How many people have a knowledge of how to exercize and to eat well. Most poeple want to be healthy. We know that if we live a healthy lifestyle are chances of living longer and being physically active and healthier are greatly enhanced. But at least two thirds of the populations have issues with being over weight. Our government considers this to be an epidemic. Yet it is not being overwieght that is the issue or disease. It is only the effect of not living within the perimeters of health.

There is knowledge but we do not act on the knowledge. Perhaps it is because the value of health is not worth the price of giving up our habits and of our inactive lifestyle. We also concern ourselves too much with wieght loss where that becomes our goal which can only be short term and time after time only leads us into failure.

What is knowledge without transformation. We know something but are unable to perform it because it is against our very nature. Try to become patient and you will find that you cannot. Try not to be angry and you in time will find that no matter what you do the anger will exist in you. It is throught gaining a different perspective and understanding that will result in the change of your intentions and actions because you have chnaged from within.

Religion, I beleive deals with our entirety: our heart, body, mind and soul. It deals with our emotions, it does not deny them but helps us to be able to make choices about what feeling we wishes to pursue. It deals with our minds so that we understand in filling our thoughts with good thoughts, pure thoughts, good thoughts for others without any intention of harm, we find we are not only more at peace with other, but also within ourselves.

It seems that there is so much debate about things that deal so little with our lives, that we get lost in the usefulness of our thoughts, and focus.

I started losing everything when you starting talk ing about a rose. Might as way just say a rose by any other name would still smell as sweet. Perhaps even a rose is not just a rose, because in delights the senses and is an item of beauty. Bring a bouguet of roses to some woman and they melt in delight. If we are to think of a rose, how can we not think of its beauty, velvety color, and its sweet smell.

Our thoughts have the power to change our lives, they are the key to transformation. I wonder too, what if we would think together on things, to expand our thoughts and the possisbilities of where they could lead us. I beleive thoughts are not about knowlegde but about finding paths to understanding. A path is a continuation, to often our thoughts stop short of the end for there perhaps is no end to a thought but it can keep leading us to higher and nobler paths yet to be found.

I believe your genuine nature has just shown through Mind... I can definitely relate to much of what you said...

I have a few considerations though...




In some ways... yes. Although there is much to consider. In todays society, how many choices does one truly have as far as diet goes? It has to do with convenience also. Not many grow, harvest, and prepare all of the food they consume. Who has the time? The FDA has 'approved' all of the foods that kill you for manufacture and distribution. Tax dollars hard at work.







'We' ???? Our government???? Our people???? Our schools???? Ourselves???? I would say it is all a part of the capitalistic pie.

Our government knows that there are things killing people that are being made, marketed, and sold and have been for many years. The promotion and sales of such items are dollars to the government, and the medical industry... It is all about the almighty dollar. An absolute necessity to the American way of life. It is the lesser of the 'evils'. Our choice to engage, and their profit when we do.






This conclusion I concur is indeed true. It is the supporting evidence which lacks merit. Trying to achieve a better personal disposition does not always end in failure.







I believe religion deals with that which one does not understand. To me, it is an a personal acceptance measure which helps ease one's mind of worry while helping to gain understanding of that which causes worry. Used for good purposes, it brings about good manifestation, and vice-versa. I would like to see more people identifying themselves with it, rather than identifying everyone else with it.






What things do you speak of here? You mentioned obesity and religion. I am fairly certain you are not referring to religion with this statement.I do not think I understand what you are saying with this sentence.






A rose's symbolic effect on a woman is not equal to it's description, although it does increase our knowledge of a rose in an abstract way. We know what it is by recognizing it's various properties, which include sensory perception. Abstract meaning to a woman is just that and is individually subjective to self.

I once bought roses for an ex and she asked me what I had done wrong. It was the first and last
ones...






This I completely agree with... absolutely...

What kinds of things would you like to talk about?

