Thread: Nice books for atheists

Originally Posted by thegnome54

I took my time to read it the first time, and I'm not getting anything more out of reading it again now. I am obviously not alone in this alleged glaring misinterpretation, so I suggest you get off your high horses and explain it to us.

It's not our fault you chose such a vague and esoteric quote, and then proceeded to post it without a word of explanation. You should be glad we even tried to respond, honestly.

I asked for no response to begin with. Your egocentric self was compelled to respond by some inner necesity to be right about something, even though the quote itself actually works against the idea of religion really.

You (singular) not "us" (plural) made the mistake. The other readers are off on different tangents than you are, so you are indeed isolated here.

Its only normal for one to get all defensive and go on the attack when one confronts something they cleary do not understand. You seem to be no exception. Though if you would have used that reasoning and logic you use as a crutch you might have understood the simple meaning as I expalined to Seismosaur.

" There is a candle called the rules of religion. You need that candle to find the way, and you must follow the way to reach the truth. If truth were obvious, no one would need the candle or the path. As it is said, When copper becomes gold, it doesnt need an alchemist's laboratory any longer. Don't look for a guide after you reach the destination."

- Rumi

Many candles, many ways, only one truth.

A candle. ONE, not many, though many will do, as one can percieve the rules of religion as pertaining to seperate religions, though really the quote rolls the rules of all religions all up into one.

Many ways? Your blindness is showing Gnome, or your arrogance(EGO) that blinds you . The quote reads THE WAY. Thats one way(singular), not many. Simple english. Hard to imagine you missing that one, but you did.

Conclusion? Most, if not all candles lead to false truths.

"Can" lead to false truths, otherwise your assessment is the way of things.

(Oh, and if you argue that there are more ways to the truth than one, then who needs a f**king candle?)

Why would I argue anything to the contrary when that was what was stated to begin with.

So Gnome, how do you like being handled the same way you handle everyone else in here ?

Feeling anger?, getting a bit of a rise right now I imagine? Look into your feelings and see right now where they would take your words. See how quick things can degenerate on a forum if everyone takes the same sarcastic disrespectful stance?

Originally Posted by thegnome54

My point in reply to your quote was simply that there are a shitload of religions, so either:
A) One religion holds the key to the path/truth, or
B) All religions will do

In the former case, most religions are still useless. In the latter case, it would seem that if any of the great variety of religions will do, no religion at all should do just as well.

Simply put: I disagree. I don't think religion has any use.

Science is the path, no?

B is the answer. All teach non duality in some manner somwhere sewn within the religion.


No, Science is not the path.

The path is the "inner path", the one within oneself.

Science can be a means of moving along that path though. However, using science by itself without any spirtual teachings or knowledge ( as opposed to religious teachings)can make for a very long journey comparatively. Long, but not necesarily impossible.

Originally Posted by NonDualistic

Your egocentric self was compelled to respond by some inner necesity to be right about something, even though the quote itself actually works against the idea of religion really.

Call me what you will, I don't go around outright insulting people. If anything I attacked your quote, which you posted in this thread for the obvious purpose of contributing to the conversation - do you blame me for responding?

Originally Posted by NonDualistic

You (singular) not "us" (plural) made the mistake. The other readers are off on different tangents than you are, so you are indeed isolated here.

You're quite right, but I had no idea which tangent I was off on, since you just accused me of being illiterate instead of telling me

Originally Posted by NonDualistic

Its only normal for one to get all defensive and go on the attack when one confronts something they cleary do not understand. You seem to be no exception. Though if you would have used that reasoning and logic you use as a crutch you might have understood the simple meaning as I expalined to Seismosaur.

I'm pretty sure I understood most of the meaning, actually. I was only getting defensive because I was irritated that you were refusing to elaborate on this quote, and acting condescending when others misinterpreted it.

Originally Posted by NonDualistic

A candle. ONE, not many, though many will do, as one can percieve the rules of religion as pertaining to seperate religions, though really the quote rolls the rules of all religions all up into one.

