Religion is nothing more than a Belief

[Dontaskme]

What is known about all religious and scientific beliefs is that a 'belief' seems to exist as real within what is essentially and without doubt an ineffable unknowable mystery that is known as the 'Knower' of belief.

In other words, you can know quite a lot of things. But you cannot know 'who' or 'what' knows a lot of things. You cannot know the 'knower' that knows a lot of things.

This dilemma is a troubling dilemma for the mind, and so instead of just admitting the obvious problem, it ignores the problem and strives only to perpetuate what it only believes it understands, but will never really understand what it can only ever imagine.

And that is why humanity invented their God, because at least then their existence would make sense.

Truth is, nothing that is conscious of being can know anything about this being, except what this being makes-up. . not even God itself knows the answer to the big HOW dilemma.

[Age]

What is known about all religious and scientific beliefs is that a 'belief' seems to exist as real within what is essentially and without doubt an ineffable unknowable mystery that is known as the 'Knower' of belief.

LOL "without doubt an ineffable unknowable mystery"

In other words, you can know quite a lot of things. But you cannot know 'who' or 'what' knows a lot of things. You cannot know the 'knower' that knows a lot of things.

AGAIN, LOL. Just because within "your teachings" thee answer is NOT YET KNOWN, this in NO WAY infers that thee answer is unknowable, ineffable, NOR an ACTUAL mystery.

SURE, thee answer is unknowable and a complete mystery to 'you', "dontaskme", and quite a LOT of you "other" human beings, in the days when you were around "dontaskme", but this does NOT mean that thee answer itself is unknowable, ineffable, NOR a mystery AT ALL.

This dilemma is a troubling dilemma for the mind, and so instead of just admitting the obvious problem, it ignores the problem and strives only to perpetuate what it only believes it understands, but will never really understand what it can only ever imagine.

Does this same "logic" and CLAIM apply to those who can only ever IMAGINE that thee answer is unknowable, ineffable, or a mystery? Or, does it NOT apply in that situation?

And that is why humanity invented their God, because at least then their existence would make sense.

LOL How EXACTLY does your existence 'make sense'?

Truth is, nothing that is conscious of being can know anything about this being, except what this being makes-up. . not even God itself knows the answer to the big HOW dilemma.

But HOW is thee ACTUAL solution, to ALL of your human being made up 'problems'. As I have been continually informing 'you', human beings, here in this forum.

[Dontaskme]

Repeated ramblings of a robotic parrot....

Age, the point is, you were not there at your conception.

Any known conception is likened to a dream.

“I dream my painting, and then I paint my dream.” – Vincent Van Gogh.

True Knowing, is not-knowing...sorry, but it really really is.

[Belinda]

What is known about all religious and scientific beliefs is that a 'belief' seems to exist as real within what is essentially and without doubt an ineffable unknowable mystery that is known as the 'Knower' of belief.

In other words, you can know quite a lot of things. But you cannot know 'who' or 'what' knows a lot of things. You cannot know the 'knower' that knows a lot of things.

This dilemma is a troubling dilemma for the mind, and so instead of just admitting the obvious problem, it ignores the problem and strives only to perpetuate what it only believes it understands, but will never really understand what it can only ever imagine.

And that is why humanity invented their God, because at least then their existence would make sense.

Truth is, nothing that is conscious of being can know anything about this being, except what this being makes-up. . not even God itself knows the answer to the big HOW dilemma.

It does not trouble my mind that Atman is Brahman.That's to say no -self. On the contrary, it's a reasonable belief which is arrived at via reason. There's no need to be troubled by not knowing Brahman, you only have to understand that every event is a necessary event. This is not panentheism , it's dual aspect monism.

There is a danger that advaita vedanta will make people fatalists. This is because people often believe, incorrectly, that determinism implies prediction, which is not true.

