. Whereas Christ is a tyrant like all the rest.
To wit: Jesus is not Christ. Jesus Christ is a contradiction in terms. What “Jesus Christ” was supposed to mean, was, back then, that the body and the spirit are one. But then Rome got ahold of Jesus and plied him with ultimate irony: turning him into a religion by saying that he, and only he, is the incarnation, thus giving birth to the abomination of the uniquity we know of today--Christ, the image of the beast after whom the whole world wonders, and Mystery his whore of a mother: Rome stating that only one may understand God, Christ, and all the other be his servants, “To whom every knee shall bow and every tongue confess”. But this is slave morality 101 and has nothing to do with a man called Jesus, who was, if anything, if he existed at all, most definitely, according to the texts, a humanist. :)

Ilovequestions's picture
My friend, I see on some of

My friend, I see on some of these points we are going nowhere :) On some of these, I'll agree to disagree for the sake of productivity. Some of the more ticky-tack stuff I'll let slide. I'll start at #3:

3) My friend, if one can truly believe nothing when looking at the various world religions, this is a belief itself. If you look at some belief system and don't believe it... you are necessarily thinking it isn't true! If it was true, you'd believe it! If you are waiting to see if it's something you could believe, you still don't believe it at that moment. Everyone believes something.

4) As for your comment about me being smart, I have to thank you :) However, it seems like for all your 30 years as a Christian, you never truly grasped how God works or the Gospel itself. God works THROUGH the humble. He uses the weak and pitiful to confound the wise and powerful.

Jesus, the man you say is your hero, exemplified this. He was born in a food-trough! He traveled on a donkey! He washed his disciples' feet. He died the death of a criminal.

Look at Paul, the saint of saints in the New Testament. He called himself a wretch, and by that point in his life he was a better man than most of us will ever be.

1 Corinthians 1:27, "But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong."

Romans 7:24 (Paul speaking), "What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death?"

It's unfortunate that you never grasped this. Jesus was a servant. He calls us (me) to be a servant. Which requires humility. This goes against everything in today's world. But Jesus rebelled against His world. So will I. I will humble myself because I understand that I am only valuable through what Jesus did for me. He loved me so much He would die for me. I wouldn't expect you to understand this. You probably think of this as weakness. I'm okay with that :)

5) It looks like we will disagree with the nature and character of Jesus :) I just have to ask you, what sources do you go to for your view of Jesus? I go to the Gospels (naturally). What sources do you go to? I'm pretty curious. If you disagree with how the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament portrays Jesus, I want to know which sources you think are more accurate and reliable for us to form our opinions about Jesus.

myrobot's picture
After reading this thread i

After reading this thread i remembered some same concept in islam. Islamic books tells us that in God asked to all souls of all humans in world of souls that "Who is your God", All souls said you are our God.
But i don,t know why after birth we did not remember that time when we said to God "you are our God". All islamic scholars are agree with this point that "God asked to all souls in world of soul, who is your god then all souls said you are our God."

HomunculusThor's picture
As for this last entry, it is

As for this last entry, it is basic tyranny.
Think about it.
In the book of revelation somewhere it says that God aseat his throne is praised 24/7 by the four beasts all saying holy holy holy is the lord God almighty.
Can you even imagine that shit?
First of all why would a God sit on a throne? A throne is the seat of tyrants and kings, who are often the same person.
And secondly, If I was God, the first thing I would do is smash those fucking kiss-ass beasts to death so I could have some peace and quiet.
People are taught in Christian churches that the praise of Him is to Him as if some sweet-smelling incense. Bullshit! God hates praise! To accept it is to allow unbridled pride topple one's head--which by every religion's definition God is very not.

Ilovequestions's picture
My friend, you misunderstand

My friend, you misunderstand what pride is. Pride is wanting something you don't deserve and thinking you are something you are not. God isn't prideful; He is getting the praise He deserves. He also knows who He is.

I have a job. Is it prideful of me to want a wage for it? No, cuz I deserve it. Would I be prideful if I wanted a million dollars for my bottom-level job and if I thought I was the hottest thing ever? Yes, cuz I don't deserve it and I'm definitely not the hottest thing ever.

