why do we need God?

[Poetaster]

@Pumpkin337: I had guessed that to be honest, but I like to engage and discuss directly. :)

[Frostball]

well at some point a person would need to be able justify their rejection otherwise you just look a contrary idiot. Sort of like walking rejecting the notion of the sun .... whilst all around you say 'but there it is' you insist 'but there it isn't' and unless you want to look like a complete idiot you have to offer some rational explanation for your b̶e̶l̶i̶e̶f̶ assertion.

...

But logically because of a. our limitations b. lack of evidence one way or another one must logically conclude that as far as scientific evidence goes the jury, is at best, out on the issue.

...


Justify rejection? You're looking at it the entirely wrong way. You have to justify believing in something not disbelieving something. Just like Poetaster said with his philosopher's stone example, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Your example of the sun is laughable because if there was as much evidence for god as there was of the sun we wouldn't be even discussing this; god would be an obvious reality. The the fact is that there isn't as much evidence for god as we have for anything else we know to be real; even things like dark matter and dark energy at least have some measurable effect even if we don't know what they are and how they are doing it.

This isn't to say that one should just decide there are no gods and never think about it again. As you say, the jury is still out. But what this means is one might as well not believe it until there IS evidence. Since a thing cannot be disproved, ever, this means that the jury is still out on everything. The jury is still out on ghosts, bigfoot, loch ness, santa, faeries, and god. But one doesn't just live their life as though these things DO exist just because it hasn't been proved that they don't. That's exactly the way atheists are with god. He might be out there, but there's no reason to assume he is unless there is good evidence.

I don't mind the contrarian title either, but I don't see how this is in any way contrarian. It's just logical.

[Pumpkin337]

Justify rejection? You're looking at it the entirely wrong way. You have to justify believing in something not disbelieving something. Just like Poetaster said with his philosopher's stone example, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Your example of the sun is laughable because if there was as much evidence for god as there was of the sun we wouldn't be even discussing this; god would be an obvious reality. The the fact is that there isn't as much evidence for god as we have for anything else we know to be real; even things like dark matter and dark energy at least have some measurable effect even if we don't know what they are and how they are doing it.

This isn't to say that one should just decide there are no gods and never think about it again. As you say, the jury is still out. But what this means is one might as well not believe it until there IS evidence. Since a thing cannot be disproved, ever, this means that the jury is still out on everything. The jury is still out on ghosts, bigfoot, loch ness, santa, faeries, and god. But one doesn't just live their life as though these things DO exist just because it hasn't been proved that they don't. That's exactly the way atheists are with god. He might be out there, but there's no reason to assume he is unless there is good evidence.

I don't mind the contrarian title either, but I don't see how this is in any way contrarian. It's just logical.

Actually no its not just logical because to theists the evidence for god is as self-evident as the sun is. You just choose to dismiss their evidence. Choosing to dismiss the evidence by saying 'I don't believe that' when it is presented is not a refutation of the evidence no matter how much some would like it to be.

[Frostball]

Actually no its not just logical because to theists the evidence for god is as self-evident as the sun is. You just choose to dismiss their evidence. Choosing to dismiss the evidence when presented is not a refutation of the evidence no matter how much some would like it to be.

This is at least where I think the main argument lies. That is in examining the actual evidence. It is merely that theists believe they have good reasons for believing in god, and atheists do not. But logic like saying you have to justify rejection is clearly wrong either way. So you think god's evidence is as evident as the sun? Could you possibly tell me what this evidence is? Because I love to learn and if I've really missed something as obvious as the sun this long, I should love to know about it.

[YesNo]

Right - imagine I said that being a Christian just means eating cake. And no matter how much you told me about Jesus and the bible and the Holy Trinity, I said 'Oh, that's all lovely, but being a Christian has nothing to do with Jesus, it is just about cake. That is my opinion.' Do you not see anything wrong here?

The point is meaningful discourse. If you can't take what the other person is saying on board about their own position, and just go off your opinion, the discourse is not very meaningful.

Actually, I don't know what you are talking about. Is there something wrong with someone having an opinion about Jesus and cake?



Except I don't have a story, or my 'story' is unknown to me, because although I come from believing parents, I've never had the ability to believe. I don't know why, I just haven't. Atheism to me is not an ideology, it's a starting point - and I don't have an explanation for it. I am by my own admitting an existentialist, and that is my story if anything.

Most of the story you believe in is likely unknown to you. The same is true with me. I want to find out what it is and change it more consciously or verify it. That's why I enjoy these threads.



Personally, I find the idea of 'Atheist Churches' a bit pathetic, and I have no time for them. I don't much care for Dawkins outside of his scientific writings (I think he's a bit of an arsehole in all honesty) or Hitchens outside of his LitCrit writings. The others you named I've only just heard about from your post. Also I don't like the joke of the Flying Spaghetti monster - I find that rather juvenile. Maybe things are different in the US, but here in the UK the 'atheist movement' isn't apparently so 'in your face'.


