Exactly. You cannot care about the plight of women in the world and also be live-and-let-live about religion.
This seems like as good a time as any to post another relevant Tim Keller podcast:
Injustice: Hasn’t Christianity been an instrument for oppression?
Riss I participate not because I want to find something here to believe in, but because I want to question and dispute some of the beliefs that people state on this thread — for example the idea that a man should be dominant in a marriage, that atheists as a whole are immune to being obnoxious, and that one religion is the true religion.
I’m sure I’m not alone in this type of participation here. I hope there is room for that too.
Certainly there’s room for that. That’s what a lot of people are doing here. Obviously then you don’t view what you are doing here as “telling others what to believe” or “imposing your beliefs on others”. So why are you bringing that up?
By harm I mean teaching people to hurt others because their beliefs are different from your own. Extremism of any kind.
But who here is doing that? And who here is condoning that? I’m not sure why this is being brought up. I don’t think there’s anyone who disagrees with you that people shouldn’t harm others because of their beliefs.
I just want to figure out what I believe!
Great! Well I hope this can be at least a small resource amongst your MUBI friends for exploring that. What are some major events, thoughts, or people in your life that have shaped your beliefs?
You must look elsewhere for your answers. Not necessarily meaning another institutional religion, or a cult, etc. Just, think, listen, observe, and do it… with lots of quiet.
I’d love to hear more about some of the answers you’ve found this way. Care to share? :)
I’m defining “zealots” a little differently, Riss. Its not simply someone holding a strong opinion or arguing a point. By zealot, I mean an extremist who is so dogmatic in their views that that they will accept no dissention, listen to no opposing viewpoints, ignore the norms of polite discourse and, in the worst cases, resort to violence.
I’d still contend there are a few people who have been on this forum whose opinions in the area of cinema have reached those extents! ;) Not sure about the violence, but certainly threats of violence.
Odi posted this link:
Losing Yourself In Religion.
Odi, you posted it without any other commentary so I wasn’t sure your opinion on it or which sections you found interesting since there was an article and also several links to some TED videos. I read the article and had been watching the videos when I had the time. They were all very interesting, so thank you for posting that. I’d be curious to know why you posted it and what you think about the article and all of the videos.
Did anyone else look at the stuff at this link? I’d be really interested in hearing some other opinions. Here are some of my comments and questions about the article and videos.
First of all, the Jonathan Haidt article and videos.
The article and first video talk about these emotional transcendent moments people have. I found it interesting, but he describes it as kind of a means to an ends without actually being specific about or defending what the end should be. Still interesting to watch.
I was more interested in his second video where he tries to see the differences between people who hold different political ideologies to help them be more understanding of each other than at each other’s throats. We know this is something that’s becoming more and more heated with the Republicans and Democrats in the United States seeming more and more trying to destroy each other than to work with each other. He identified five psychological foundations of morality that seem to be found across cultures: 1) harm/care, 2) fairness/reciprocity (including issues of rights), 3) ingroup/loyalty, 4) authority/respect, and 5) purity/sanctity He then showed how through his studies how those who often identify themselves as Liberals or Conservatives as we often label them in the USA value different foundations to different extents. He found that liberals place a higher value on harm/care and fairness/reciprocity over ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect, and purity/sanctity. Whereas he found that Conservatives valued them about all equally. It’s interesting because I consider myself liberal, but I think I value all of these things. At any rate, I thought it was very useful for hopefully helping each side to understand the other one well and have some more respect. It also lead me to start taking some quizes at the website he has set up for his research here: http://www.yourmorals.org
Robert Wright is an amusing guy. I really like his urging of people trying to understand each other. Instead of America retaliating with hatred back towards the countries and cultures that produced terrorists that have attacked and hated this country, it would be best for us to understand why they hate us so much. Not that their actions in attacking are justifed, but see them as human beings and understand that there must be some motivation for them in the situation that they are in for them to hate us. Ultimately though he said his reasons that people work together or should work to understand each other is still going to be motivated by our own self interest. In the end though, I think that we aren’t going to get past a certain point if that is still identified as the real goal. You could say in theory it is best on a large scale for groups to understand each other, but when push comes to shove if that’s your real reason you will be tempted to hate or retaliate in the moment if you put the ultimate value on yourself instead of on others.
