• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Between Atheism and mysticism?

Hindus (yes, I'm generalising, there are exceptions) are definitely not trying to persuade others of our view. We're quite content that this planet has great diversity. it is possible to hold a larger perspective that there are many views, each suited to the needs of a particular mindset. It makes for less discussion along these lines. I could care less if people agree with me.

Do you care if i agree with what your saying here?

In fact, you're just as likely to be told to stick with your own faith than not.

Should people be told to stick to a harmful faith? Like violence, rape, crazy practices?

Mystically, according to mystic tradition, the experience absolutely is diminished when you speak of it.

How is it deminished?

That's why when somebody says, 'I'm enlightened" almost everyone knows they're not. If they were, it would be nigh impossible to say that.

Ok, are there exceptions to that? What if say someone asked you "are you enlightened?" And you knew you wer, would it be wrong to say "yes"? I think it be wrong to say "no" if you knew you wer, because then you'd be lying. Right?

That said, I have shared certain things with close friends, Boss, or my Gurus. It is okay to share things with the Guru, as they would have already experienced the same thing. But it's not important to them either, more just chit chat, unless it's of a negative nature, and the can help.

Ok, i gotcha.

Very different paradigms.

Which Christian denomination do you follow?

None. I just read, experience, think critically and thats it. I sometimes go to church, one right up the road from where i live. But, most times i dont due to the nature of my job. The one up the rd happens to be methodist.
 

Riders

Well-Known Member
Not addressed at me, but Sax tried, so I guess I might as well..

I side with the folks that are giving the most reasonable arguments. I'm not an atheist, obviously, but when looking in on a debate between atheists and a particular type of theist, I often see the atheist making far more sense. I find it less common in atheism to be stuck in a dogmatic inflexible 'I'm right and you're wrong' dualistic belief system.

And I am atheist to certain concepts of God, like the puppeteer one. Of the 3 general common paradigms, atheism, dharmic, and Abrahamic, i feel the odd man out is Abrahamic. There is more in common between atheist and dhamic than Abrahamic and dharmic.

Yes this is a good explanation!
 

Riders

Well-Known Member
In my version of Hinduism, Siva is God.

I see reasoned arguments on both sides of the atheist-theist debate. I also see unreasonable arguments on both sides. The arguments that are based on faith, not logic, but claimed to be logic, are unreasonable, in my view. I see no proof of God, period, that would apply to everyone. For me personally, my belief is personal, based on my experiences, not books, not someone else's experience.

I am considering visiting a Hindu Temple as well, and I know yall meditate and chant which is awesome.
 

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
They are 2 different belief systems or one is a lack of belief. I bring it up because to be honest I agree a lot usually 100 percent with Atheists who challenge the belief in God, but i am not an Atheist.

The thing is, my God of my own understanding is my own inner Godself, part of me that is super human and also a God that is a part of nature,and I do believe a power in nature that is super human.

Do if i pray to God, its my own higher self or Nature based.

I also believe in spirits, ghosts and mystical experiences, people who feel led to tell me something I need to know, my feet being on the right path this kind of thing,I also believe in psychic powers.So mystical experiences and dreams yes.

There is a reason why I agree with Atheists a lot here.
Its because I do not believe there is any proof that there is a God, so I will not argue that with Atheists. There is no hell, so no need to change Atheists.

My proof of God is personal experiences with God, its private to me, so I believe. But there's no proof in this world that a God exists so. Just to clear up any misunderstanding of where I stand, I will stand on the side of Atheists in these arguments, however I am not an atheist.

I was asked if i still believe in the Holy Spirit up here not long ago, yes I still feel a God spirit that can take me over such as the Holy spirit at times and be moved by the spirit.But it does not come from a Christian Gidhead like it use to in church.My mystical experiences with dreams are part of that.
I think thats a more reasoned understanding rider.

Atheism is identical to belief in that what we think is primary, it is determining. Its like the doppleganger of belief. We tend to get very culturally stuck and spun into a kind of indivudual/collective fantasy if we are not careful.

I am very much an "experientalist". And a dandy little quote i picked up from carl rigers is a bit of a personal mantra for me.