Although I know you are addressing this to mortalterror, I agree with you on the points I highlighted.

I also don't trust Dawkins from a scientific perspective. My most recent authority on why would be Thomas Nagel, but after looking at the link that Melanie provided earlier on, I think there is evidence that the E. coli bacteria, that you referred to earlier in the Lenski experiment, generate mutations in a non-random manner when confronted with stress. This would be "adaptive mutations" and that would falsify the neo-Darwinist belief in chance being the cause of the mutations as much as the mathematical arguments do.

Should you want to challenge my theism, you would need to challenge consciousness as fundamental. If consciousness is fundamental then I can empirically point to God by pointing to the universe as some form of creation or manifestation of that Consciousness. I need no further argument. The various theistic (or even pseudo-atheistic, consciousness religions such as Buddhism) could be built upon that.

Some atheists deliberately attempt to undermine consciousness by using science which by default only looks at the material aspect of the universe. This is why you hear "chance" and "determinism" thrown around so much. This is also why the discoveries of indeterminacy in quantum physics undermined atheism by removing both chance and determinism from quantum physics.

The same thing goes in neuroscience. Atheism has to show that we ultimately do not have any free will, that is, that our consciousness is trivial, because if it is not, if consciousness is fundamental, then this can be generalized to the whole universe. I don't think that effort has been successful. What we do have is more knowledge about the brain being itself changeable through our own intentions. In other words mind is not an epiphenomenon of matter.

The same thing goes in cosmology. Atheism needs something eternal to explain the universe. If that cannot be found to be solely dependent on matter, then they fail to remove consciousness and essentially legitimate theistic attempts to relate to that higher consciousness.

I think today, given modern science, all that atheism has to cling to are monistic views such as those that Nagel is presenting. Consciousness cannot be reduced to matter. To me Nagel's views look like a desperate last ditch attempt to save atheism, but other attempts to scientifically justify atheism through further materialistic reductionism seem to me unlikely to succeed.

[Pumpkin337]

This is at least where I think the main argument lies. That is in examining the actual evidence. It is merely that theists believe they have good reasons for believing in god, and atheists do not. But logic like saying you have to justify rejection is clearly wrong either way. So you think god's evidence is as evident as the sun? Could you possibly tell me what this evidence is? Because I love to learn and if I've really missed something as obvious as the sun this long, I should love to know about it.

a. I am not so stupid as to fall into that trap, if I even could argue that point sufficiently well.

b. I said that the theist position is that the evidence is there, and that the atheist position is that it is not.... further more I said that the anti-position tends to be of the opinion that they do not need to refute the evidence presented by theists but can get away with dismissing it as nonsense. My point was that if this was any kind of real life position where some one posited a theory it would not be sufficient to merely say it was nonsense, you would have to prove it was nonsense, with real proofs for your position.

c. I would argue that in the absence of firm provable evidence one way or the other, what the entire thing devolves down to is belief with one side believing as fervently in the thing as the other side equally fervently does not. Neither side are particularly good at debating the issue and neither side are very good at listening with an open mind to the other.

d. None of this is what the thread is about :) To which I would add (but forgot to earlier) that while some of the worst evils perpetuated by man against man have been done in the name of god (pick your deity to fit) the very very very worst evils have been done by men without god .... Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot ... so I still feel that despite the considerable evidence for thinking god is bad, man on his own is far worse.

[Poetaster]

Actually, I don't know what you are talking about. Is there something wrong with someone having an opinion about Jesus and cake?

This clearly wasn't what I was saying. What I said was, if I said to you 'Christianity is just about eating cake, Jesus has nothing to do with it, it's all cake'. And you said, 'Well, no, you have the bible, you have Jesus being the son of god, you have god, Cake doesn't even come in to it', and I said 'No, I disagree, Jesus has nothing to do with Christianity, it's just about cake' would you see something wrong there?

Of course you would. Any sane person would. So why are you trying to do the same and not listen to the other side?


Most of the story you believe in is likely unknown to you. The same is true with me. I want to find out what it is and change it more consciously or verify it. That's why I enjoy these threads.

If my story is unknown to me then how is it a story? I don't get it.


Although I know you are addressing this to mortalterror, I agree with you on the points I highlighted.

I also don't trust Dawkins from a scientific perspective. My most recent authority on why would be Thomas Nagel, but after looking at the link that Melanie provided earlier on, I think there is evidence that the E. coli bacteria, that you referred to earlier in the Lenski experiment, generate mutations in a non-random manner when confronted with stress. This would be "adaptive mutations" and that would falsify the neo-Darwinist belief in chance being the cause of the mutations as much as the mathematical arguments do.