I’ve never been big into poetry, but I really liked the video with Billy Collins. Although he did seem a bit smug, I was captured by his poems. And since this is a film lovers site, I’d recommend watching this since most of his poems were put to animation which were pretty cool. I’m not sure there’s a whole lot to comment about it in terms of this topic though.
The last video from Alain de Botton titled “What atheists can learn from religion” or “Atheism 2.0” is the one I’d really like to hear some comments from Atheists on. It goes along with some of the question I’ve posed about what Atheists can provide for people who they are trying to get to turn away from religion. De Botton is proposing Atheists take a lot of good things from religion for their own good. I’m not surprised that Atheists would find some appeal in these things. De Botton gives a long list of things religions do well that he wishes Atheists could some how still use or be involved in without actually believing in God or anything spiritual. Some things he mentions are delivering sermons, promoting morality, engendering a spirit of community, making use of art and architecture for didactic or propaganda purposes, inspire pilgrimages, using mediation. But he still wants us to reject any kind of looking towards any specific teachings to build this on. He gives examples about how travel companies could use the idea of a pilgrimage, but how would that really work? He talks about how corporations are great at getting people together to sell things like shoes, but why can’t artists and poets get together like that? I think the real answer is greed and that money is more important to people. Atheism is a belief yes, but it’s a belief that other beliefs about the world should be rejected. People who are atheists don’t have a common agreement about what the purpose of life is and how that purpose should be achieved, they only agree on what the purpose isn’t. To have all of these things that De Botton wants Atheists to have there must be some kind of central teaching about the purpose of life that everyone looks to and agrees upon. That’s my perspective, but I do think it’s interesting that Atheist want these things that religion has without believing the things they are actually used for. Any comments?
Well no, Riss, I never said that people can’t be independently psychotic.
You said “it’s ALWAYS the organizations that screw EVERYTHING up”
Watch that you don’t drift into the no true Scotsman fallacy
Anyone can call themselves a Christian and most people won’t argue with them. However most people who weren’t born in or live in Scotland can’t call themselves a Scotsman without people argueing with them. My arguement is that not everyone who calls themselves a Christian have actually internalized Christ’s teachings and the teachings about Christ in the Bible. You can see a lot of people across the USA or the world all calling themselves Christians but holding on to different values. It’s not out of line with Christ’s teaching himself to say this even:
21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’
The Bible also teaches that while Christians who are actively seeking God and growing in relationship with Jesus should be growing towards purity, and while God sees them as blameless because of the punishment Christ took for them, they are still partly in the flesh and will still continue to sin. So no one’s going to be perfect. But I still contend anyone who is experiencing the costly grace of Christ is not going to approach unbelievers with that kind of condemnation.
While I don’t care for religion even in the abstract, my motives for opposing it are all from the way people actually deploy it in the world. And it is used all the time to condemn.
Condemnation is not alwasy inappropriate but there are certainly inapproriate contexts and methods. If you are talking with another Christian who is depending on you to point out when he is doing something self destructive and call him to repent that is appropriate. To come at someone who doesn’t share your views at all and take a superior position condemning them on behalf of God is completely inappropriate and probably even ineffective to for the ends of the person who does believe it is appropriate.
On that basis, it seems that we all agree. Who could argue that descpicable things haven’t been done in the name of religion?
Yeah I don’t think anyone here disagrees with that. The question seems to be whether abolishing religion would lead to a world that athiest would ultimately actually find preferable. I don’t suspect that overall more people would find life more meaningful or satisfying.
I’m guessing that those of us who see value in religion are thinking about it in it’s more ideal form. History has shown it’s corruption (it’s also shown it’s great beauty through the arts), but what are we to make of it in our own life and what kind of value can it achieve? There’s been little discussion about the role of religion in charity, which while certainly significant, is too dull a topic to make headlines.
I think if you are opposed to the idea of Christianity or any religion, you will focus on what you see as the bad things, and you will ignore what you otherwise might call the good things. Also if you believe in religion then you will admit there are bad things but see them in light of the truth you see in your particular religion and the good that comes out of it, thus not seeing it as a reason to discount it.
On that I’m sure we do agree. But consider this. There are vastly more people in the U.S. who are at least somewhat religious than there are who are decidedly non-religious. Yet who are the people who spend a lot of time uncovering religious abuses and publicizing these problems? It’s largely people who oppose religion overall. Large numbers of religious people just don’t show much interest in investigating and criticizing their co-religionists.