"Experience is, for me, the highest authority. The touchstone of validity is my own experience. No other person's ideas, and none of my own ideas, are as authoritative as my experience. It is to experience that I must return again and again, to discover a closer approximation to truth as it is in the process of becoming in me. Neither the Bible nor the prophets -- neither Freud nor research -- neither the revelations of God nor man -- can take precedence over my own direct experience. My experience is not authoritative because it is infallible. It is the basis of authority because it can always be checked in new primary ways. In this way its frequent error or fallibility is always open to correction."

I think the above is a very difficult thing for most people. And that is a level of self reflection and hopefully a development of self awareness that most never both to do. We tend to be creatures of both habit and habitat.
I now place a primacy on my habitat and it effects my habits, and those habits develop towards a larger embrace of my habitat. The habitate in-forms me, and as it informs an am formed within, and my words are an external expression of that informing in me.

You taste an orange i taste an orange two different external expressions but a singular shared experience ti taste the orange. What is there to believ? What is ther to "not believe" and what is there to be agnostic about? Nothing its all inyellectual nonsense in regards to the simple act to eat an orange. If in such a simple act we can see the three have no validity and thus in a primary fundemental way it all has no validity at all, except to each other. I am not them.

View attachment 26423
 

Trip Bapho

Member
They are 2 different belief systems or one is a lack of belief. I bring it up because to be honest I agree a lot usually 100 percent with Atheists who challenge the belief in God, but i am not an Atheist.

The thing is, my God of my own understanding is my own inner Godself, part of me that is super human and also a God that is a part of nature,and I do believe a power in nature that is super human.

Do if i pray to God, its my own higher self or Nature based.

I also believe in spirits, ghosts and mystical experiences, people who feel led to tell me something I need to know, my feet being on the right path this kind of thing,I also believe in psychic powers.So mystical experiences and dreams yes.

There is a reason why I agree with Atheists a lot here.
Its because I do not believe there is any proof that there is a God, so I will not argue that with Atheists. There is no hell, so no need to change Atheists.

My proof of God is personal experiences with God, its private to me, so I believe. But there's no proof in this world that a God exists so. Just to clear up any misunderstanding of where I stand, I will stand on the side of Atheists in these arguments, however I am not an atheist.

I was asked if i still believe in the Holy Spirit up here not long ago, yes I still feel a God spirit that can take me over such as the Holy spirit at times and be moved by the spirit.But it does not come from a Christian Gidhead like it use to in church.My mystical experiences with dreams are part of that.

"Love tells me I am everything.. Wisdom says I am nothing. In between I live my life."
-Nisargadatta Maharaj

Both ways are correct. Just as much as everything is God.. Nothing is.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
I am considering visiting a Hindu Temple as well, and I know yall meditate and chant which is awesome.
Be prepared for something quite different than any Christian church. The two basic kinds of temples (South Indian versus North Indian styles) are substantialy different as well.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
Do you care if i agree with what your saying here?

Should people be told to stick to a harmful faith? Like violence, rape, crazy practices?

How is it deminished?

Ok, are there exceptions to that? What if say someone asked you "are you enlightened?" And you knew you wer, would it be wrong to say "yes"? I think it be wrong to say "no" if you knew you wer, because then you'd be lying. Right?

Ok, i gotcha.

None. I just read, experience, think critically and thats it. I sometimes go to church, one right up the road from where i live. But, most times i dont due to the nature of my job. The one up the rd happens to be methodist.

I don't care at all if you agree with me or not.

'Harmful faith' is subjective. I've been told my faith is harmful. But if somebody is into the stuff you're talking about, they need medical care, or to be detained.

It's diminished by an inner law. I'm speaking from experience. it's not logical.

An enlightened being would tactfully switch the topic.
 
I don't care at all if you agree with me or not.

Would you LIKE me to agree with you? Thats a different question then whether you care.

'Harmful faith' is subjective.

So a cult that sacrifices babies, rapes, kills, thats subjective? There is no objective morals?

I've been told my faith is harmful. But if somebody is into the stuff you're talking about, they need medical care, or to be detained.

Ok, so its NOT subjective then?