There is that term 'neo-Darwinist' again. How would materialistic evolution be disproved by the Lenski experiment. As far as I'm aware, and as far as I even care, evolution (or neo-Darwinism if you must does not place chance as the driving force behind mutation and adaption, but is instead chemistry and biology. I feel myself repeating. If you can point to a reputable scientist that has said it is, though, care to share a quote?


Should you want to challenge my theism, you would need to challenge consciousness as fundamental. If consciousness is fundamental then I can empirically point to God by pointing to the universe as some form of creation or manifestation of that Consciousness. I need no further argument. The various theistic (or even pseudo-atheistic, consciousness religions such as Buddhism) could be built upon that.

I do not see the universe as part of the Consiousness - to me it is a place, purely a materialistic construction. I see no reason to think otherwise, so unless you want to convince me you do need further argument, because that argument you give is not one that is going to be accepted by I would suspect most people. So in simple terms you think the universe shows evidence of design or consciousness, fine. What do you see that suggests design or consciousness?


Some atheists deliberately attempt to undermine consciousness by using science which by default only looks at the material aspect of the universe. This is why you hear "chance" and "determinism" thrown around so much. This is also why the discoveries of indeterminacy in quantum physics undermined atheism by removing both chance and determinism from quantum physics.

I must admit, the only time I hear the words 'chance' and 'determinism' in these sorts of discussions is when theists are describing what atheists apparently say. Two questions anyway: 1) if quantum physics shows evidence for theism, why are not all quantum physicists theists? 2) How has quantum physics 'undermined' atheism? That video you showed me? I did provide a video making a counter claim, did you watch it?


The same thing goes in neuroscience. Atheism has to show that we ultimately do not have any free will, that is, that our consciousness is trivial

How is the idea our consciousness is 'trivia' meaning we do not have free will? Care to explain? That's one of the most ludicrous things I've ever heard.


because if it is not, if consciousness is fundamental, then this can be generalized to the whole universe.

... how? You make some pretty bombastic claims and do not show your reasoning, no wonder I'm frankly not impressed.


I don't think that effort has been successful. What we do have is more knowledge about the brain being itself changeable through our own intentions. In other words mind is not an epiphenomenon of matter.

The same thing goes in cosmology. Atheism needs something eternal to explain the universe. If that cannot be found to be solely dependent on matter, then they fail to remove consciousness and essentially legitimate theistic attempts to relate to that higher consciousness.

Why does it need something eternal to explain the universe? You do realize that before the big bang there was no time, right? Why can't it depend solely on matter? I really wish you would explain yourself.

What consciousness would lead to the idea of higher consciousness other than primates who want to believe in one?


I think today, given modern science, all that atheism has to cling to are monistic views such as those that Nagel is presenting. Consciousness cannot be reduced to matter. To me Nagel's views look like a desperate last ditch attempt to save atheism, but other attempts to scientifically justify atheism through further materialistic reductionism seem to me unlikely to succeed.

Did you look at an earlier post critiquing Nagel's writing and reputation? Why do you think atheism has to cling to monism? I can think of many people who do not think this. Also, you are not really in a position to declare you opinions on what atheism will succeed in doing if you don't seem to really understand what atheism is.



d. None of this is what the thread is about :) To which I would add (but forgot to earlier) that while some of the worst evils perpetuated by man against man have been done in the name of god (pick your deity to fit) the very very very worst evils have been done by men without god .... Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot ... so I still feel that despite the considerable evidence for thinking god is bad, man on his own is far worse.

Hitler was a Roman Catholic.

"I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator."

- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 2

"Once again the songs of the fatherland roared to the heavens along the endless marching columns, and for the last time the Lord's grace smiled on His ungrateful children."

- Adolf Hitler reflecting on World War I, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter 7

[Frostball]

a. I am not so stupid as to fall into that trap, if I even could argue that point sufficiently well.

b. I said that the theist position is that the evidence is there, and that the atheist position is that it is not.... further more I said that the anti-position tends to be of the opinion that they do not need to refute the evidence presented by theists but can get away with dismissing it as nonsense. My point was that if this was any kind of real life position where some one posited a theory it would not be sufficient to merely say it was nonsense, you would have to prove it was nonsense, with real proofs for your position.

c. I would argue that in the absence of firm provable evidence one way or the other, what the entire thing devolves down to is belief with one side believing as fervently in the thing as the other side equally fervently does not. Neither side are particularly good at debating the issue and neither side are very good at listening with an open mind to the other.

d. None of this is what the thread is about :) To which I would add (but forgot to earlier) that while some of the worst evils perpetuated by man against man have been done in the name of god (pick your deity to fit) the very very very worst evils have been done by men without god .... Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot ... so I still feel that despite the considerable evidence for thinking god is bad, man on his own is far worse.