God isn't prideful. He deserves all the praise He gets. Us on the other hand... we can be very prideful

HomunculusThor's picture
Before I say anything, let me

Before I say anything, let me offer you a word of advice "to you as a poster on this site."
Instead of telling people what they do or do not __________ (fill in the blank); it would make your personality more amiable to your audience if you took the advice of Benjamin Franklin and prefaced your arguments with such simple assuagements as "I think...", or "I believe it to be the case that...", or "In my opinion, so and so...", --thus leaving room for the reader of your posts enough psychological space to respond to you (literally) in kind, by which 'literally' I mean in equal kindness and courtesy.
For when you just state things right off and put words in the mouths of others (for example the above "My friend, you misunderstand what pride is") it is off-putting right up front; and what you are actually doing is putting your own foot in your mouth (believe me: it took me half my life to learn this basic lesson of social communication as a basis for courtesy). And putting "My friend" in front of telling someone what they do or do not understand just makes it worse, bordering arrogance.
So I would say to you: simply adapt to expressing that you ARE expressing what YOU think or believe to be true, and then you will find that others will respond to you with much more sympathy and gentleness, because you have handed them an argument on a plate garnished with conscious courtesy, to which they then will more gladly respond, rather than wishing you be punched to the point of chewing your own teeth, as for the contrast.

Now, having said that:
No: I do not misunderstand what pride is.
I believe (

Ilovequestions's picture
It's funny, you want to

It's funny, you want to comment on why I shouldn't speak a certain way... and then you proceed to tell me exactly how I should speak. Telling people how to talk isn't very amiable, now is it? I may be 18, but I'm not 2.

I don't know about you, but I've been very amiable. You just called something I believe bull****. You said you wanted to kick the living **** out of Jesus Christ, my Lord and Savior. You've called me a (likable) bother. You said I made you want to kick your teeth (or something of the sort). You also said you wished my teeth were punched in (read your post, you are implying that).

My friend (and, indeed, I say these two words to everyone I talk to), I've been just about as friendly, if not more so than you. Please do not tell me how to speak, when the language you've used while talking to me has been a lot stronger and much more vulgar.

Now for your the rest of your post, let me use an example. If a woman is beautiful, is it not perfectly fine for us to tell her that? If she is kind, can we not let her know we appreciate it? What if she is wise, can we mention it?

Yes, we can. Praising her for those things is not wrong at all.

So it is with God. He is powerful, we are letting Him know that WE know He is powerful. He has blessed me with a wonderful family. I will thank Him for His kindness, because when someone has given you a gift, to do anything less is ungrateful.

If a human forgives you, you say thank you. I thank God for His forgiveness.
If a human is generous, you let him know you appreciate it. I let God know I appreciate His generosity.
If a human gives His life so that you can keep yours, you live in gratitude for that man. I live in gratitude to Jesus Christ.

So no, praise is not wrong :) Letting God know you are aware of His wonderful attributes and are thankful for what He is done is not wrong :)

We are prideful when we think we deserve the praise God does.

HomunculusThor's picture
After reading your latest

After reading your latest post I am only responding at all because you remind me of myself when I was 18.

Please read this. I am not harshing on you.

I’m not telling you how to speak. I’m trying to tell you that when you say things about what other people are trying to debate about like they are absolute statements you ARE putting words in others people’s mouths. And people do not like that. Reread my post: I advocate only that you express that what you are saying is your opinion and not to ram it to people like what are saying is the absolute truth on a subject, thus killing the whole point of debate: which is opinion against opinion.

You are not listening, but being hasty. You just said “You just called something I believe bull****.” This is patently false--reread my post, where I say “I think it is bull****.” This is the second example of you not listening to what I am saying by your 5th sentence.

Reread my post.

3rd example of you not listening. You said “You said you wanted to kick the living **** out of Jesus Christ”; Not true. I uncoupled Jesus from Christ; Jesus is Cool, Christ is a Roman tool.