There are big movements amongst many Christians to uncover religious abuses and publicize them in an effort to correct. Again, here’s where condemnation might be appropriate in certain circumstances.
Here is a question to Christians. I have been a personal admirer of Mother Teresa, a foreigner nun who single-mindedly devoted her life for lepers and orphans in Calcutta without any ulterior motive of converting them. Why can’t the non believers find inspiration in such noble souls who belonged to the Christian faith?
Service is all about being good to people and helping them. You don’t need to be rich to help others. A caring caress on the back of a person needing comfort can be more satisfying than almost any materialistic pleasure in life. Don’t think about the fallacies in your religion. Think about what is the primary foundation that most religions are based on and that my friends is Service.
I’m not sure if I understand why you are asking this question to Christians if the question is about the perspecives of non-christians. From my perspective I thought Mother Teresa was a person that a lot of non-christians did find to be inspirational. Have you found that to be otherwise?
Riss — I’m talking about when people let their passions rule them. They tend to stomp everything out based on how they feel. It’s REALLY important to use your intellect to curb your emotion. This is a basic rule of thumb, based on wisdom, don’t you think? I never said emotions were wrong, I said out of control emotions were wrong.
And you believe that for you and almost everyone else it is impossible to talk about religin or politics without letting your passions rule you? I’d have to disagree. I think it is important to use your intellect to curb your emotion. Why can’t we identify that and try to practice that when we talk about religion or politics.
I think the civil rights movement and the sort of brainwashing that goes on in religion — i.e. you will go to hell if you don’t join us — is pretty different.
How so? Can you elaborate, especially in regards to the perspective that I was giving?
Ok, changing your mind because of just one conversation might be a surprise, but people do change their mind as they learn more and think things through. Such changes are often slow, so even when looking back, you often cannot peg them to any point.
Yes, I agree! And that’s why I agree there is huge value to these discussions.
Anyway, something that I do have a problem with is the marriage paradox – where the woman is supposed to be submissive to the man, but both partners serve each other. Could you expand on this, Riss? I genuinely don’t understand, and would like to know what your beliefs are. What do you mean by “submissive” and “servant” in that context? What does that mean specifically for you and your fiancee? Do you make most of the decisions, or am I misunderstanding submissive? I hope I didn’t come across as too negative a while ago when you first posted that!
Let me get back to you on this. Going to be going over this with my fiancee, and with our pastor, and through some books. Like you on many topics, this is one topic where I don’t know exactly what I believe. I just believe that this language is used in the Bible which is a book I seek to understand because I believe it holds truth, and because many married people who I respect and whose marriages seem healthy and happy I respect. So I’m going on a journey and I’ll let you know any insights I gather along the way when I get back.
I would say the abuses are reasons to oppose it. That religion is based on bad thinking is reason enough to reject it. Two different issues really. But, of course, when you are looking to excuse abuse, you have no choice but to use bad thinking of some kind.
They are different issues, but one is dependent on the other. It’s a stonger argument that something should be opposed not just if it is abused, but if it is both based on bad thinking (and thus not true) and is also abused. If something is based on good thinking but is then also abused, that is not a good reason to oppose it, but just to oppose the abuse of it.
Religion and God have nothing to do with each other. I see no problem rejecting the church but believing in God (or even believing in the church’s teachings, etc.)
Religion is about man, not God.
What definition of the word “religion” are you using here?
This is the same thing with politics. People deserve punishment for their, for lack of a better word, sins.
Isn’t this a very Jewish/Christian/Muslim concept?
Well I don’t think it’s bad as a whole. I think the bad and the good are as balanced and/or unbalanced as any human institution — because it’s made out of people, and people are fallible. That’s where it gets ridiculous, not to question leaders. And that’s what the Catholic church expects from its people, as do many religions. They may state this or that, but as you can see people trying to change anything is the equivalent of direct democracy, which our forefathers thought was bad business, because they looked upon the masses as well… the unwashed masses.
At least in a democracy, you can vote jerks out of office. With religious institutions, “God” appoints them, in a manner of speaking.
What the hell is that? Who has the gall to stake the claim that they are so special that they cannot be questioned, they cannot be thrown out, and worse, that they can abuse the power of their authority with little consequence?
THAT is fucked up.
Have you happened to have any extensive relationships with any Christian bodies or institutions other than the Roman Catholic Church?