Fall into a trap? What trap is there to ask you to explain the evidence that is apparently as much evidence as we have of the sun. Think about if a person asked for evidence of the sun, what might one say? You could point to it, you could point out the heat you feel from it, you could mention the facts of day and night, and our knowledge about stars, and the evidence we've gotten from telescopes and satellites.. You could literally go on and on giving evidence for the existence of the sun. The fact that people treat god differently than any other thing is special pleading. Atheists do not, as you say, simply dismiss evidence for god as nonsense, we merely treat the claims of god the same as any other claim. It's not our fault that a lot of the things people state as evidence for god really are nonsense. Not all of them, mind you. I haven't heard every argument for the existence for god, so maybe there are some good ones I have yet to hear. But most of them are not very good in my opinion, and that's exactly why I'm an atheist.

And it's not like people just have their beliefs and can't ever change because of argument. I was a christian once, and very active in my church and even went on mission trips, one of which was in Nicaragua. But I was convinced by arguments, even though I didn't really want to be convinced. I don't think it's pointless to argue about. Your whole "C" point seems to be fatalistic and hopeless. Well, I have hope.

And ah, your 'D' point.. The nazi regime was entirely christian, and was backed by the pope and consequently catholic church. Stalin, mao, and pol pot were not, however their whole regimes used methods and practices that were practically religious just without god and supernatural beliefs. I've already said before that it's not being a "religion" that's bad, but rather accepting claims with no or with bad evidence. People who followed these kinds of regimes were blindly following orders, holding up and almost deifying their leaders and the state. But even with that said, this is just more evidence that atheism is just one thing, and doesn't tell anybody what to do. You can be atheist and be terrible, or you can be atheist and be a great person. Same thing with religious people. But what atheism does not have is a holy book that outlines clearly backwards and evil beliefs and practices. You need some other kind of ideology to actually get you to believe in something. I for example advocate reason, free thinking, humanism, equality, and things like that. The regimes you listed clearly do not, but that has nothing to do with atheism.

[The Atheist]

Excellent, yet another theist explaining what atheism is and being wrong.


Atheism as a concept is a single truth claim, but in practice it is a worldview. Atheism is a definite subculture which happens to act like a religion.

Nice try, but wrong in every respect. It is not a worldview, as neatly evinced by the fact that several hundred million Buddhists are atheists who have a diametrically different worldview to me.

Atheism acts nothing like a religion. Despite your attempts to paint leaders, there are none. No central doctrine, nothing. The idea that atheism is anything like religion is absurd.


Just because you don't have a single titular bible doesn't mean that there isn't a developed canon and set of popular beliefs surrounding the idea of atheism.

Nonsense.

A typical strawman attack that has been tried thousands of times and failed.


the atheist position can be boiled down ... god(s) can not be proved rationally or scientifically therefore god(s) does(do) not exist - right?

No. Unsurprisingly, you are completely wrong.

A= without. Theos = god. Without god. Nothing about evidence, science or rationalism.


...(and you lazy so-n-so's can look up all the science on that yourselves - that is why god invented google :P )

The paucity and weakness of your arguments are a sure sign that you actually haven't even thought the subject through, let alone having a clue.

This, however, is priceless!



I still say ... whether god(s) exist as a separate, unknowable, unmeasurable, but distinct entity / entities or whether we invent them ... we need them as a concept of absolute morality because on our own we can only ever have a relative morality which ultimately makes all actions acceptable when clearly they should not be.

"Clearly they should not be." A classic example of religious thinking.

Why? Because.

Outstanding; thanks for that gem.

[Marbles]

I remember a friend of mine who so wanted to be an atheist but couldn't bring himself to accept with sound reason the non-existence of God. So after much reflection he maintained that God does exist, in one way or the other, but that he's a very unpleasant character of the novel of humankind. I think he was angry with God, or with the idea of God.

The amusing bit of his story, or the sad part if you will, was that neither theists nor atheists took him seriously.

[Pumpkin337]

As afraid as I am of a man with a gun in one hand and religious text of his choice in the other, I am more afraid of a man with a manifesto he made up himself. The former is dangerously deluded about the rightness of his cause, but the latter is entirely convinced of his own personal rightness ... and that is far more dangerous.

FYI Buddhists are pantheists ... try fact checking before making assertions.

[Poetaster]

FYI Buddhists are pantheists ... try fact checking before making assertions.

FYI, the Buddha was an atheist. Look it up.

Edit: in fact, I'll do it for you:

'Gautama Buddha rejected the existence of a creator deity'

Buddhism also rejects personal deities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Buddhism

[Iain Sparrow]

I remember a friend of mine who so wanted to be an atheist but couldn't bring himself to accept with sound reason the non-existence of God. So after much reflection he maintained that God does exist, in one way or the other, but that he's a very unpleasant character of the novel of humankind. I think he was angry with God, or with the idea of God.

The amusing bit of his story, or the sad part if you will, was that neither theists nor atheists took him seriously.