I will be honest - I assumed that this Rumi of yours was referring to a particular religion - presumably his own. It really doesn't make sense to me to refer to ALL the rules of ALL religions - they just differ too much. Religions have entirely different details within them, so how could they all somehow lead to this 'way'?

Originally Posted by NonDualistic

Many ways? Your blindness is showing Gnome, or your arrogance(EGO) that blinds you . The quote reads THE WAY. Thats one way(singular), not many. Simple english. Hard to imagine you missing that one, but you did.

I was purposefully changing the wording to make a point - that there are more than one way to the truth, which I believe is what this guy is talking about. This quote is very hard to decipher, for me at least, because he refers to 'the way' and 'the truth' without really defining these key terms. Unless 'the way' is some philosophical concept I'm unaware of, it seems like a pretty vague way of explaining things to people.

Originally Posted by NonDualistic

So Gnome, how do you like being handled the same way you handle everyone else in here ?

Feeling anger?, getting a bit of a rise right now I imagine? Look into your feelings and see right now where they would take your words. See how quick things can degenerate on a forum if everyone takes the same sarcastic disrespectful stance?

Call me blind, but I really don't see where I was overly aggressive, sarcastic, or disrespectful. I merely made a counter-statement to your quote. Is it the carefully censored "f" word which brought up these impressions for you? I use the word purely for emphasis.

It's entirely possible (likely, even) that I misinterpreted/failed to grasp some of that quote. Like I've said, it's very hard to understand when it makes such vague references as "rules of religion" (which rules, which religion? all of them? what if I make up a religion?) "the way" (is there only one? is it an intellectual path or a process? what?), etc.

Sorry for the possible double post, if it bothers anyone. I was writing my last post when this was posted.

Originally Posted by NonDualistic

B is the answer. All teach non duality in some manner somwhere sewn within the religion.

That seems a bit of a rash assumption, no? There are many religions, couldn't at least one be clear of non-dualistic undertones?

Originally Posted by NonDualistic

No, Science is not the path.

The path is the "inner path", the one within oneself.

See, this is the sort of stuff that entirely loses me. What do you mean by 'within oneself'? This just doesn't make sense from any angle I try to approach it - our 'external' observations are really just internalized signals received from the outside, so everything is 'within ourselves'. Thought-wise, even when we think of things which are not us, we are really just thinking of our perception of these things - again, everything is internalized. I'm just missing the boat here.

Originally Posted by NonDualistic

Science can be a means of moving along that path though. However, using science by itself without any spirtual teachings or knowledge ( as opposed to religious teachings)can make for a very long journey comparatively. Long, but not necesarily impossible.

What exactly is the difference between 'spiritual' and 'religious', as you're using them? And how exactly can spiritual teachings lead to truths without science involved?

Originally Posted by NonDualistic

I Besides as I see it most atheists only deny the existance of a external seperate "pay homage to" god. They dont seem to deny the possibilty of a universal organizing power having a hand in the workings of the universe. All is merely a play with labels and ideas.

Wrong. Most atheists would deny the "hand" exists, and it's not just semantics.

Originally Posted by thegnome54

That seems a bit of a rash assumption, no? There are many religions, couldn't at least one be clear of non-dualistic undertones?

I'm sure there could be, but such can be seen in Hinduism, Taoism, Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, which are the ones that predominantly drive the workings of the world at this time. I even see non duality in beliefs specific to various North American Indian tribes.

See, this is the sort of stuff that entirely loses me. What do you mean by 'within oneself'? This just doesn't make sense from any angle I try to approach it - our 'external' observations are really just internalized signals received from the outside, so everything is 'within ourselves'. Thought-wise, even when we think of things which are not us, we are really just thinking of our perception of these things - again, everything is internalized. I'm just missing the boat here.

I know you are, but I cannot really help in this.You are all tied up in the "mechanics of the physical you. Until you can reach beyond that to what you now cannot believe to exist you wont be able to make sense of it. All I can say is when you are ready to let go of the physical you will begin to see.
Maybe thinking of that which is within as not something pertaining to physical or non physical but, maybe think of it in dimensional terms?