It's diminished by an inner law. I'm speaking from experience. it's not logical.

So its an inner law, not subjective then?

An enlightened being would tactfully switch the topic.

If an enlightened being wont hold anyone accountable, id not want to be a enlightened being then.

But, why wont an enlightened being not hold others accountable?

Also, define enlightened for me, if you would please.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
Would you LIKE me to agree with you? Thats a different question then whether you care.



So a cult that sacrifices babies, rapes, kills, thats subjective? There is no objective morals?



Ok, so its NOT subjective then?



So its an inner law, not subjective then?



If an enlightened being wont hold anyone accountable, id not want to be a enlightened being then.

But, why wont an enlightened being not hold others accountable?

Also, define enlightened for me, if you would please.

No, I would not like you to agree with me. It doesn't matter. But generally here, we're talking past each other. I see no value in continuing, so I'm gong to bow out. Best wishes.
 
No, I would not like you to agree with me.

Why would you state your views if you would like me not to agree with them?

It doesn't matter.

Why not?

But generally here, we're talking past each other. I see no value in continuing, so I'm gong to bow out. Best wishes.

Why is there no value?

I noticed too you do care about me agreeing to you bowing out. You do want me to agree to that, dont you? ;)
 
Last edited:

SalixIncendium

अग्निविलोवनन्दः
Staff member
Premium Member
Well of course they dont have to accept it. Thats there right. Reality will remain what it is without there acceptence.

Correction. Your reality will remain what it is without their acceptance.

Im just saying reality is bigger then atheism and they hold back science, not advance it.

The human races full potential would bloom greater with the acceptence of the full spectrum of reality.

Again, these are your opinions. There is nothing objectively factual about these statements.

But again, everyone has a choice, obviously.

This is the only accurate thing you said in this post.
 

SalixIncendium

अग्निविलोवनन्दः
Staff member
Premium Member
Why would you state your views if you would like me not to agree with them?

People state their views so you can understand their position. Whether you agree with it or not is of no consequence to those who are not in the habit of proselytizing.

I noticed too you do care about me agreeing to you bowing out. You do want me to agree to that, dont you? ;)

Why would one have to agree with this? I can bow out any time I wish without you agreeing to anything. I've done so with you in the past.

For some of us, getting the last word in is not all that important. It's the quality, not quantity, of what one says that is important.
 
Correction. Your reality will remain what it is without their acceptance.

Atheism and theism cannot be both real at the same time. One is real and that reality remains nomatter who accepts it or not. The weight of the evidence and from philosophical thought i think points to a God and a afterlife. Alot of times in debates, ive noticed the atheist position logically breaks down. They dont answer everything or account for everything. So, that in itself makes any inkling of doubt in me vanish.

Again, these are your opinions. There is nothing objectively factual about these statements.

Its not about proof, its about the weight of the evidence and logic. Im not claiming proof.

This is the only accurate thing you said in this post.

I dont agree.

People state their views so you can understand their position.

Theres just one problem with that and its a BIG one for me. He did not answer all my questions. So it can be hardly said he wants me to understand.

Whether you agree with it or not is of no consequence to those who are not in the habit of proselytizing.

Define proselytizing?

Also one more question: doesent everyone, directly or indirectly who debates, discusses, makes a thread want people to agree with there views? Why else would they use persuasive language otherwise? If your saying they dont care, then they sure look conflicted.

Why would one have to agree with this? I can bow out any time I wish without you agreeing to anything. I've done so with you in the past.

For some of us, getting the last word in is not all that important.

I bet you he would care if i kept pressing him. I see a conflict there. And thats me using my critical thinking skill, which i wont throw away for anyone.

Actually, your posts now show you want me to agree with you. Why else would you say what you do?
 
Last edited:

SalixIncendium

अग्निविलोवनन्दः
Staff member
Premium Member
Atheism and theism cannot be both real at the same time. One is real and that reality remains nomatter who accepts it or not. The weight of the evidence and from philosophical thought i think points to a God and a afterlife. Alot of times in debates, ive noticed the atheist position logically breaks down. They dont answer everything or account for everything. So, that in itself makes any inkling of doubt in me vanish.