I neither take seriously, nor have respect for those types of people... the fence sitters, the agnostics, the gutless.

[Poetaster]

What is with the misunderstanding of common words?


I neither take seriously, nor have respect for those types of people... the fence sitters, the agnostics, the gutless.

If the guy believes that god, but that god is unpleasant, he is by definition a theist, not agnostic.

[The Atheist]

FYI Buddhists are pantheists ... try fact checking before making assertions.

Wow. That is a depth of ignorance I'm not used to.

You clearly know nothing about neither Buddhism nor Pantheism. I see you've been given a link to Buddhism - here's Pantheism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism

I'm guessing you got Hinduism and Buddhism mixed up. Easy mistake to make, eh? Asians all look the same and think the same in your book?

[Pumpkin337]

FYI, the Buddha was an atheist. Look it up.

Edit: in fact, I'll do it for you:

'Gautama Buddha rejected the existence of a creator deity'

Buddhism also rejects personal deities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Buddhism


Again ... check both definitions and facts ....



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism


THE GOD-CONCEPTION OF BUDDHISM:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/zfa/zfa04.htm

which discusses why Buddhism is neither as atheistic as some would have it, and why it is at least in part pantheistic, mostly attempts to outline the concepts of God that are in fact in Buddhism but very technical.

A new form of Buddhism called Secular Buddhism is determinedly atheist

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_Buddhism


Asians all look the same and think the same in your book?

Please take your ridiculous prejudices and shove them where the sun don't shine. You know nothing about me!


I'm guessing you got Hinduism and Buddhism mixed up.

ROFLMAO oh I just love it when people make complete tits of themselves when attempting to do a put down. PLEASE PLEASE check your facts before you start throwing 'insults'.

Buddhism has its roots in Hinduism and both religions still share many similarities.

http://www.hinduwebsite.com/hinduism/h_buddhism.asp

[The Atheist]

What is with the misunderstanding of common words?

If the guy believes that god, but that god is unpleasant, he is by definition a theist, not agnostic.

Even better, all agnostics are atheist, but not all atheists are agnostic.

[The Atheist]

Again ... check both definitions and facts ....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism

You know repeating an error doesn't make it right, but just means you've made the same mistake twice.

If you doubt me, PM some of the Buddhists here and ask. You will find out first hand why Buddhism isn't listed among the adherents to pantheism.

Hint: it's because Buddhists aren't pantheists.

[Iain Sparrow]

What is with the misunderstanding of common words?



If the guy believes that god, but that god is unpleasant, he is by definition a theist, not agnostic.


Where the rubber meets to road, he believes in nothing at all.
I understand the full meaning of the words I used in my previous post as they apply to people who make up things as they go along in life. Waiting for God to tap them on the shoulder.

[Poetaster]

Even better, all agnostics are atheist, but not all atheists are agnostic.

Yeah, this I've generally found to be the case.

@Pumkin337: If the Buddha was an atheist, rejecting a creator god, and Buddhism rejects the idea of a personal god, then it is by definition atheistic. Plenty of Buddhists also call themselves atheists too, so who am I to believe? You who is clearly not a Buddhist talking about what you think Buddhism is? Or a Buddhist telling me what they think Buddhism is?

@Iain Sparrow: if he made a decision, who are you to assume he's just sitting on a fence when you don't even know the guy? I don't get it.

[Frostball]

As afraid as I am of a man with a gun in one hand and religious text of his choice in the other, I am more afraid of a man with a manifesto he made up himself. The former is dangerously deluded about the rightness of his cause, but the latter is entirely convinced of his own personal rightness ... and that is far more dangerous.

FYI Buddhists are pantheists ... try fact checking before making assertions.

Without a holy book one doesn't just make up morality out of whole cloth. You actually have to work together and agree with other humans to find out what seems right and wrong. You actually have to do a little work instead of having all of life's answers handed to you on a silver platter. Without citing from a holy book if you're shown to be wrong, you can just admit it, instead of holding fast because god said it so he must be right. Religious moral systems aren't even moral systems, they are just a list of rules without any regard for why the rules should be followed.

The bible, for example, never touches on why killing or theft is wrong, it merely proclaims that they are wrong. This causes people to just follow rules blindly instead of thinking for themselves, which leads to people committing atrocities while thinking they are doing the right thing. Picture an old woman who is perfectly nice to everybody, like really the nicest old lady you've ever seen. This old woman could be driven to bigotry against gays because the bible says so, and she would feel like she's doing the right thing, and nobody could ever convince her otherwise because that would be asking her to admit god was wrong. This is the failure of so called "objective" moral systems based on holy books. It destroys people's natural tendency to actually think about their actions and the consequences of them, instead allowing them to just follow a list of rules.