Rolo's and unicycles




So sorry ... rough day and I couldn't resist being a bit of a brat ... I haven't read the thread yet ... 'I got nuthin'

So – when one claims to have knowledge of God would they say?

I have clear, distinct, and adequate knowledge, of an intuitive nature, of God. (based on the way it makes one feel)

OR

I have clear, distinct, and adequate knowledge based on symbolism, of God. (reference Biblical and miricles)

OR

I some obscure knowledge of God, but no personal experience with the theory, or the being.

OR

I have only the knowledge of others to go on, so in reference to God, my knowledge is confused.


Can and would all of those apply?
If so, what does this tell us about our ability to have 'knowledge' of God?

Abracabra, you truly have an amazing mind. Soemtimes I know I am a bit simple, but simplicaity has it place and can do well. But with a mind like yours, perhaps there is no limit.

You wrote on another topic that religion and polictics have merged in some sense and that we must deal with this accordingly, or something to that affect, yet people use religion to manipulate, to attack, to gather support. Government it really ought not to have religion in it at all. Governemnt should not be Christian though it can take on some of its truths as in other religions. But we cannot legislate morality or beliefs. Government is for function, for order, for protection against the harm and oppression of others even against the oppression of Christians.

There really is not concept of a Christian nation, Christians are citizens of the Kingdom of Christ, His kigdom will never be of this world. The early Christians had no desire to make Roman a Christian nation. Yet a Christian can be in office and function in that position as a Christian, and maybe he can evangelize when he is not working but his job is not to evangelize others while he is at work, for he is in a sense corupting his office by not operating under the description and code of that position. By doing so he also does not represent all of his constituants.

Now I am by no means policical, and would not have problems with those who feel otherwise for I know other act according to their devotion and love of God, but this is not the point. I think the point is that the use of religion is something that is to be more internal, to affect our own hearts and lives, it is not to be used to bash, or to slam others, or to judge and condemn others.

Isn't religion about life, about a higher way to live that lifts all men up. Religion is not something that makes us better than others, more right than they are but it makes us better for others in how we treat them and do good for one another. I, sir am on a path, and I beleive that as many as can walk together on their simialr roads would go farther and assit each other in becoming all taht we could be. My religion does not put me at odds with any one, though I might wish all would be Christians, even the Lord says it is only for those who will. Yet as a Christian, maybe I would be good for you and you for me, that thugh any are different it does not mean that we are in conflict.

You guys overwelm me somewhat and make my brain hurt. lol It is as if I am back in school, writing out essays on a test. :)

I myself do not eat as healthy as I should yet I know not to eat things that are "Unhealthy" even if we eat plain cinnamin and raisen baggles there are better for us than galzed doughnuts. Certainly we know eating our green veggies is better than eating french fries. We would do ourselves alot of good maybe even by not thinking about being healthy but not to let ourselves eat and drink the things that we know do us no good.

Even if we can correct our eating by 10%, we have gain a messure of health. If we only exercise for 5 to 10minutes a day we have done ourselves good and have created a foundation to build on. Maybe not everything out there is healthy yet each of us can go to Subway like Jared instead of McD's. It may not be the best choice but it is most likely a better choose. If we make those choices each time we eat in time our bodies will naturally respond, and as we try to become healthier cahnce are our bodies will lose the weight that is sustained by our current habits.



'We' ???? Our government???? Our people???? Our schools???? Ourselves???? I would say it is all a part of the capitalistic pie.

I would almost get into a conspiracy theory we even with the health and diet industry. They want us to fail. It is nonsense to except people to exercise 30 to 45 minutes a day. Poepl who try to do this usually get burnt out, few sustain it for over a year, but they will try something else and when that fails, try something else that fails. The same with the diet industry, they dont want you to keep the weight off, they want you to get fat again and again and try to lose weight all type of unnatural ways, that really are in no way healthy, well maybe some are and some do good but for the most part they make it too hard or expensive for the majority of the population.