Whether or not either is real depends on perspective, so I disagree. Both can be real at the same time.

Just because one doesn't have an answer for everything doesn't mean their argument breaks down. It simply means that there remain things that are unanswered. Atheists tend to understand and admit this. Some theists, not so much.

Its not about proof, its about the weight of the evidence and logic. Im not claiming proof.

It's about perspective based on experiential evidences.

I dont agree.

And that's fine. You don't have to. Are you getting it yet?

Theres just one problem with that and its a BIG one for me. He did not answer all my questions. So it can be hardly said he wants me to understand.

Perhaps he understands that there are things you won't understand either as a result of choice or experience.

Define proselytizing?

We can use the dictionary definition for the purpose of this discourse.

Also one more question: doesent everyone, directly or indirectly who debates, discusses, makes a thread want people to agree with there views? Why else would they use persuasive language otherwise? If your saying they dont care, then they sure look conflicted.

I have never debated with the desire to make someone agree with me, only for them to understand my position. What if I persuade someone to agree with my position, and it turns out my position is wrong.

It's pretty arrogant to go around thinking you're always right and everyone should agree with you, no?

I bet you he would care if i kept pressing him. I see a conflict there. And thats me using my critical thinking skill, which i wont throw away for anyone.

Never mind responding my last question. You just answered it here.
 
Last edited:
Whether or not they either is real depends on perspective, so I disagree. Both can be real at the same time.

How can both be real at the same time? Either an eternal God exists or he dont. To say God exists,then say he dont exist, thats a contradiction. How can that be true?

Just because one doesn't have an answer for everything doesn't mean their argument breaks down.

Oh but it does. And its probably pointless for me to just say so without getting into specifics. Which we can if you want.

It simply means that there remain things that are unanswered. Atheists tend to understand and admit this.

Some atheists perhaps. Not all thats for sure.

Some theists, not so much.

An uncritical mindset plagues parts of the human race, theists, despite there correct position are not immune to an uncritical mind.

It's about perspective based on experiential evidences.

Yea, but, perspective dont MAKE something real or unreal. Reality is what it is nomatter who believes it. Reality is objective.

And that's fine. You don't have to. Are you getting it yet?

I already did, everyone has a choice, so do you. I think you should agree with me because im right. However, you have your choice. You think i should agree with you, but you act like you dont care if i do. That part i dont understand.

Perhaps he understands that there are things you won't understand either as a result of choice or experience.

And how does he understand that? Thats a judgement upon me. He dont know me, yet acts as if he does. Im basically saying 'try me and see if i understand'. You cant assume others will not understand. Just answer questions and find out. Heck, you may even find out your wrong because youl cone up and hit a intellectual wall and not be able to answer something.

We can use the dictionary definition for the purpose of this discourse.

I have never debated with the desire to make someone agree with me, only for them to understand my position.

Ok, so you WANT THEM to understand your position, right? To fully understand a position is the same to agree with it.

Everything your saying in these posts to me, dont you say them because deep inside, somewhere you want me to agree?

What if I persuade someone to agree with my position, and it turns out my position is wrong.

As soon as it turns out wrong, then you just change position, swiftly.

It's pretty arrogant to go around thinking you're always right and everyone should agree with you, no?

Its pretty lying to ourselves to go around thinking we dont want or care if others agree with our views, yet we keep spouting them off, no?

So, yes, i believe in my views so strongly, i truely believe what i do, that, yes, i think it be logical for everyone to agree with me.

However, there is still that small inkling of doubt in the back of my head that says i could be wrong. Unlikely, but, yes, could be.

If i had zero doubt, then id not even debate period. Why? Because it be akin to debating whether trees grow out of the ground. I would never debate that due to having zero doubt trees grow out of the ground.
 
@Jollybear, I'm quite curious what "mystic" means to you? Could you help me understand that, please?

Mystic to me is embracing the full experience of reality. And it utilizes all aspects of reality.

So, spiritual experiences to gain knowledge of God or the soul. It also does not reject the intellect either, because it understands that the intellect is made also by God. God did not just make the spiritual, he made the physical too.
 
Top