[Frostball]

I remember a friend of mine who so wanted to be an atheist but couldn't bring himself to accept with sound reason the non-existence of God. So after much reflection he maintained that God does exist, in one way or the other, but that he's a very unpleasant character of the novel of humankind. I think he was angry with God, or with the idea of God.

The amusing bit of his story, or the sad part if you will, was that neither theists nor atheists took him seriously.

I'm confused on how one would "want" to become an atheist. One should rather want to find the truth, and the outcome of that would be either theism or atheism. Theism and atheism are conclusions, not starting points.

I could perfectly understand hating god if you believed Yahweh existed, though. I don't believe he does exist, so I certainly don't hate him, except in the way I might hate voldemort for example. But this guy's situation sounds like a really sad state. That is he believes in god, but he hates him. It sounds like he's been indoctrinated so much into belief that he can't countenance disbelief, even though he has problems with religion and the bible. I don't know him, so I can't truly know, but still it sounds like an unhappy place to be with regards to his beliefs concerning god.

[Paulclem]

Again ... check both definitions and facts ....



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism


THE GOD-CONCEPTION OF BUDDHISM:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/zfa/zfa04.htm

which discusses why Buddhism is neither as atheistic as some would have it, and why it is at least in part pantheistic, mostly attempts to outline the concepts of God that are in fact in Buddhism but very technical.

A new form of Buddhism called Secular Buddhism is determinedly atheist

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_Buddhism



Please take your ridiculous prejudices and shove them where the sun don't shine. You know nothing about me!



ROFLMAO oh I just love it when people make complete tits of themselves when attempting to do a put down. PLEASE PLEASE check your facts before you start throwing 'insults'.

Buddhism has its roots in Hinduism and both religions still share many similarities.

http://www.hinduwebsite.com/hinduism/h_buddhism.asp

The Atheist is correct - Buddhists are neither pantheists nor just a branch of Hinduism. The website you've linked to claiming Buddhists are theists seems to have a Christian agenda. The Buddha rejected the idea of a soul and the conception of a creator God. His claim that the ultimate nature of reality or emptiness is another word for God has no basis in the teachings.

The problem with the Hindu website is that Hindus claim The Buddha as an incarnation of Siva. This is a largely political claim. The Buddha expressly rejected key tenets of Hinduism - particularly the caste system as an expression of Karma. This is potentially damaging for Hinduism as lower caste people are often drawn to Buddhism as an essentially caste and classless system. It has caused tension in India.

Interestingly, the original Hindu claim had The Buddha as an incarnation of Siva whose purpose was to tempt Hindus from the true path. Later - presumably when it didn't work - it tried to co-op Buddhism on the basis that you cannot reject Hinduism if you are born into it.

[Frostball]

Even better, all agnostics are atheist, but not all atheists are agnostic.

Well, I have heard of agnostic theists. One who believes in god but understands that it can't be proven, and that they can't be certain that he does in fact exist. Just because you aren't sure about something doesn't mean you can't have an opinion. So an agnostic theist doesn't know for sure, but still in the end believes.

[mortalterror]

Well, it might be an often used argument, but it's true to say that would you believe I am sitting with the Philosopher's Stone next to my laptop as I write this? I think you'd be perfectly justified in saying 'Nah, I think that's horse **** until you show me a picture at least', and I think you'd have every right to be annoyed if I said 'Well, why don't you believe I have the Philosopher's Stone beside my laptop? Can't you just take it on faith?' So people are being 'contrary idiots' if they are disagreeing without giving any reason? Well, I agree, thanks for admitting you are not listening to the other side. Plenty of reasons can be given for disbelief, and I'm sure they already have been given on this very thread. For one I have never experienced the consciousness of God directly, nor has anyone else as far as I can see. There one reason.

See my earlier post on page 16? about Russell's teapot. In your example it is just one person making the claim that you have the Philosopher's Stone by your laptop. But in the case of a god there are literally thousands, possibly millions, of eye witness sightings and historical documents. Then there are the other reasons for believing in a god which I mentioned may be inferred from verifiable phenomena. If a thousand people told me that you had a Philosopher's Stone, and there were historical evidence to prove that one actually existed in the distant past, I'd say we'd be justified to believe it.

[mortalterror]

Justify rejection? You're looking at it the entirely wrong way. You have to justify believing in something not disbelieving something. Just like Poetaster said with his philosopher's stone example, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Your example of the sun is laughable because if there was as much evidence for god as there was of the sun we wouldn't be even discussing this; god would be an obvious reality. The the fact is that there isn't as much evidence for god as we have for anything else we know to be real; even things like dark matter and dark energy at least have some measurable effect even if we don't know what they are and how they are doing it.

This isn't to say that one should just decide there are no gods and never think about it again. As you say, the jury is still out. But what this means is one might as well not believe it until there IS evidence. Since a thing cannot be disproved, ever, this means that the jury is still out on everything. The jury is still out on ghosts, bigfoot, loch ness, santa, faeries, and god. But one doesn't just live their life as though these things DO exist just because it hasn't been proved that they don't. That's exactly the way atheists are with god. He might be out there, but there's no reason to assume he is unless there is good evidence.