Yet I was talking more about each individual, we all can do better. Dont focus on losing weight, focus on a lifestyle that you can sustain, stay in your "success zone". Do what you are able to do and then slowly build on it. If you have a bad week month... you have not failed just can back on track, dont geve up, do what you can, if you cant do as much, do less just dont quit and in time you can be back to where you were headed.



I believe religion deals with that which one does not understand. To me, it is an a personal acceptance measure which helps ease one's mind of worry while helping to gain understanding of that which causes worry. Used for good purposes, it brings about good manifestation, and vice-versa. I would like to see more people identifying themselves with it, rather than identifying everyone else with it.

I would not say that worry is always a drive, but to reach beyond what we are. Worry in itself is something that accomplishes little. We are not in control of things so there is no need to worry. If we are ourselves and beleive we ought to do the best we can and to give it our best, I feel there is little to worry about, if I fail, I do so having done all that I could, there was nothing more I could have done, if there was then I know more of what to do next time. Worry is an inhibitor, it freezes us to where we can no longer act like ourseves and to be who we are. I have gone to meet several women over the internet, and in doing so I have placed worry as far from me as possible. I am not exactly handsome, I am short, I am bald, My teeth are not great, yet I know I wish to be who I am at all times and that I must not worry or be afraid for that will keep them from being who they are. Worry cannot change anything but often decreases our capacities to be all of who we are and that take alittle away form those minites of life. Not that we should feel bad about that, but that we can have more life when we become free of our worries.








I am sorry about this. Being a "Christian" there is an endless list of debatable doctrines and teachings. Much of these I have dismissed for they are unresolvable and really do not matter so much of the outcome of our lives. Such as once saved, always saved. Are we saved by workd or faith. Are we predestined or not. Do we need to be baltized to be saved. Fortunately I already know the answer to these, lol just kidding. But I see where niether would influence me to whether one was a brother or not. I do not let these become a matter of acceptance or fellowship because I knwo the devotion and love in that brothers heart for the Lord is no less than mine.

So afte years and years of being on one side of a debate or another I choose to look past the debate into what yields life within us. I knwo I may be a bit extreme in this. I will hopefully never debate with any one here but choose to reason along with them. Not that I would be reisitant to their thoughts but that I could understand them and join in with them. Or something like that.




I once bought roses for an ex and she asked me what I had done wrong. It was the first and last
ones...

That is so sad.


Thank you for all of you insight and comments. I try to follow along with them the best that I can. I may not have the education or background many of you have, but I have tried to dedicate myself on understanding and wisdom. I love to think, I am many times slow at it but I can think for a long time so sometimes it balances out. lol

I agree that we should not legislate morality or beliefs. I won’t go as far as saying that we cannot legislate them.

As an example, the gay rights issue! Most people when thinking about gay rights and legislation do indeed vote based on their moral values rather than thinking in terms of whether or not the government should be putting their moral values into law. So legislation can become a system based on morals even if that wasn’t its original intent or purpose.



I agree this is how people should view government. But the reality is that many people vote their morals rather than trying to view government as an impartial system that should not be morally driven.

This is really the difference between a pristine idealization of what government should be, and the reality of what it actually is in the real world.

My only point is that people should indeed back up and take a bird’s eye view and realize that they should not be voting their morals, but rather they should be thinking in more pragmatic terms of what laws should be for a free country.

So I think we are in agreement. You just seem to be speaking from an idealized notion of what government should be. (which I actually agree with you about), whilst I speak to the issue from the pragmatic view of what can actually happen (and does happen) in reality.

So I think we are actually in agreement on this. We both believe that legislation should be driven by a desire to protect the citizens from each other, and not driven by a desire to protect people from what other people believe to be immoral.

So we seem to agree on this point.