Men are not theists only because they were troubled by lack of any substantial self, although the claim is psychologically sound. The invention of God was needed by people in transition to societies where there was a lot more mingling among strangers for trade, moving to money economy. There had to be strong laws governing behaviour, laws that were supernaturally sanctioned.The Ten Commandments are about rights of possession, and the substantial self is paramount in considerations of rights and duties.

[Dontaskme]

There is a danger that advaita vedanta will make people fatalists. This is because people often believe, incorrectly, that determinism implies prediction, which is not true.

Men are not theists only because they were troubled by lack of any substantial self, although the claim is psychologically sound. The invention of God was needed by people in transition to societies where there was a lot more mingling among strangers for trade, moving to money economy. There had to be strong laws governing behaviour, laws that were supernaturally sanctioned.The Ten Commandments are about rights of possession, and the substantial self is paramount in considerations of rights and duties.

I'm not troubled by the fact that I know I do not exist. And that I cannot know that I exist.

So your response is totally meaningless to me.

We are animals, full stop, animals have no concern for the truth of their existence, only men do. And that's why I think humans are stupid.

[Belinda]

Dontaskme wrote:

I'm not troubled by the fact that I know I do not exist. And that I cannot know that I exist.

Your response is about only you.

[Dontaskme]

Dontaskme wrote:

I'm not troubled by the fact that I know I do not exist. And that I cannot know that I exist.

Your response is about only you.

Yes, so what?

Your belief will always be about you. So what?

[Belinda]

Dontaskme wrote:

I'm not troubled by the fact that I know I do not exist. And that I cannot know that I exist.

Your response is about only you.

Yes, so what?

Your belief will always be about you. So what?

But philosophers try to be objective.

[Dontaskme]

Dontaskme wrote:



Your response is about only you.

Yes, so what?

Your belief will always be about you. So what?

But philosophers try to be objective.

An objective idea is a subjective imagined world. And so yes, the imagined world is real, insofar as it is a simple belief in no believer.

[Belinda]

Yes, so what?

Your belief will always be about you. So what?

But philosophers try to be objective.

An objective idea is a subjective imagined world. And so yes, the imagined world is real, insofar as it is a simple belief in no believer.

There are methods that help us to be more objective.

[Dontaskme]

But philosophers try to be objective.

An objective idea is a subjective imagined world. And so yes, the imagined world is real, insofar as it is a simple belief in no believer.

There are methods that help us to be more objective.

Pointless.

[Age]

Repeated ramblings of a robotic parrot....

Age, the point is, you were not there at your conception.

When 'you' are able to answer the question 'Who am 'I'?' properly AND correctly, the 'you' will SEE things very differently.

Any known conception is likened to a dream.

“I dream my painting, and then I paint my dream.” – Vincent Van Gogh.

True Knowing, is not-knowing...sorry, but it really really is.

Is this, so-called, "True Knowing"?

[Age]

Repeated ramblings of a robotic parrot....

Did you say anything different to which I replied?

If yes, then what, EXACTLY?

[Age]

Repeated ramblings of a robotic parrot....

You appear to be under some sort of belief that you can start a thread, repeating what you have previously said, but whenever I point out the illogical, wrong, or just plain false claims in your post, then these are the "repeated ramblings of a robotic parrot". But have you ever considered that if you STOPPED rambling the EXACT SAME repeated things, like a robotic parrot, then the falsehoods, illogicality, and wrongness, in your repeated ramblings, would not be EXPOSED and SHOWN, AGAIN?

[Dontaskme]

Repeated ramblings of a robotic parrot....

You appear to be under some sort of belief that you can start a thread, repeating what you have previously said, but whenever I point out the illogical, wrong, or just plain false claims in your post, then these are the "repeated ramblings of a robotic parrot". But have you ever considered that if you STOPPED rambling the EXACT SAME repeated things, like a robotic parrot, then the falsehoods, illogicality, and wrongness, in your repeated ramblings, would not be EXPOSED and SHOWN, AGAIN?

I prefer to discuss my threads with clear rational thinking human beings...something you are not.

Jog on.