I don't mind the contrarian title either, but I don't see how this is in any way contrarian. It's just logical.

In what school of logic did you learn that the burden of proof is always on the side making a claim, or that atheism makes no claims? That doesn't sound like logic to me. That sounds like Dawkins or Hitchens, but it doesn't sound like Aristotle or Descartes. What rule of logic are we actually discussing? Who came up with it? And is it a law or just a custom? I think it's a custom, and a crutch for those who feel the need to always be on offense but never play defense. It's like expecting to always play white and go first in Chess and your opponent must always be black. It feels dishonest and hypocritical, as does the notion that atheism makes no truth claims or is a single logical point without a whole range of associated ideas.

I find the fellow's analogy of the sun to be quite apt. In fact we have more evidence for God than we do for the sun, because the sun and everything that is is our evidence. You cannot find anything which is not evidence for God in the universe. That is natural theology and was once the foundation for all the sciences. If you think there is no evidence of God perhaps it's because you are looking in the wrong places. Atheists are like men with their backs to the sun denying it's existence, or like Plato's allegory of the cave where men are chained looking at a wall. Either way, they live in darkness and fear the truth.

The contrarian title now, hmmm. I've known logical people who weren't contrarian. It's sort of like how there are people who are rude who say that they are just being honest. Perhaps, the problem with contrarians isn't that they are using logic so much as they have a habit of using logic only for their own personal hobbyhorse and when it suits them. Or they will deny that a majority point of view which conflicts with their personal beliefs can also be reached and defended through logical premises. So you can be logical, but wielding logic in a peevish and illogical fashion, which makes it offensive, idiosyncratic, or contrarian. I suggest that it isn't logic which finds you at odds with the rest of society time after time, it's a personality disorder which you defend with logic.

[mortalterror]

YesNo, this may be influenced by how often I find myself agreeing with your opinions, but I'm always surprised and impressed by the content of your ideas in these threads. I hadn't even considered the free will and consciousness aspects of this debate.

And Poetaster, you're a sharp cookie too, and as far as I can tell, not like the typical New Atheists I so often run into in the States.

It's a pleasure to read both of your comments in this conversation.

[YesNo]

If my story is unknown to me then how is it a story? I don't get it.

Your responses are your story. I am providing you prompts with my posts. Once you compose the post, you understand better what you know, perhaps for the first time.



There is that term 'neo-Darwinist' again. How would materialistic evolution be disproved by the Lenski experiment. As far as I'm aware, and as far as I even care, evolution (or neo-Darwinism if you must does not place chance as the driving force behind mutation and adaption, but is instead chemistry and biology. I feel myself repeating. If you can point to a reputable scientist that has said it is, though, care to share a quote?

Do the chemistry and biology rely upon either determinism or chance? Can the species as a whole or individuals make choices in your view even at the E. coli level?



I do not see the universe as part of the Consiousness - to me it is a place, purely a materialistic construction. I see no reason to think otherwise, so unless you want to convince me you do need further argument, because that argument you give is not one that is going to be accepted by I would suspect most people. So in simple terms you think the universe shows evidence of design or consciousness, fine. What do you see that suggests design or consciousness?

I do see it as a manifestation of Consciousness. I see no reason to think otherwise. If you want to convince me that it is not, you will need to provide further arguments preferably based on modern science.

As far as my convincing you, I mentioned early on that I am not interested in convincing you of anything.



I must admit, the only time I hear the words 'chance' and 'determinism' in these sorts of discussions is when theists are describing what atheists apparently say. Two questions anyway: 1) if quantum physics shows evidence for theism, why are not all quantum physicists theists? 2) How has quantum physics 'undermined' atheism? That video you showed me? I did provide a video making a counter claim, did you watch it?

Look at the video again and point to something in it you disagree with. I would be interested to know what it is.

Physicists, like anyone else, will believe whatever they want about God. It not part of their specialty.



How is the idea our consciousness is 'trivia' meaning we do not have free will? Care to explain? That's one of the most ludicrous things I've ever heard.

Do you think you have any sort of free will? On what do you base that belief? I would say you do because your consciousness is not reducible to matter. Otherwise you do not because then you are determined.

So, if consciousness is trivial, if it can be explained as an epiphenomenon of our chemistry and physics, then we do not have free will. I don't think that is the case. Have you read Sam Harris's Free Will? He would be an example of an atheist who doesn't believe in free will. Do you agree with him or not?




... how? You make some pretty bombastic claims and do not show your reasoning, no wonder I'm frankly not impressed.

Here's a tip: When I make a claim that you think is wrong, use it to state something new that moves the discussion in the direction you are interested in seeing it go.