Yet a Christian can be in office and function in that position as a Christian, and maybe he can evangelize when he is not working but his job is not to evangelize others while he is at work, for he is in a sense corupting his office by not operating under the description and code of that position. By doing so he also does not represent all of his constituants.

Again, I am in complete agreement with you. This is how things should be ideally. I just contend that the reality of the real world is that things aren’t always ideal. Many people do take their moral convictions with them to their governmental positions.

I think the point is that the use of religion is something that is to be more internal, to affect our own hearts and lives, it is not to be used to bash, or to slam others, or to judge and condemn others.

I completely agree with you on this. And I have absolutely no problem with people who use religion in this way.

Isn't religion about life, about a higher way to live that lifts all men up.

It is supposed to be, yes! Once again I agree with you on this.

However, what I’m not prepared to do is agree that it necessarily always life men up. On the contrary I feel that religion can and does bring men down and actually hold them back in many ways.

I can give you a long itemized list of reason I feel that an organized religion such as Christianity does indeed bring men down and hold them back. If you’d be interesting in seeing that list let me know and I’ll gladly post it.



I agree that religion does not make anyone better than another. Unfortunately it does seem to cause a lot of people to believe in this though.

I will argue that religion does not necessarily make us better. In some cases it can actually be detrimental and unhealthy. And as I mentioned before I’ll gladly share a list of ways it does this is you are interested.



I think it’s good that you are on a ‘path’. Although I’m not sure where that path leads and whether or not I believe in its destination.

You say that your religion does not put you at odds with anyone. Yet, if you are on a path to get someone that another person does not believe exists, then it might be difficult to walk side-by-side with them since you aren’t both heading to the same destination.

Think of it like this,…

Imagine that I believe this life is the kingdom of God, and you believe that the kingdom of God lies in the afterlife.

So my focus is going to want to be on fixing this place up.

Your focus is going to want to be on assuring a safe entry into the after life.

Two different beliefs. Two differnet goals.

How can we work together when we both wish to accomplish differnet things?

Just as an added note,…

You and I as individuals may actually be able to work together in harmony with different goals. After all, we are actually in agreement about the way government should work, etc. However, many religious people are not in agreement with you. There are religious people who believe that putting religious morals into law is indeed the will of God. There are people who do indeed believe that anyone who hasn’t yet been ‘saved’ is lost and therefore they are indeed ‘inferior’ in the eyes of God. (not necessary unloved, but certainly pathetic losers who make God cry and there is no merit in anything they say because it’s obviously all ungodly rubbish! )

I don’t have any bones to pick with the “meek Christians” who just want to live and let live. It’s the radical fanatical fundamentalist who want to teach Creationism in schools and eradicate homosexuality from the planet, and who denounce any kind of contraceptive used to protect against unwanted pregnancy, etc, etc, etc.

These people do indeed use religion to drive political agendas.

There are even people who believe that Christ won’t return until the whole world has been converted to Christianity (or at least had a chance to convert) and so they are engaged in proselytizing campaigns to do just that!

I don’t have anything against men like you. You don’t appear to be a radical fanatical to me. Just a man of conviction and faith. And I can respect that. But none-the-less we still may disagree on what the goals of humanity should be. Or maybe not. That is yet to be seen.

By the way, welcome to the forums.

I see you're new. Many of us have been on here quite literally for years! So we tend to know each other. Battles on the forums that may appear to you to be terribly hostile are really just loving brothers and sisters squabbling.

Although, some people do get genuinely ticked. Especially newcomers who don’t understand what’s going on with the ‘family’.

Abra and Mind:

What is the foundation of your 'knowledge' built upon...

The base of your acceptance...

Di:

Knowledge of God's existance or having knowledge belonging to God?

Leibniz was a 'believer'.

His existance of God (ontological)argument follows...