What exactly is the difference between 'spiritual' and 'religious', as you're using them? And how exactly can spiritual teachings lead to truths without science involved?

Religion is the net of all the rules, regulations, rituals, ceremonies, laws, ordinances, heirarchies, and such which are all externals to ones own self. Anything that teaches of a external physical presiding God that grants rewards and gives out punishments. Anything that teaches and preaches control and fear.

Spirtual teachings are all that is and can be percieved within ones own life experience. Simplisitic wisdom, and of course non-duality.These teachings deal primarily with the non physical.
Actually I find science kind of shows itself within spiritual teachings, the more we understand science anyhow.Probably doesnt make any sense to you but I see both kind of in a hand to hand way. Science and these teachings both seem to lead to tha same thing, at least thats the way it is manifesting in my view.


As to the previous post and my criticism of your ways of responding, I guess the way you write sometimes comes off as disrespectful of others viewpoints. One can be in disagreement without being disrespectful. Its all about choosing wording.
Such goes back to when I was a moderator then an administrator of sorts for a number of years on a similarly laid out set of special interest forums. We went through hell when we added a off topics forum and then a Religion/ Philosphy forum. Seemed to take months, and for some years, to get the idea that words need to be selected carefully in passionate debates. Its just not the same as debating in person. People tend to become more bold(or careless- take your pick) behind a keyboard.

....But I digress,

thegnome and nondualistic - you two are probably my two favorite new people to DV. I really hope you guys stick around because your discussions are nice to read. Usually I get more involved but your posts are exhaustive. Please keep it up.


~

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Wrong. Most atheists would deny the "hand" exists, and it's not just semantics.

No no no, I worded that all wrong. I meant more to the effect that they dont seem to deny the "existance of organized design" in the workings of the universe without an outside source for its creation.

Does that work to alleviate the notion of an outside God or "hand" involved?

Originally Posted by NonDualistic

You are all tied up in the "mechanics of the physical you. Until you can reach beyond that to what you now cannot believe to exist you wont be able to make sense of it. All I can say is when you are ready to let go of the physical you will begin to see.

Are you sure that you are correct in this 'reaching beyond'? How can you know that you aren't fooling yourself out of a fear of mortality and a yearning to be something more than the physical?

Originally Posted by NonDualistic

Spirtual teachings are all that is and can be percieved within ones own life experience. Simplisitic wisdom, and of course non-duality.These teachings deal primarily with the non physical.
Actually I find science kind of shows itself within spiritual teachings, the more we understand science anyhow.Probably doesnt make any sense to you but I see both kind of in a hand to hand way. Science and these teachings both seem to lead to tha same thing, at least thats the way it is manifesting in my view.

I think the main chasm between us is the non-physical thing. I personally see absolutely no justification for assuming (or assuming that you just 'know', whatever the case may be) that anything but the physical world exists. It appears to be largely out of wishful thinking that people concoct these things.

Most people who believe in the non-physical say that I don't understand because I am young. Although that is a possibility, there are a great many adults who still reject the notion. There is something fundamentally different about the way you go about rationalizing your beliefs compared to those adults and myself (at this point in time, at least). That's what I don't get. Do you have a lower standard for evidence? You probably don't believe your dreams really happened physically, so what sort of intuitions would you accept to support such an apparently unfounded hypothesis?

Originally Posted by NonDualistic

words need to be selected carefully in passionate debates. Its just not the same as debating in person. People tend to become more bold(or careless- take your pick) behind a keyboard.

....But I digress,

I see where you're coming from, but I think the root of the issue is more my strong opinions than my relative anonymity. I can be a bit forceful at times, though I try not to be insulting when I am.

Originally Posted by thegnome54

Are you sure that you are correct in this 'reaching beyond'? How can you know that you aren't fooling yourself out of a fear of mortality and a yearning to be something more than the physical?

Be there and you will know. I am and I do..


..and I'm real sure that was so very helpful

I think the main chasm between us is the non-physical thing.

Most people who believe in the non-physical say that I don't understand because I am young.