Reread my post.

You said, as if accusingly of me: “You've called me a (likable) bother.” I meant this endearingly, and then explained that I remember what it was like being an 18 year old Christian.

Reread my post.

You said “You said I made you want to kick your teeth (or something of the sort).” --or something of the sort?

Reread my post.

You continued “You also said you wished my teeth were punched in (read your post, you are implying that).”
No, I am not implying that. What I said, which you would know if you read my post non-hastily (as you have obviously done), is that when you tell other people what they do or do not know they are liable to get angry with you, and I used the knocking in of teeth as an example of how angry they DO get when you think you know what someone is or believes or who they are and state it as if written is stone, which is the very opposite purpose of communication.

I have not used vulgar language with you at all; stronger, yes; stronger because I believe you lack, at age 18 (as I also lacked at age 18) certain skills in communicating with others→ on these deep and heavy topics of God and the meaning of Life--and if you want to be heard, and are really a lover of questions, then you do need to tone it down a bit concerning just blurting out a statement and telling someone else what they believe or not, or how they think or not. It is rude, and will get you nothing but negative results. And I used to have the same issue, so I mentioned it to you, not to speak down to you, but to help you realise that when it comes to these heavy topics the decorum of you language and allowance of others’ opinions is the most important thing to consider, and then the content on your message comes in second place to this, seeing that people are on edge about this heavy shit we are discussing.

You then say two things as if they are one: “Now for your the rest of your post, let me use an example. If a woman is beautiful, is it not perfectly fine for us to tell her that? If she is kind, can we not let her know we appreciate it? What if she is wise, can we mention it?”
Of course! This is called complimenting another person and it makes them feel good about themselves. And this is all good. But then you continue disjunctively:
“Yes, we can. Praising her for those things is not wrong at all.” But you are not praising her, you are complimenting her.
I suggest (and now you will probably think I’m a dick, though I am not) you pick up either an etymological dictionary, or a good dictionary with the etymology included (like Chambers, or the Oxford English Dictionary) and discover for yourself what the majority of people on this planet who speak the English language have defined as Compliment, and Praise; and see the difference.

If God is God you are not letting Him know anything; If God is God, then by definition He already knows you are grateful.
And then, for the rest of your post you rant dogmatically like a desperate Christian, just like I used to.
And I never even hinted that I wanted praise like you, at least for now in your young life, think God deserves.

So I’m sorry I got all up in your craw. I have obviously offended you. And seeing this I reread our past few posts, and I must put the burden on you for being impatient. For everything in this your latest post I already refuted in my last post.
And now, to you, that probably makes me seem like a jerk.
But I assure you quite the contrary. I called you a likable bother as a term of endearment, not a ridicule, because the things you are saying and the way you are saying them reminds me of myself when I was your age. That’s all.
I think you need to practice a little more patience when reading posts of people who do not share your beliefs; and I too am always learning how to communicate more congenially.
When I have, above, used what you referred to as ‘vulgar’ analogies to stress a point, it was not directed personally to you; How could it be? I don’t even know who you are! It is an analogy of how you come across with some off-the-cuff statements which are going to rub some people the wrong way. I simply tried to step into that space and say, whoa, slow down, don’t put words in other peoples’ mouths or you’re just asking for a backlash.
If think this advice of mine, who have been there and learned through it--Hey, I was just trying to stop you from learning the same harsh lesson. But if you do not want to listen to me (or more patiently read my posts)--then learn the hard way, friend.
I’m sorry I got under your skin. But I’m warning you, from personal experience, you are going to say the wrong thing to someone sometime and your gonna learn the hard way, like I did. I only wanted to prevent that from happening to you because you seem like a really cool guy, curious about life and trying to figure it out. But, maybe you need to learn the hard way. But I’m telling you--it sucks. You should listen to people when they constructively criticise your writing--especially on these God topics--, ‘cause, I’ll say it again, learning the hard way not only sucks, it can mess you up for a long time.
I wish you the best. I hope we communicate further. And I hope you reread my previous post not so hastily next time.
-peace.