----------------------------------------------------------------

(1) God is a being having all perfections.
(2) A perfection is a simple and absolute property.
(3) Existence is a perfection.
(4) If existence is part of the essence of a thing, then it is a necessary being.
(5) If it is possible for a necessary being to exist, then a necessary being does exist.
(6) It is possible for a being to have all perfections.
(7) Therefore, a necessary being (God) does exist.

----------------------------------------------------------------

I feel that the biggest obstacle in the above argument lies in axiom (2) followed by (3)... that is a huge logical leap ... it is a gross distortion of the understanding of perfection, which falls onto a transcendental zone of support... a weak argument which attempts to uphold the Christian version of an all knowing, all good, and all powerful God...

You do not get the Christian God from this argument. Replacing the terms perfect and perfection with imperfect and imperfection gives you a 'perfect' parody which is equally as valid, and quite a different 'kind' of God.



In reference to the knowledge aspect, depending on what one internalized, the type of knowledge that played a role would follow suit.

One's definition of 'God' would determine the components of 'God', thereby providing a base of perceptual understanding of and which 'knowledge of God' would be built upon...

Knowledge is 'developed' not innate... imo...

so doesn't that explains why Liebniz said that things are desctibed as clear or unclear because the language is not tuned to tell the truth but more geared to tell of perception which is constructed of false and supposed reality




..."I AM" not truth to you or the rose...I can only be truth to myself...only the existence of oneself to oneself can be truth

So you’re a Solipsist.

I’ve actually considered that philosophy, and while I obviously can’t convincingly show that it’s wrong (even to myself). I’ve come to the conclusion that even if it is the true nature of our existence, there’s no reason to believe that it can’t be more complicated than a singular mind.

That is to say that pantheism is actually solipsism extended to the idea that there is a singular mind (the mind we call ‘god’) and that we are all simultaneous manifestations of this singular mind.

In other words, to a true solipsist I would have no existence in my own right. I would be entirely a figment of their imagination. They are the only thing that really exists. Everything else is a figment of their imagination. Organized solipsism would seem silly in that case because everyone would need to imagine that they are organizing with nothing more than figments of their own imagination.

In other word, only one solipsist could be correct. All the rest would be a figment of that solipsists imagination.

Pantheism, gives everyone equal existence. Collectively we are all imagining the world to exist via our collective mind (the mind of God). Therefore we all have equal existence, even though our perceptions of life may be differnet.

In this way, our individual ‘perceptions’ are only true for us “individual”, however, at the same time we also share common illusions. Like the fact that we are bound to a planet by gravity and need air to keep us alive, etc.

Some would argue that many of these ‘common illusions’ do have ‘objective’ really beyond human perceptions. In other words, the earth, sun, and moon actually exist whether humans think they do or not.

I tend to agree with this latter thinking. In other words, our collective mind (the mind of God) does indeed ‘create’ a type of ‘objective’ really that cannot be changed by the whim of the individual manifestations of this meta-mind.

Whether this is true or not is hard to say. My personal feeling is that there are other conscious beings in this universe. And because of these even if all of humanity got together as a single ‘mind’ they could not change the laws of physics, simply because there are other manifestations of the meta-mind that are not prepared to entertain that illusion.

This is indeed an interesting area of philosophy. Even the Bible suggests that, at the tower of Babel, the people is one and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.

So the Bible seems to suggest that humanity as a whole does indeed have the power to change the fundamental nature of the overall illusion of life. Jesus also said that we can move mountains if we only have the faith of a mustard seed. Some have suggested that this implies that humans do have the ability of psychokinesis which is really the same as the ability to create or manipulate reality via the imagination.

Of course, these are interpretations which many religious people do not agree with. I’m merely mentioning them here because I find these thoughts interesting. I’m not suggesting that they necessarily have any merit religiously or otherwise. Just interesting food for thought for philosophers.

I personally favor the picture that we are all manifestations of a meta mind. (i.e. pantheism)

Clearly this does not make it 'true'.

This is why I'm starting to use phrases like "I favor a particular picture" rather than saying "I believe".