I agree. It reminds me of Star Trek where Spock Died and came back and Told Doc McCoy basically that he had to die to be able to discuss death with him. Same sort of plateau is here with you and I. Unless you have experienced what I have that chasm isnt going to close.

Age has nothing to do with it. Look at Cloud. He's around your age and he knows just about exactly what I am talking about, probably more than anyone else on these forums.

There is something fundamentally different about the way you go about rationalizing your beliefs compared to those adults and myself (at this point in time, at least). That's what I don't get. Do you have a lower standard for evidence? You probably don't believe your dreams really happened physically, so what sort of intuitions would you accept to support such an apparently unfounded hypothesis?

I know you wont be able to accept this, and know that I am not asking you t o either, nor am I trying to prove what I say to anyone - I dont need to for my own benefit but, experience is the best teacher.
There are dreams and then there are meditative experiences. They are not the same. I have the proof "I need". I know beyond all doubt. However thsi knowing is not something I can give to you. It is something you must find on your own, in your own manner, in your own time. All I can do is point to the way like a stationary roadsign, thats all anyone or anything external to you yourself can do. Finding proof is a journey you must take by yourself with yourself... nothing else will do.

I see where you're coming from, but I think the root of the issue is more my strong opinions than my relative anonymity. I can be a bit forceful at times, though I try not to be insulting when I am.

I myself am sure of the basics of where I stand and what I know. I am unyeilding in my own direct experiences. I guess you could call that strong opinioned from where you and others sit. However I make effort to not be forceful becaquse I do realize the individual must take their own journey and will not accept anything short of their own direct experience of what is.

Fair enough?

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

*giggles*


If you truly believe what you say, Cloud, you should have no difficulty commiting suicide.

So..

go on.

If it would pull me from 'where' i am, then i would.
It can do nothing but further my 'non-existant' ignorance.
I live each day as if i shall die the next.
What more could death bring me, but your interpretation of non-existence.

Originally posted by O'nus

thegnome and nondualistic - you two are probably my two favorite new people to DV. I really hope you guys stick around because your discussions are nice to read. Usually I get more involved but your posts are exhaustive. Please keep it up.


~

I couldn't agree with this more. Usually, most of the R/S topics aren't worth by time, but this is simply because of one thing: They're actually discussing this in a calm and professional manner!!! Why can't everyone be more like them?!?

Anyway, I was thinking about reading that God is not Great book. I'm not sure. I don't read Non-fiction much if any, religious or not, but I'm still thinking...

Originally Posted by NonDualistic

I agree. It reminds me of Star Trek where Spock Died and came back and Told Doc McCoy basically that he had to die to be able to discuss death with him. Same sort of plateau is here with you and I. Unless you have experienced what I have that chasm isnt going to close.

Age has nothing to do with it. Look at Cloud. He's around your age and he knows just about exactly what I am talking about, probably more than anyone else on these forums.

Okay, fair enough. I would really be curious to hear what sort of experiences you've had which propelled you across this chasm in the first place, though. Was it a slow process of dawning realization? Was it an epiphany of some sort? Dreams, drugs, daily life?

Also, if you say that age has nothing to do with it, then is it safe to assume that ClouD has had some similar experiences? Or is it not the experiences themselves, but the frame of mind in which they are considered? There must be some fundamental difference here, between people like me and people like you. Could it really just be our experiences?

Originally Posted by SolSkye

There are dreams and then there are meditative experiences. They are not the same. I have the proof "I need". I know beyond all doubt.

I don't think I will ever reach a point in my lifetime where I am absolutely certain about anything beyond a doubt. Do you really mean this? How can you know that you aren't a brain in a vat, that all of this isn't just an illusion, or even that you didn't pop into existence five minutes ago with all of your memories in place? Is there no room for doubt?

Originally Posted by SolSkye

I myself am sure of the basics of where I stand and what I know. I am unyeilding in my own direct experiences.

Are you? You hinted earlier that you do not take the experiences you have in your dreams as seriously as those you have in real life (hopefully most of us don't). This, to me, implies that you do choose to ignore some experiences, or at least discount them as 'white noise' in the dark moments between consciousness. Surely this extends to some degree to daily life?