Ilovequestions's picture
*Sigh* It's been wonderful

*Sigh* It's been wonderful talking, HomunculusThor. However, when you spend half the time telling me how you would prefer I speak, it simply isn't fun anymore. I never (except for my last post) told you how to speak, yet you were always talking down to me. You may not see it (and you may justify it by saying I'm 18), but it's definitely there.

I'm not offended at all. I've been on other atheist forums and have been called an idiot among other worse things. However, go over your posts and see how much time you solely devote to telling my how to conduct myself.

Your language has been much harsher than mine. At least you I've never cursed. I've never told you I THINK your position is bull**** (which is no different than saying "your position is bull****", for when you say something is bull****, it is as clear as day that you THINK it is bull****, otherwise you wouldn't have said that).

We may cross swords again :) The only reason why I responded to you in the first place was because I thought you were Hindu! Haha, I'm not offended and I have enjoyed the experience. I just see that this isn't really going anywhere :)

HomunculusThor's picture
I agree that it isn’t going

I agree that it isn’t going anywhere, so I will put up this last post.
You have mistaken me from the beginning. Because I know about Hinduism you automatically assumed I was Hindu.
And there is a difference between saying “this is that” and “I think this is that”. The first is metaphorical and dogmatically so, the second is consciously open-ended and inviting criticism; again, the first is closed, the second is open. I advocate the open form of speech rather than the closed form of speech because being dogmatic, about anything, is a turn off and a hindrance to communication. So, no, I never TOLD you how to conduct yourself, or how to speak. I merely pointed out that being dogmatic is not the way to go, if you want to be heard and taken seriously, especially if you are a Christian (which I presume you are) on an Atheist Website. Two things will happen: you will either be torn apart, or, and this latter is the most likely of the two result, simply ignored.
I was trying to have a conversation with you, but throughout most of our posts you have misconstrued what I have plainly said. And when I address the misconstrual, you then say I am talking down to you. I am not, I’m simply addressing that you have misunderstood what I have said. This is common, and equally common, to people who are really interested, is to talk it out. If I have a few times used harsh language, which I admit I have and have done so consciously, it is because on certain issues you need to be schooled. And, hey: so do I. I do not leave myself out of my own advice. However I am more that twice your age and was born a reared a Christian and went on to study that religion for more than half of my life and I know two things where our conversation has been concerned: 1) I know more about Christianity than you do, and 2) I understand that non-dogmatic conversation gets you miles further that dogmatic conversation.
If you really believe that I was always talking down to you, then two things: 1), I’m sorry you misinterpreted my language, and 2) it might be because you misjudged me from the very first, assuming I was something I was not. And now you are accusing me of something I am not: someone who speaks down to other people. I simply tried to get you to see the benefit of using at least less-dogmatic language so we could have a smoother conversation, and you kept not getting it.
So, whatever. Good luck to you. I hope that in your future posting on this site you are more simply ignored that torn into.
Good day.

HomunculusThor's picture
God can't be buttered up. But

God can't be buttered up. But buttering up, which is my entire point, is the sole impetus behind praise.
Praise is a very very strong word. And I hope I do not seem to slam appreciation, and admiration, etc. But praise, being such a strong word, belongs, if there be such a one, quite solely to the Devil.

HomunculusThor's picture
For the Beast which rises up

For the Beast which rises up from the Sea (of Vanity, read 'praise') cannot of Himself trounce about the land and so He makes an Image of Himself--the Image of the Beast--to trounce about the land, giving the image the power to kill all who do not worship the Beast of the Sea.
That is where Praise gets us.
Interpretation: The peoples' (waters') interpretation of God as a praiseworthy being becomes itself unto an image of itself to be praised: being, respectively, the Father and the Son of Christianity. Now that is Vanity!

I could keep explaining this forever, as it were; so if I skipped something, just let me know and I'll try my best to covey what I mean and where I'm coming from.

I have to say, you are a likable bother: no insult intended at all, it's just that I remember being 18. And being mid-40's is....different. :)

Lemme know.

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.