I don't 'believe' anything.

nope..only thing I'm saying is if you wish to measure truth you have to start with yourself and nothing and no one else ...because for all you know everything else could be a delusion

Funches:




Leibniz's own claims do not support the 'knowledge' contained in Christianity as an infinite 'truth'... in my opinion...

Leibniz's claims, as all 'Christian theist's' claims, must include 'man being mad in God's image'. That requires obscurity.
'Clear' knowledge of an omni-God is an oxymoron, in a logical sense. 'Free will' is used to explain away every argument concerning 'evil' used against the 'God of the Bible'. The constant 'unknown' is explained by using some definition of God.

Perfection has no way of being measured, therefore cannot be disproven. The argument will follow that man cannot possibly understand God's thoughts... which make them(God's thoughts) no less perfect. That is what I call the 'transcendental safety net.' The problem with that is the anthropomorphism, which goes against the notion of having an true understanding to begin with.

If it get's to a point in discussion where the understanding is claimed to be beyond our capability, then it always was to begin with... so... where is any truth?



That is a fallacy within itself... one finger cannot point to itself... it requires relative experience... it requires two...


EDIT:

As I re-read this post, I found a humourous Freudian slip up there... and left it... I meant 'made in God's image'...

I don’t accept anything as ‘truth’. I’m happy knowing that I don’t know truth. I’m convinced that it is impossible to know truth in the human condition. At least at our current level of evolution. I ‘believe’ that we are just babies in the universe.

I did use the word ‘believe’ there so I guess there are some things that I’m fairly convinced with. But those ‘beliefs’ are based upon the ‘knowledge’ I have gained from the world we live in.

If the world we live in is an ‘illusion’ that can’t be trusted to be true. Then obviously all of my ‘knowledge’ is worthless. And I can’t rule out that possibility. We could be in some kind of a cosmic play run by a Wizard of Oz and I don’t rule out that possibility. However, from a practical point of view I do feel that it is highly unlikely. Such a Wizard would indeed need to be a deceiving Wizard. That doesn’t necessarily imply that the Wizard would need to be bad, but it does imply that it wouldn’t be like anything we have ever considered to be a God.

I think I am much more convinced about what I know I don’t know, In other words, I’m totally convinced that certain pictures of a God are nonsensical. And yes, no sense in trying to hide it, Christianity is at the top of that list. I see no sense in trying to prove that Christianity is correct, as far as I can see there is plenty of proof that it can’t be true. No need to waste any effort trying to go in the other direction.

I tend to be scientist in my thoughts. I used to delve in to philosophy but then it occurred to me that all we can really know is what we can sense. Take away all of our senses and we no longer have any input. Moreover, most philosophical question are concerned with what we can sense. Like a rose.

What is a rose?

A rose is what we sense!

That’s what a rose is.

If you want to know the ‘truth’ of a rose, the only truth it has is in what you sense of it.

This is the basis of science. Science (not technology – that’s something entirely different!) is the study of what we perceive. It’s based on observation and experience. What do we experience? Can we experience it again in the same way? Does the same stimuli always produce the same experience? If so we say that we can know something about it that is consistent and this is what we call knowledge.

When things don’t appear to be consistent, we try to explain whey they are not consistent in ways that are comprehensible to our mind. In much of nature we have succeeded in doing this. At the quantum level we’ve run into a seemingly inexplicable situation.

However, it was never the goal of science to explain our true nature, but rather come to grips with our world the best we can. Science has succeeded (in my opinion) to show us that our universe came into existence some 14 billion years ago, and that our planet came into existence some 4.5 billion years ago, and that we evolved out of this universe and planet and that we truly are children (manifestations) of this universe itself.

To me this is ‘knowledge’ that I accept as being observationally observed to be true. By ‘true’ I simply mean that it actually happened (or the illusion that it has happened was planted there).

