So the only person allowed to have the debate is the guru, and he's only allowed to win it. Decent job if you can get it.
Atheist and Theist why both are delusionals?
Thought
Thought
So the only person allowed to have the debate is the guru, and he's only allowed to win it. Decent job if you can get it.
Post content
We all know both are very polar opposite to each other so why is that both are delusionals?
First try to understand before coming at any conclusion. Both are delusionals because both are believers not the knowers or understanding this very concept.
A highly actually wise person never go into such a useless debate. What are the logics of both of the side when you ask them?
Everything is perfect there have to be god?
Everything is bad today worlds so there is no god? Why the world isn't beautiful?
Can you see something common in such type of claims?
Both comes from their perspective and a wise man who knows that will never take part in such a debate because such thing is energy driving with no actual merit to it.
Theist are still better. Why so?
Atleast the believer of God knows this much that they believe instead of claims that they know they claim to belive. So from this perspective they are 100 percent right.
But when you ask about a person who don't believes in God what are their takes? They claim to know right but they dont claim to believe.
So how do they know? Ask them give us evidence. And you will clearly see that how much crappy their wording will go and go. Like this or that. Most of them don't believe in god because of bad things happened to them not because they know. While few very actually logical ones claim because of there is god then there have to be creator of God? Or if god is all mighty why did he needed to create us?
See there are even two types of atheist one is asking crappy questions while other one ask actually meaningful and merit holding questions.
So from this perspective the right way of thinking is only to those two. Who two?
One who actually accept that they believe instead of claiming knowing. While other who also asked deep questions instead of crappy questions. Between these two types we have the most delusionals ones. The believer who believes that they know that God dint exist but when ask the logic they come up with crappy excuses.
So in this case yes both are delusionals. Only wise person genuinely ask questions like who is God. And the one who knows answers to this that because there is no such a thing as entity which creates anything because if there is no time then it simply means there is no creations. Which simply means no creator. You just have to understood that there is no such a thing as time. Once you actually understood it , ta dah you understood the fact there is no creator. I am the one who actually creates ( here I am the one means the seer not ego one)
This principle is also know as seer and creation law. You creates when you see. And a wise person who knows a fact that both side of claim that God exists or not are coming from two different perspectives so there is no need to go into such useless debate and trying to correct anyone. As I said people learn what they recived from their experience. So claiming that you are right or other person is wrong is completely delusional. Knowing that there will always be two different perspectives and both are right on their own way is much better wise person thing to do.
So first I would suggest you understand the concept of perspectives instead of going to such useless debates....
This debate can be done by only one person and who that can be? A guru or guide who is trying to make you to come back on track. So yeah guru would definately go toe to toe with you so that he can make you also wise man but not so that he can impose their perspectives upon you.
Why should a person who knows that each truth depends upon person to person experience will even try to hit head on wall for no such reasons?
Thoughts
-
Never seen one of these arguments change anybody at a family dinner. What changed people in my family was going through something. So I'm with you on skipping the debate, less sure about why.
-
So the only person allowed to have the debate is the guru, and he's only allowed to win it. Decent job if you can get it.
-
One sentence I'd push on: most atheists dropped God because something bad happened to them. Some, sure. The ones I know never had it to lose. Nobody raised them in it, so there was no wound, just Sundays with nothing planned.
-
I'd love to take the compliment for the believers but I can't. Plenty of us do say we know, not only believe. Hebrews 11 calls it assurance and conviction, and John writes so that you may know you have eternal life. So the line you drew between the two camps runs right through the church as well.
-
The seer and creation law, where you say you create when you see, makes me think of Krishnamurti and his line that the observer is the observed. I bet most people who come in here for the God fight will skip right past that part, and it is the most interesting idea in the post. Thanks for putting the whole reasoning out there :)
-
Augustine answered the no time point about sixteen hundred years ago: time was made along with the world, so asking what came before creation is like asking what lies north of the North Pole. That does not prove a creator, but it does mean no time and no creator are two separate claims.
The Eastern Christians I read go a step further and say God is not known as a fact at all, only met. That lands surprisingly close to your seer idea, just from the other side of the room.
Related posts
-
Is simulation theory just theism with extra steps?
One of the funniest intellectual developments of the last decade is watching aggressively secular people reinvent religion using computer terminology and then acting like this makes the idea more rational. Simulation theory is the clearest example. The basic concept is familiar by now, but I'll summarize: our universe might be an artificial simulation created by a vastly more advanced intelligence. Reality is likely programmed. Consciousness could exist inside a designed system. The laws of…
-
Why does Silicon Valley talk about death like it's a software bug?
One of the clearest signs that modern secular elite culture is uneasy about death is how Silicon Valley talks about it. The human body is treated like legacy hardware waiting for an upgrade. In place of acceptance, you get optimization: longevity startups, cryonics, extreme biohacking, and constant speculation about whether enough computation and biotech might eventually defeat death itself. Tech billionaires talk with pride about potentially transferring their consciousness to a computer, as…
-
Can Buddhist detachment really be the root of a good moral system?
One thing I have never been able to shake about Buddhism is that its moral vision seems to rest on a foundation that I regard as fundamentally mistaken. I am not talking about all the virtues it encourages. Non-violence is good, Self-control is good, patience is good. A refusal to be consumed by greed or anger is obviously good. Christians should be able to acknowledge virtues wherever they find them. My concern is with the principle underneath those virtues.
-
Is therapy just confession with the theology stripped out?
One of the funniest things about secular modern culture is watching people reinvent Christianity piece by piece while acting intellectually superior the entire time. People abandoned confession and now pay someone $240 plus taxes an hour to listen to them describe their guilt in a softly lit room. They abandoned sin and replaced it with "unprocessed trauma." They abandoned repentance and replaced it with "doing the work." They abandoned examination of conscience and replaced it with journaling…
-
Do conservatives actually own the Church?
I am tired of conservatives acting like they own the Church. They do not. The Church is older than the political right, older than trad nostalgia, older than the American culture war, and older than the faction that keeps trying to turn its own instincts into orthodoxy. If you look at Christian history instead of clinging to one preferred snapshot of it, the record points the other way.
-
Does atheism make you more rational, or just leave a void you fill badly?
One of the common atheist temptations is to confuse unbelief with clarity, to assume that religion is the irrational part, so removing religion must leave behind a cleaner and more rational human being. But human beings do not work that way, human beings operate through beliefs, emotions... We do not stop wanting ritual, purity, moral tribe, sense of sacredness or transcendent meaning just because we stop using religious language for those desires.
-
Should we judge Christianity against what came before it, not against what it built?
One of the stranger habits of modern discussion is that Christianity is often judged exclusively against twenty-first-century moral standards while its alternatives are judged against the Christianity that helped shape those standards in the first place. This does not mean Christianity is innocent of wrongdoing. Religious wars happened. Churches accumulated power. Christians persecuted one another. Any honest reading of history has to acknowledge that. The question is whether Christianity made…
-
Were people really any dumber in the past?
There is a habit in modern thinking that treats the past as a kind of half-awake state, as if the Age of Enlightenment woke us up. People imagine ancient societies as crowded with superstition, as if belief itself was less disciplined before modern science arrived to rescue it. It is a comforting story because it makes the present feel like an intellectual peak rather than just another arrangement of limits and assumptions.
Public
7 conversations
13 thoughts
40 upvotes
0 downvotes
0 series
We all know both are very polar opposite to each other so why is that both are delusionals?