Originally Posted by SolSkye

Fair enough?

Quite

Originally Posted by thegnome54

Okay, fair enough. I would really be curious to hear what sort of experiences you've had which propelled you across this chasm in the first place, though. Was it a slow process of dawning realization? Was it an epiphany of some sort? Dreams, drugs, daily life?

First off no drugs. Never had the urge or need. Been drunk on two occasions in 42 years. Might have had just 2-3 wine coolers in the last 10 years, and nothing in the last 5.
I was willing to let go of the idea of embodied reality by the age of 8 or 10. From there it was a gradual process of expanding that willingness till meditative experiences began to happen at or around age 40. I had a "knowing" that at age 40 "things" were going to happen. I dont know how, just lets call it deep seated intuition, intuition that held true.
The gradual increase in willingness is what led to the "epiphanys" experience in meditation.
I have grown to see that it happens differently with everyone. It all depends on the time you spend cultivating the willingness and the "letting go-ness" of the physical perception. Some persons seem disposed to immediate realzation at an early age, others take a lifetime, most , it is said, never get there in a single lifetime.


Bear in mind I am not writing so as to provoke argument or such. Just trying to help you see where I am and why by answering some of your inquiries.

Also, if you say that age has nothing to do with it, then is it safe to assume that ClouD has had some similar experiences? Or is it not the experiences themselves, but the frame of mind in which they are considered? There must be some fundamental difference here, between people like me and people like you. Could it really just be our experiences?

Kind of as I said above, it is the frame of mind that brings on the experiences. Its the degree of willingness, or even predisposition to being willing and open to believing, not necesarily the believing itself that brings this on. I want to say more, but I really dont know how to word it at the moment. Maybe later.

I don't think I will ever reach a point in my lifetime where I am absolutely certain about anything beyond a doubt. Do you really mean this? How can you know that you aren't a brain in a vat, that all of this isn't just an illusion, or even that you didn't pop into existence five minutes ago with all of your memories in place? Is there no room for doubt?

On the state of Rigpa, or the primordial state of immaterial being, the stae of Non-Duality or whatever label one wishes to assign it, This I have no doubt , none whatsoever. I know it as I am it, just as I know this body and the state of being a physical person. Everything in between I am yet exploring, so yes, in that one ara of the three states or three aspects of Being, there is likely doubt here and there, but it too is getting whittled away at gradually day by day.

Are you? You hinted earlier that you do not take the experiences you have in your dreams as seriously as those you have in real life (hopefully most of us don't). This, to me, implies that you do choose to ignore some experiences, or at least discount them as 'white noise' in the dark moments between consciousness. Surely this extends to some degree to daily life?



Quite

Yes Iam, in the context of the answer I just gave above.

I do take experiences in dreams seriously, it is the context that is slowly being more understood all the time. I will have to explain this more later as I need to leave right now. Till then, go read the latest entry in my dream journal and you will see how I am starting to understand the context of my dreaming. Lets not get deabting in my journal though. Please start a new topic and let me know about it if you want to discuss. Might be best so as not to tie up this thread anymore as well.

Cool, I have the same outlook on drugs (including alcohol), but amusingly enough, I base this on my belief that there is nothing but the physical. This, to me, means that I am my body. I'd rather not mess with the very essence of my being.

Originally Posted by NonDualistic

Its the degree of willingness, or even predisposition to being willing and open to believing, not necesarily the believing itself that brings this on.

This answers all of my questions to some degree.

I think it's just a matter of how we approach the world. I am fairly methodical (though less than you might think from what I say on these forums) in the ways I go about gathering knowledge of the world. I will not accept something like a 'meditational experience' as a valid way of gaining new knowledge, because I believe that these things occur entirely within our brains. Obviously, some people do - this is the fundamental difference between us.

That being said, I don't believe that I will ever reach a point where I believe in the non-physical without some sort of extremely powerful scientific proof.

I could be wrong, though.