Dana

Hello, I am sorry if that meme has hurt your feelings... I didn't mean that... it was not directed towards a person like you... I just posted it...okay, theism is belief in God... if a person does not believe in God, then how would you create curiosity about non-duality in everyone who doesn't believe in God? You cannot explain nothingness or Buddhism philosophy to everyone and a billion common people/folks... Theism is a solution to the cycle of questions and answers... Theists define themselves with reference to God. Besides, you are connecting intolerance, persecution and caste-ism to theism... Theism is not about all these social issues, or it does not necessarily cause these social problems... Such social issues are possible in atheistic countries too... Social issues are independent of belief in God. They can arise in the case of atheists too. I think you are objecting to the idea of religions that divide people and a group of people who oppose any idea which is other than monotheism... Theism is not about dividing... It is about internal belief in God... God is just a word given to a combination of peaceful, lovable, forgiving, kind, infinite and omnipresent consciousness (which theists assume to be different and personal)... If you are objecting to such a belief, then what are you suggesting to people to do? 

  what would define the boundaries of humans morality? if people stop believing in God and if there is no fear of God, then how would you control all human beings from committing crimes and evil things? ...Concepts like Good and Bad are relative to each other like two sides of same coin... if one side cease to exist then other side will also cease to exist... 

In my view, sweeping away all that delusive religious nonsense--that has caused so much trouble historically--is the first step toward seeking truth of any kind, whether scientific or spiritual. I think belief in God has likely caused as much moral injustice and social problems as it has mitigated such things.

 

1) i do not represent Nana Yiadom, and his opinions are irrelevant to me as well as to you. I will not call all religious belief as nonsense... if I make a statement, that will create the assumption that I have superior knowledge and that knowledge makes sense from all perspectives. All the theories in the bible like— >> creation in 6 days, actually Adam and Eve in a Garden somewhere, a supernatural talking snake tempting Eve, virgin birth, walking on water, bodily resurrection<<-- even if they are assumed to be fictional and metaphorical, but they serve the purpose of directing an individual towards duality... They are not without purpose. Besides,, because of the infinite nature of time there will always be a cycle of questions and answers for every creation theory of the universe... Instead of searching for something that is impossible to understand, most of the religions have created their own theories of creation in order to fulfill the purpose of teaching the first stage (Duality) of understanding reality.

2) your this message ---------->>>> On the other end of the spectrum, for simple folk, there are kindly spiritual beings, essentially gender-less, who are deeply concerned about and merciful to those who pray to them. No one attempts to disabuse simple folk of such beliefs. However, no one is expected to believe these things either. All such things, and indeed all teachings of whatever grade in this scale are regarded merely as "expedient means," like specific medicines for particular conditions. <<<<---------- This is not different from theism... You are indirectly expressing theism in this part of your text. You are saying that theism can be allowed to reach a developed state of spirituality. Buddhism also has concepts like Dharmakaya and Tathagatagarbha as means to become one with reality...

3) Divine teachings/divine moral code are supposed to be a standard code for morality... They are established on the basis of the fact that humans are imperfect... and, of course, human beings use their self to make a choice about what rules they want to follow... I don't know why you think following moral codes will harm oneself and others. Your point of view still does not explain the lack of necessity of the divine moral code. Empathy itself is divine moral code.... Without kindness empathy can not exist...  Kindness is an important first step on the road to empathy. 

4) From my perspective, Fear is not the opposite of empathy... apathy is the opposite of empathy. Fear of God is not related to individuals' empathy, and it does not stop human beings from loving other human beings. How would you suggest someone to develop a feeling of empathy and love? How are you planning to deliver all your teachings about empathy to billions of people? You must have an actual plan... The God you claim to be imaginary is not different from memories of people, and those memories cannot be said to be imaginary or fictional... also, the memory of all loving, kind, merciful, all powerful, compassionate, empathetic God cannot be said to be a cause of fear, harm and lack of empathy to others... I don't see any point in claiming otherwise.

5) As i know, atheism does not teaches anything about empathy towards animals. It's only revolves around rejecting existence of God. Lots of them are Non-vegetarian... Also, Theism is not related to sacrifice of animals... Theists or atheists can be vegetarian or non-vegetarian. We have to stop passing judgement on each other... Having belief in God does not mean that the believer is perfect... Also, there is a belief behind religious sacrifice—when an animal is sacrificed, it is said to be freed from the cycle of birth and death.

Besides, all this, you forgot to tell me how you would find a solution to the infinite nature of time.

Do you have all the answers to all the questions which arise due to the constant flux of time? I mean, there will always be questions to every statement you make. How would you describe reality without falling into infinite regress? For theists, they are fixated and focused on God accepting infinite nature of time. So I want to end our discussion as your point of view is more social-related. My perspective is more philosophical.