We get down to the exclusivity of religions now. The time to identify tribes. Divide people. The survival of the fittest.
Did anyone read my link to that CNN article a few pages back? It talks about that…
I did. I was taking my time to read it all and watch the videos, but I did just post an extensive response above. I’d love to keep continuing a conversation on it with you or anyone else.
I think that if you experience the bad side of religion it tends to ruin it for you.
If people didn’t have a bad experience with it, they might be more amenable to thinking well of it. As in, becoming a member of the organization, a member of a group of worshippers.
This is so true, and I suspect it is quite naturally so the biggest reason people are turned off to religion. I have seen so many people who have come to know and love Christ after previously despising Christianity because of the way Christ was poorly reflected in other communities that called themselves Christian.
While it’s terrible that people are harmed, treated unlovingly, and stifled in a community that should be healing, loving, and allowing people to speak sincerely, it’s actually not altogether unsurprising in light of the fact that Christianity teaches that all people are sinful and prone to do bad. Christian communities that are more in touch with Christ and the message of the gospel are groups of people who are more humbled by the realization that we all regularly do things that hurt us and others. This realization tends to keep them from less often feeling like they might be better than other people or heaping self-absorbed condemnation on others the way that bad religion can often lead to. These people have felt the love and grace of Christ despite the fact that they have and are so often so self centered that they do things that they know are wrong for their own more immediate gratification. They are loved so much despite this that Christ suffered and died for them. They still often do things that hurt others, but when they realize it they repent. They repent not falsely as a fake pious apology but because they truely do want to love others more than themselves because of the outpouring of love they have received from Christ.
Some people may still hate that picture and still not like Christianity. But many people recognize that this is something fundamentally different from the kind of communities that called themselves Christian that abused and treated them poorly before. They will realize the strange fact that escaping and finding healing from bad Christianity is not to run away from Christ, but to actually run to Christ and experience true Christianity.
Odi, would you mind if I ask you what kind of personal bad experiences you had that ruined it for you? If you feel like sharing but not in the forum I’d be interested to hear if you wanted to PM me too
What is so difficult about helping your fellow man?
I’d say it’s our selfish nature.
Why do you even need to be “religious,” as in believe in a set of mysteries, to be a good person? I don’t think that you do. I think that’s what atheists are driving at
I also don’t think that you need to be religious to be a good person But you can’t define what good is without religion. Because the definition of religion is your worldview of what you think the purpose of humanity is and thus the source and definition of what is good and bad. So any athiest who believes a set of beliefs about the purpose of humanity and what is good and bad also has a kind of religion. Their sources of how to define the purpose of humanity and what is good or bad may not come from any kind of divine revelation, but I find a lot of the various beliefs they hold about such matters just as if not more mysterious than what Christians believe.
Is religious belief and hence atheism simply about believing or not believing in God?
The terms religion and religious beliefs are used so differently by so many people. I think it’s important to clarify the way you are using it whenever you use it. I’ve been guilty of not doing this a lot of times in this conversation. I don’t even have a consistant way I think of it myself. I try to figure out the different ways each person I’m talking to is using it and adapt to that, but I think we need to be more clear on it.
Following the outdated traditions of your religion or going to church/temple/mosque? If that’s so then its alright but if you equate God to being good to people and leading an honest life(which is the crux of every religion) then even an atheist becomes a believer
I don’t follow. The definition of an athiest is that they aren’t a believer, or rather that they don’t believe that God exists. Which leads us to….
I think atheism is simply about not believing in God. Or an afterlife.
It goes beyond that. It doesn’t just not believe in God, it specifically believes that God doesn’t exist.
It is the ultimate pragmatism. It doesn’t ask any questions about what we don’t know. It focuses only on what we do. And discounts everything else.
I think you are thinking of agnosticism, but I’m not sure. I don’t think anyone asks questions about what we do know because the point of asking questions is to find out an answer to something you didn’t previously know. If when you talk about “what we don’t know” in this context you are talking about whether or not God exists, then it’s agnostics who take this position. Athiests say definatively that they know that God doesn’t exist.
Also I don’t think atheism thinks of a “god” at all. Being good is just being good. It is not the personification of anything.
