Turn on thread page Beta

I used to be a hard-line Athiest, turns out I was just misunderstanding God all along watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    I don't believe in anything written about God that is man-made. I am a Deist.

    I stopped believing in God when I was about 10. I stopped praying in school and denounced it as hogwash. I loved science, and thought I was smarter and more enlightened than people who believe in an 'invisible man living in the sky' and asking moronic questions like 'If God it real why does he cause car crashes'...

    That was until I turned 20 - I started thinking about the whole concept of God and religion more intricately. The more I learned about science and perceived life in general, the more I realised that there is no way that life and the universe is just random, that consciousness in random, that everything has no meaning.

    For example, when I debate my friend who studies Physics about the Big Bang Theory, he says that everything comes from 'randomness'. But how can that logically make sense? First there was nothing at all, then particles appeared out of nowhere, then for no reason enacted upon each other, then for no reason created everything out of nothing, then expands its newly created space for no reason? It makes absolutely no sense and was quite astounded how he merely regurgitated what he was 'taught' without questioning it.

    I'm 22 now. I read Jacob Boehme, Thomas Aquinas, Nietzsche, Jung... and I found my answer. Life is like a seed, and the universe is its soil - however God is the seed, is also the soil, and is also the elements that are required to create life. Its only function is to create life. Our consciousness, particles, everything that has matter in this universe must have come from a single point - the big bang, as everything in the universe is bound by a great chain of events that have always existed. That chair? That was made from wood, which comes from a tree.. .etc. That means that everything that has matter is related - is one. We were born in the universe, therefore we ARE the universe, experiencing itself subjectively. We are all God, because our consciousness is also the consciousness of a rat, of a spider and of a tree. Our brains are so intricate, that we are able to understand the world around us, which is a 'gift' from those particles that existed billions of years ago.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    What you're describing there is more akin to pantheism, not deism.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lionheart27)
    For example, when I debate my friend who studies Physics about the Big Bang Theory, he says that everything comes from 'randomness'. But how can that logically make sense? First there was nothing at all, then particles appeared out of nowhere, then for no reason enacted upon each other, then for no reason created everything out of nothing, then expands its newly created space for no reason? It makes absolutely no sense and was quite astounded how he merely regurgitated what he was 'taught' without questioning it.
    So you've gone from being a hardline atheist who pompously regarded himself as "smarter and more enlightened" than religious people, to a hardline pantheist (as above, you've got the wrong "ism" for yourself) who pompously regards himself as smarter and more enlightened than atheists? Including on the subject of physics, over a physics student?

    My, how you've grown :yy:
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Oh boy, this is going to be good.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gofre)
    So you've gone from being a hardline atheist who pompously regarded himself as "smarter and more enlightened" than religious people, to a hardline pantheist (as above, you've got the wrong "ism" for yourself) who pompously regards himself as smarter and more enlightened than atheists? Including on the subject of physics, over a physics student?

    My, how you've grown :yy:
    I was only sharing my experience, which you seem enthusiastic to shoot down for whatever pathetic reason. I had no idea about 'pantheism' which is why I didn't mention it.

    I said I was debating the philosophical aspect of physics, in which there is no answer, and to which I said I was surprised how he felt. I never said I was more enlightened with anyone, only that I previously thought I was.

    I suggest you actually read posts before commenting on them in future.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lionheart27)
    I was only sharing my experience, which you seem enthusiastic to shoot down for whatever pathetic reason.
    Because you devoted an entire paragraph giving an inaccurate "explanation" of how the universe formed, said that it made no sense (which, given how incorrectly you described it, is technically true), then insulted your friend and his education by accusing him of regurgitating without questioning. I just thought it was ironic that you talked about being pompous and ill informed and asking stupid questions during your time as an atheist, before displaying exactly the same traits in your newfound belief system under the guise of newfound enlightenment.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gofre)
    Because you devoted an entire paragraph giving an inaccurate "explanation" of how the universe formed, said that it made no sense (which, given how incorrectly you described it, is technically true), then insulted your friend and his education by accusing him of regurgitating without questioning. I just thought it was ironic that you talked about being pompous and ill informed and asking stupid questions during your time as an atheist, before displaying exactly the same traits in your newfound belief system under the guise of newfound enlightenment.
    So your problem with my little story is that you think I'm rude for 'insulting' my friend (which I didn't at all, I said to him that I was surprised and we debated and we laughed about it because we were both high at the time) and that I'm 'pompous' for discovering happiness in a new belief system?