Physics doesn’t claim that the world has ‘objective’ reality. It merely claims to be investigating the rules. If life is an illusion or dream, then this dream appears to follow rules. Physics is the study of the rules of the dream. And of it’s past history which has apparently been preserved in various forums.

Religious doctine (i.e. the Bible) claims that mankind is responsible for the imperfections in the world. Science, (i.e. the history of the universe) shows us that the world was imperfect before mankind ever came onto the scene. So much for the religious doctrine, it obviously conflicts with what the universe itself has to say.

So ultimately I believe in observation and experience. And I’ll take that over stories written by men that have an extremely high probability of having been made up fairytales. Why would the creator of this universe get the history of his own creation wrong? Or to put that another way, if the biblical stories are true then why doesn’t the history of the real universe confirm those stories?

If I have to choose between books that were clearly written by men, and a universe that was clearly written by our creator, I’ll have to choose the universe every time! It’s the only truly infallible book we have!

Well, I certainly applaud that view.

but that goes without saying...that's why the knowledge contained in Christianity can only be claimed as belief ..how can one prove belief as being infinite truth without sounding delusional



no one can ever prove your existence ..that's why God could only say "I Am"

if is impossible to prove that you don't exist and impossible to have doubts that you do exist because to attempt to do either one in itself proves your existence but only to yourself

Abra:






funches:



It depends on the belief and level of understanding funches. A walk by 'faith' alone, without the definition of a supporting doctrine, is obscurity at it's finest, yet those who truly do, find no need to further define 'the unknown.'

Separate from religion... in the company of 'the unknown.'

No one knows what God says... that basis is the same as any other explanation which applies finite and human characteristics to the infinite unknown...




I am inclined to agree with Abra concerning your explanation of searching within oneself...

Agreed.

And it’s not even necessary to prove to yourself that you exist. As you say, existence is its own proof.

So there you go. One thing accomplished, (i.e. no need to prove your own existence)

The second step is to consider whether other people exist in their own right, or are just figments of your imagination. Again, something that cannot be proven. So flip a coin, or just choose the one you like better and pretend it's true because you will never know with certainty.

I choose to believe that all humans exist in their own right in the same way that I experience my existence. So I give everyone’s existence ‘truth’. My gift to everyone!

I do the same for all living things including plants and animals. I’m generous.

So now what?

Next question please,….

Is there a God?

My answer, “I have no clue, ask someone else!”

Or,… if you really force me to think about this, I ask, what’s God? Where did this notion come from and why should I believe that such a thing exists??? I have no direct experience of any God.

Then people start pointing to stories about Gods. So now I’m being asked to believe in stories????

Ok, I read the stories, find them to be unconvincing and reply, “No, I don’t believe in the Gods in any of those stories”. They all sound like fairytales to me and have no basis in experience, plus they all contain inconsistencies within themselves as well as claims that don’t seem to match up with what we see around us. So no, I don’t believe any of these stories have any divine true. They all appear to be nothing more than manmade aspirations to me. I see no reason to believe any of them.

Then someone says, “Ok, how about this,… since you believe you exist and everyone else exists how about realizing that all of existence taken together is one collective entity taking this form of multiplicity.”

Hmmm? I can’t find any reason to reject that idea. In fact, from what I can tell there are no real delimitations between anything in this world, especially when we get down to the quantum level that is the basis of our physical forms. So I can’t deny this claim that we are ultimately all one.

Intuitively I like the idea because it’s easier for me to grasp that there is only one thing than many things. Perhaps that’s just because I’m a simpleton, but none-the-less I can’t see any reason to knock the idea.

If I can’t disprove it, then as far as I’m concerned it could be true, and very well may be true.

Ok, since you twisted my arm I’ll believe it!

Now how about let’s go sailing!

that's the thing about belief.. no matter what level of understanding you may have pertaining to the belief still doesn't make it anything more than a belief

"to believe is to doubt" ....funches 3:16