Jonathan Miller in that video magpies posted earlier says that as an atheist he would rather not and his mind would not normally drift to throughts about God, except that other people around him regularly bring it up. But I don’t think athiest have any kind of common belief about what being good is. Atheism just means a rejection of the exsistance of God. Beyond that atheists could have any number of beliefs about anything else in the world such as the concept of “good”. It’s not in any way a label for a comprehensive belief system, although atheists themselves do have comprehensive belief systems, most of them may not agree on many other things except the fact that God does not exist.
For me religion provides a moral guideline for people to lead honest lives. It doesn’t matter whether you believe in a deity or not; neither does the deity care whether you believe in it. It’s supposedly omnipresent and always there for you. I am not sure if atheists have a moral code of conduct but if they do then that is their religion! If you notice the origin of most religions, its associated with the increased immorality amongst people. It’s during such times that some people(lets call them saints) appeared and made people see sense. People decided to worship such individuals or rather set them as paradigms of humanity for other people to follow. So what religion does is to make you fear God or in other words fear being immoral. That’s all there is to it.
Well obviously as a Christian I don’t agree that’s all there is too it, but it is good that you clarified you definition of religion. It’s a very helpful one I think for people who consider themselves non-religious to realize that a lot of what can consitute religion is something they actually do have. Everyone has moral guidelines. Often though seem to be not well defined or consistant and are just stored somewhere in the subcioncous where they inform their decisions without really focusing on how those moral guidelines were created. I’m not saying that’s anyone here or anyone who considers themselves non-religious. Some people I’m sure have thought about these things quite often.
Rohit, don’t feel bad. Throughout the course of this thread i’ve asked about 8 generalized questions that have since gone unanswered.
Sorry I was behind. Have I commented on all of your questions so far at this point?
This above song, as well as the rest of the album—as well as Harrison’s All Things Must Pass—are b7oth full of religious/theological/spiritual lyrics. interesting the way those two bealtes were dealing with spirituality in 1970.
What was it do you think that Lennon found out?
This recent book provides irrefutable evidence that the church is just about the most segregated institution in America.
Is this a book you have read and are recommending? I couldn’t quite tell if you were endorsing it.
it should be obvious how such hypocrisy can turn one away from the church.
It is obvious. That’s why I’m so sympathetic and why it hurts me so much too.
“This recent book provides irrefutable evidence that the church is just about the most segregated institution in America.”
Where is this posting, I need to read this sentence in context because it doesn’t make a lot of sense alone. WHICH ‘church’?
Found it in context, still confused. Part of the confusion is underlying what is meant by ‘the church’. The Catholic church is in one sense a wider connected institution such that each individual church can be part of The Church, but in the Protestant sects, this is not so much the case. So, like, are we saying ‘organized Christianity’ or ‘The Catholic Church’ or the idea as it exists in the term ‘church and state’, or what?
After all, ecumenical churches would counter that point by their very philosophy of existence.
@mais1, thanks for posting!
I think when you stop using personalized descriptions of De Lawd…..
What’s the rest of that sentence?
“Loving” is a mammalian term for nurturing and cuddling; “unloving” conversely implies emotion and the lack (or opposite) of same. There’s no evidence I can see of the workings of the Universe appreciating the cuteness of a puppy, marvelling at a sunset, perferring one football team over the other, or being angry at a village growing at the base of a volcano. Those are anthropomorphic attributes.
My understanding is that in a lot of religions especially Christianity that can be one meaning of “loving” but what we mean by “love” or “loving” in English is a word that can mean a HUGE range of things. This given definition is actually kind of a shallow one compared to others. As you probably know the Greeks have many words that area all translated to English as “love” like Agápe, Éros, and Philia. Love can stem from something emotional or it can come from something more solid and less fleeting, a kind of commitment or covenant for instance like marriage. Real love is a commitment to the best interest of someone else despite how you may emotionally feel in some moment. I’d have to say that kind of love is much more an anthropomorphic attribute than the kind of definition of “loving” that you give. As you said at the beginning that kind of “loving” could be seen in all mammals, and probably some other animals as well.
There are certain things which seem to be self-evident. The Universe and the world around us exist (or they seem to, to our limited ability to observe, document, and comprehend.) Actually, this is an illusion, maya, in the Eastern term. What we see and experience is not really what “is.” We assume illusions of solidity when in fact what we are looking at, standing upon, breathing— is mostly empty space, with a few electrons occasionally bumping into each other.