    What a presumptive, condescending and arrogant person you truly are. I sense quite a bit of inferiority complex projection too. Go bother someone else.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lionheart27)
    So your problem with my little story is that you think I'm rude for 'insulting' my friend (which I didn't at all, I said to him that I was surprised and we debated and we laughed about it because we were both high at the time) and that I'm 'pompous' for discovering happiness in a new belief system?
    No, I think you sounded pompous for criticising your friend's worldview, and forming your own (which you couldn't even accurately define), based on your own completely warped notions of the subject he is studying.

    What a presumptive, condescending and arrogant person you truly are.
    Again, I was just pointing out the irony that you see yourself as having been pompous as an atheist before exhibiting equal levels of pomposity post-atheism too.

    I sense quite a bit of inferiority complex projection too. Go bother someone else.
    No worries, I won't reply again :yy:
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    I used to have my atheistic/agnostic years as well
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    That's very interesting. I enjoyed reading that.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lionheart27)
    I don't believe in anything written about God that is man-made. I am a Deist.

    I stopped believing in God when I was about 10. I stopped praying in school and denounced it as hogwash. I loved science, and thought I was smarter and more enlightened than people who believe in an 'invisible man living in the sky' and asking moronic questions like 'If God it real why does he cause car crashes'...

    That was until I turned 20 - I started thinking about the whole concept of God and religion more intricately. The more I learned about science and perceived life in general, the more I realised that there is no way that life and the universe is just random, that consciousness in random, that everything has no meaning.

    For example, when I debate my friend who studies Physics about the Big Bang Theory, he says that everything comes from 'randomness'. But how can that logically make sense? First there was nothing at all, then particles appeared out of nowhere, then for no reason enacted upon each other, then for no reason created everything out of nothing, then expands its newly created space for no reason? It makes absolutely no sense and was quite astounded how he merely regurgitated what he was 'taught' without questioning it.

    I'm 22 now. I read Jacob Boehme, Thomas Aquinas, Nietzsche, Jung... and I found my answer. Life is like a seed, and the universe is its soil - however God is the seed, is also the soil, and is also the elements that are required to create life. Its only function is to create life. Our consciousness, particles, everything that has matter in this universe must have come from a single point - the big bang, as everything in the universe is bound by a great chain of events that have always existed. That chair? That was made from wood, which comes from a tree.. .etc. That means that everything that has matter is related - is one. We were born in the universe, therefore we ARE the universe, experiencing itself subjectively. We are all God, because our consciousness is also the consciousness of a rat, of a spider and of a tree. Our brains are so intricate, that we are able to understand the world around us, which is a 'gift' from those particles that existed billions of years ago.
    Sikhism and I'm pretty sure branches of Hinduism say this.

    Sikhism says:

    God in Himself, God in relation to creation, and God in relation to man. God by himself is the one Ultimate, Transcendent Reality, Nirguna (without attributes), Timeless, Boundless, Formless, Ever-existent, Immutable, Ineffable, All-by Himself and even Unknowable in His entirety. During a discourse with Hindu recluses, Guru Nanak in reply to a question as to where the Transcendent God was before the stage of creation replies, "To think of the Transcendent Lord in that state is to enter the realm of wonder. Even at that stage of sunn, he permeated all that Void" (SGGS, 940). This is the state of God's sunn samadhi, self-absorbed trance.

    When it pleases God, He becomes sarguna (Sanskrit saguna, with attributes) and manifests Himself in creation.He becomes immanent in His created universe, which is His own emanation, an aspect of Himself. As says Guru Amar Das, Nanak III, "This (so-called) poison, the world, that you see is God's picture; it is God's outline that we see" (SGGS, 922).
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Very interesting, thank you. I'll have to read up on this!
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lionheart27)
    Very interesting, thank you. I'll have to read up on this!
    I admit that description is confusing, I didn't really look for a better one, I'm sorry! But I've heard a lot of sikh prayers/teachings say things like "God is within everything, even a grain of sand, a leaf on a tree etc".

