God does not exist

The point is that they do not admit to there being no proof of God's existence. They make the very erroneous statement of you have no proof he does not exist.

 

Kind of a bombastic statement.
It is enough to learn from the present that the choice you make in this moment is influential to the next. To have a future different from the past, we make a different choice in the present.

We are not an accumulation in the sense of the dust of time although our minds are full of dusty accumulations which have no bearing whatsoever on the potentials of the moment. The history of any one mans life is sufficiently edifying to that man if he pays attention to his own presence and it's changes over time.

Historic lessons trap you in time because they are again and again the choice to view the world from old perspectives. History is a running commentary that is repeated not because the lessons of the past have not been learned, but because people keep blathering on about the significance their past.

The question of how we mark time is related fundamentally as to whether or not there is a good or a god that we can apprehend for ourselves.

 

It is always best to live in the now. However, to state that nothing can be learned from the past is to essentially state that it is okay to repeat wrongdoings. Ignorance is never the answer, because learning how to live for the moment and responsibly learning to not repeat past mistakes is essential to creating a moral personality.

 

the proof will be very specific unto you

 

Yes. God does not exist.

 

That is not what I said. I said nothing happens in the past. Further you think it is because people do not learn the lessons from the past that history is repeated. That is not what occurs. One dynamic is, we choose again and again a course until we learn the lesson that course has to teach. Another dynamic of the phenomena of history being repeated is that it recurs as some form of retribution, that is mistakes must be atoned for. This kind kind of historical score keeping insures that the past maintains integrity in the present. It doesn't allow us to make a different choice in the present.

 

The former dynamic is false. Those who are willing to understand humanity know that future mistakes can be prevented through learning from the past mistakes others made. The only reason mistakes are repeated is due to a desire for power and greed. As for the karma aspect, it seems that that karma is as useless an ideal as god. Neither fit into a logical ideal of the working universe.

 

Our lessons are personal. An abused girlfriend or spouse often chooses again and again the abuse although the history of abuse in her life be starkly overt.

We don't learn from mistakes but from the relinquishment of mistaken choices.
It is not the problem that teaches, but the solution. We learn from successful courses not from mistakes. History does not change except in the present.

It is the idea of karma that you espouse when you say we are doomed to repeat the past if we do not learn the lesson it teaches. And, I agree the idea of karma is useless when it is viewed as a linear progression but is relevant in the sense of this instant. This is always as good as it gets. Any moment is equal to how you entertain it.
All exchanges of energy are equal. For every action there is an equal and complementary action. The measure you give is the measure you receive.
Doesn't seem out of place in a logical ideal of the working universe.

 

All lessons are public, because there is no single lesson no one in the history of the world has not experienced. I suppose your reference to remaining blind to perfecting one's self could be compared to religion so far as that the religiously minded are also victims of abuse.

 

THAT should have been the title of your thread - because that invites meaningful discussion. Arrogantly stating that god(s) don't exist is not a good way to invite meaningful discussion.

 

They are public in the sense of our common humanity, but our complaints are purely personal luxuries that each of us feels we can afford. We share our thoughts but our personal views are a kingdom we alone can rule.

There are no victims. There are no perpetrators. There is energetic exchange and in human terms, the abstract process of mind is the mercantile of experience. No one is in fact, irresponsible.

 

If there is no arrogance in stating that God does exist when the only proof is subjective faith, then your point is born of ignorance.

 

Good point. Fortunately he is not alone and we can move beyond calcified crystalizations of the mind.

 

That is most certainly a statement of ignorance. Anyone can be irresponsible. Most people are. Irresponsibility is a veritable right of passage, for children in today's society seem to no longer need to understand anything except how to misbehave. Humanity evolves and so does the mind, but people fail to understand that a better chance in society through technology does not mean the family unit needs less attention.

 

I've never started a thread on this forum claiming that God existed, because I know I can't prove it. One thing I do know, with absolute certainty, that no one alive on this planet today can prove that god does or does not exist. You're free to make a blanket statement like this, but unless you do a much, much better job of supporting your position - you're position is as faith based as any other, and you know it.

 

Agnosticism is not certainty. It is mere cowardice. There is no proof that god does exist. Until such proof can be given, god does not exist. Science works in this fashion. Until it can be proven, it is merely a hypothesis. Science does work to prove something rather than ask for blind faith.

 

Obviously you did not comprehend the import of what I said.
We are each responsible for the nature of our own experience. You can claim irresponsibility toward each other in the sense of meeting agreements but the claim would not be true. The world appears to you as it it does because of your agreement to have it so, and if someone says to you the world is not such, you would defend that it is.

There is one evident morality, the instinct for self preservation/extension and the degree to which that morality provides protection for us all, is our level of identification. We are innately protective of me and mine and willing to exterminate that which is not me or mine.

 

Ditto

 

In the same turn as we do to others we do also to ourselves. Aggressor and defender are equal constituents in battle. As we individually increasingly become aware of our effects we may together rise above the battle field.

 

I tend to disagree with certain aspects of mysticism that have no grounds in reality. I have learned that the way I treat others has absolutely no impact on how my life progresses. The very same is provable in real life. There are truly evil corporate people who mistreat the poor in order to greedily increase their monetary gains, yet nothing bad happens to them. They naturally die old, happy, rich.