But the perception of solidity that has been revealed to be an illusion was done so by obvservation using other tools like microscopes and other measuring devices, but it was still our own perceptions of the readouts of these devices that leads us to understand that there was actually mostly empty space in most objects. But then how do you know that this isn’t in fact just another illusion? I don’t think anyone would disagree with you that there’s always another radically new layer of understanding of the patterns of the universe to be discovered and shatter our conception of the way things interact.
There’s a spark of “knowing” within each one of us (and probably all things which exist— we just don’t speak their language to compare notes.). Some people fan the spark into a fire (let’s call that “illumination.”), and others are content to run on cruise-control and not be concerned.
Could we say that to some extent all people have a “knowing”, but not all of them have a desire for “learnhing” or “understanding”?
Atomic particles “know” how to behave. We can use scientific observation to label the various invisible pieces of the Universe with cute names like mu-mesons and quarks, and profoundly say that this bit has that attribute, this other one always behaves in that manner, and this one here is usually like this, but sometimes like that. But they just go on behaving in the way they “know.” Something as infinitesimal as an electron obviously does not have a human-style brain or reasoning, yet it goes about its merry way circling an atom in just the right way to keep the atom stable, and to keep that wooden table (made up mostly of dead, empty space) from collapsing into the floor and oozing to the center of the earth.
Doesn’t knowledge have to be something taught and leaned? How were these particles taught what to do?
The Universe “knows” what to do. We observe it, and to our limited senses it appears to follow patterns, behave in expected ways. Galaxies do not suddenly stop rotating around their core; stars do not abruptly decide to shut off their nuclear furnace, gases do not transform to liquid without a cold exterior force acting upon them. We’ve come up with cute names to explain all this: entropy, gravity, thermodynamics, and so on. But really, the explanations— though superficially more logical, complex and “grown-up” than spiritual poetry about the same things over the centuries— are no more “true” than the more graspable fairy tales. Seven blind men feeling up an elephant. Or is it five?
So the quality of being “graspable” is one which defines how true something can be? Could you elaborate on that? Also, are you saying you agree with the blind men feeling up an elephant metaphore as an accurate one for the world of human knowledge about things? Or are you just referencing it as a kind of poetry? Have you had a chance to listen to the podcast I posted on page 25?
Exclusivity: How can there be just one true religion?
I’d be interested in what you think about it including the section where he refers to the blind man analogy.
If there is “knowing” in a subatomic particle, and “knowing” in the grandest mass of the hugest star systems in space, then logically this “knowing” is the common denominator throughout everything. Philosophers would call it the microcosm and the macrocosm; As Above, So Below— the symmetry and balance of the Universe. It’s no more akin to human thought and experience than Marvel’s Thor is a doppleganger for Islam’s Allah. It is an “intelligence” at once stupendously simple, and more complex than human consciousness could ever comprehend. The smartest guy who ever lived could never “know” everything that humankind has ever known; how could we expect any single, precious little human mind to grasp the Infinite? Ya can’t do it; it’s a sucker bet. We simply cannot grasp it rationally. The only other choice is to accept it on “faith.” It Is, because it Is.
I don’t know hardly anything at all about Marvel’s Thor. Can you try to explain that reference to me?
This whole paragraph seems like an attempt to use logic to prove that we need to grasp the infinate irrationally. Doesn’t the use of logic to prove this make it a logic grasping though?
As for existence beyond mortal death— don’t sweat it. It’s another one o’those self-evident things. Energy cannot be destroyed, only transformed or transmitted. The energy which makes up your brain, your body, your 3-score-and-ten years here on this planet, continues to exist, will continue, forever and ever…
Earlier you said there are things that seem to be self-evident but are in fact illusions. So when you say this is another one of those self-evident things, do you mean that this is in fact also an illusion?
Now, as to whether any one of those now-freed atoms which used to be your memory, your toenail or your nasal follicle “remembers” the experience of human life, of feeling separate from the rest of the Universe which it has now rejoined— at that point, you are part of the Universe again, which “knows” everything, so, sure. But it ceases to be important. At that point, the “soul” realizes the separateness from the Universe was an illusion all the time.
How were you able to discover this realization freed atom from you body made if we don’t speak their language. How did you personally break out of this illusion of being separate from the rest of the universe that you are trying to reveal to us?
I meant sanctioned belief systems, Riss. Those I cannot stomach anymore.
Sanctioned by who? So if someone came along and said they approved of your belief system you’d immediately be disgusted by your own beliefs?