    I'm not well versed in a lot of it I'm afraid but a lot of things make sense to me, and I used to be a STRICT athiest too. You can see my older posts where I'm blatantly refusing any idea or concept of God, but I think personally and no disrespect but personally the only God I grew up hearing about was the abrahamic Gods. So when learning about sikhism, a lot of it took me by surprise. The idea that God is in everything and everyone, the idea that god is formless and not a man in the sky I should call Father was interesting to me. I'm agnostic these days. I'd rather be open minded about these things because life is a bit boring when you dismiss everything straight off the bat.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gofre)
    So you've gone from being a hardline atheist who pompously regarded himself as "smarter and more enlightened" than religious people, to a hardline pantheist (as above, you've got the wrong "ism" for yourself) who pompously regards himself as smarter and more enlightened than atheists? Including on the subject of physics, over a physics student?

    My, how you've grown :yy:
    You look like you're enjoying that drink
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lionheart27)
    Very interesting, thank you. I'll have to read up on this!
    http://www.hinduwebsite.com/sikhism/...in-sikhism.asp

    This is less confusing.

    I understand what you mean when you say "randomness", how can it all just happen randomly and then there is ofcourse the fact that life can be sustained on this planet? I mean creating something is one thing, but then having enough resources to sustain life is another.

    Sikhism intrigues me, I know people more and more often frown upon religion but I think we should be open minded and try and learn about what different religions say about the world and God, we may just be taken by surprise
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheonlyMrsHolmes)
    Sikhism and I'm pretty sure branches of Hinduism say this.

    Sikhism says:

    God in Himself, God in relation to creation, and God in relation to man. God by himself is the one Ultimate, Transcendent Reality, Nirguna (without attributes), Timeless, Boundless, Formless, Ever-existent, Immutable, Ineffable, All-by Himself and even Unknowable in His entirety. During a discourse with Hindu recluses, Guru Nanak in reply to a question as to where the Transcendent God was before the stage of creation replies, "To think of the Transcendent Lord in that state is to enter the realm of wonder. Even at that stage of sunn, he permeated all that Void" (SGGS, 940). This is the state of God's sunn samadhi, self-absorbed trance.

    When it pleases God, He becomes sarguna (Sanskrit saguna, with attributes) and manifests Himself in creation.He becomes immanent in His created universe, which is His own emanation, an aspect of Himself. As says Guru Amar Das, Nanak III, "This (so-called) poison, the world, that you see is God's picture; it is God's outline that we see" (SGGS, 922).
    Slight accuracy note - saguṇa, not sarguna as there is no long 'a' (ā)totransliterate in the original Skt. rendering.

    You are right re some branches of Hinduism holding this - notably Advaiata Vedānta (non-dualism). The problem is that if god is ultimately nirguṇa (without attributes; one; Absolute), then God can't actually 'will' anything, as will is a volitional act that presupposes at least some attributes. On this reading, what is the difference between 'nature' lacking conscious attributions and 'god'?

    The usual way out is to say that ultimately, we can't say anything about god, as god is beyond verbalisation. How convincing you find this is a different matter. If we can't say anything, it seems to me like we shouldn't bother postulating the existence in the first instance.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNgCMoyUc0s watch it yeah it should make you firmer in your beliefs
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    So you say that you believe in a creator because you don't think the Universe could be randomly created. Ok, but then who created the creator?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    The finite cannot understand the infinite.

    Just because we don't yet know how it all started doesn't mean we need to place some mystical being in it's place.

    Your argument is essentially the same as someone thousands of years going 'The sun rises in the morning - sets at night? How could this possibly happen without a creator"
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by unomie)
    The finite cannot understand the infinite.

    Just because we don't yet know how it all started doesn't mean we need to place some mystical being in it's place.

    Your argument is essentially the same as someone thousands of years going 'The sun rises in the morning - sets at night? How could this possibly happen without a creator"
    We understand infinities pretty well actually.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: April 28, 2017
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.