Why does it need something eternal to explain the universe? You do realize that before the big bang there was no time, right? Why can't it depend solely on matter? I really wish you would explain yourself.

Show me that it can depend upon only matter. It did have a beginning. That's what raises the doubt. Where did it come from?



Did you look at an earlier post critiquing Nagel's writing and reputation? Why do you think atheism has to cling to monism? I can think of many people who do not think this. Also, you are not really in a position to declare you opinions on what atheism will succeed in doing if you don't seem to really understand what atheism is.

Sure. I've read all your posts as well as those of others in this thread. I want to see the scope of the argument. It doesn't matter if "many" think something. Only their arguments matter if they have any. If I can compose the sentence and post it I am in a position to declare my opinions on whatever I choose.

I also believe in a sort of monism. Basically, matter is an epiphenomenon of consciousness, not the other way around as in materialism. Nagel has a different sort of monism. He thinks consciousness and matter work together and can't be separated. This allows him to justify reductionism by giving up on materialism. A dualism would be what Descartes promoted, but then the question of how mind interacts with matter raises additional questions.

[mortalterror]

If my story is unknown to me then how is it a story? I don't get it.
Because we don't pick our beliefs by reason. We form our opinions and then build reasons around them for being true. Basic psychology. The logic of a claim also has little baring on it's persuasiveness, and most belief is driven by personality and biological differences in the brain. Hence those with naturally negative, melancholy, or skeptical dispositions tend to gravitate toward one end of the bubble and those with positive, cheerful, and trusting dispositions end up on the other. Some of the basic ability to believe in other minds outside our own, teleological thinking, or the ability to see cause and effect or meaning in actions is also ingrained into personality. It's not logical, it's biological.

Besides, I've never met a person who had a systematic and self-coherent philosophy. People's beliefs are a mishmash of facts and opinions, things they've reasoned for themselves, things they were told by others, vague yearnings, artifacts of youth, delusions, wishes, and half figured out ideas they are still struggling with. You might say that most of your belief system is subconscious.


I do not see the universe as part of the Consiousness - to me it is a place, purely a materialistic construction. I see no reason to think otherwise, so unless you want to convince me you do need further argument, because that argument you give is not one that is going to be accepted by I would suspect most people.
Here we are not debating the truth value of a claim but rather it's persuasive value. The threshold for belief varies among the population from not requiring much evidence to not being persuaded no matter how much evidence is presented. I find that to be a key distinction between believers and skeptics. It's not so much a matter of proof or no proof as some have suggested. The debate runs more along the lines of enough proof versus not enough evidence.


So in simple terms you think the universe shows evidence of design or consciousness, fine. What do you see that suggests design or consciousness?
Fine tuned universe for one thing. Evolution for another. The order, the fact that things follow rational laws instead of being completely chaotic and random, etc.


1) if quantum physics shows evidence for theism, why are not all quantum physicists theists?
Social conditioning in the subculture peer group of scientists, materialistic nature of their studies and the philosophy thereof, monetary and honorary incentives toward skepticism in their profession, psychological leanings which predisposed them toward a life of scientific pursuit, pervasiveness of liberal ideology among academic institutions where the majority of research is conducted, the over representation of western affluent white males in the sample, etc.


How is the idea our consciousness is 'trivia' meaning we do not have free will? Care to explain? That's one of the most ludicrous things I've ever heard.
I have heard atheists argue in the past that since we are purely material creatures, our brains are a series of chemical reactions, and our bodies are just genes reacting to instincts and outside stimula, that everything is predictable. If everything is the biological nature of an animal plus it's environment then we are just automata without free will of our own.

[mortalterror]

But even with that said, this is just more evidence that atheism is just one thing, and doesn't tell anybody what to do. You can be atheist and be terrible, or you can be atheist and be a great person. Same thing with religious people. But what atheism does not have is a holy book that outlines clearly backwards and evil beliefs and practices. You need some other kind of ideology to actually get you to believe in something. I for example advocate reason, free thinking, humanism, equality, and things like that. The regimes you listed clearly do not, but that has nothing to do with atheism.

I don't know about that. I don't think the dogma comes just from having a book. I've met too many atheists with too many common beliefs for it to just be chance, or for them to come to the same conclusions all on their own. The way atheists act you'd think they were the first atheists ever and all of their ideas are entirely original, but anthropology, and sociology should teach us that no man is an island.

It's also an oversimplification to say that all of Christian beliefs are ancient or derived from just one book. There's so many other sources to consider from the institutions, to the theologians Augustine, Aquinus, Calvin, Luther, Tillich, Barth, Newman, Niebhur, Whitehead, Swedenborg, Kierkegaard, Plantinga, Bonhoeffer, traditions, and diverse cultural influences, ecumenical councils, creeds, etc.

[mortalterror]

Excellent, yet another theist explaining what atheism is and being wrong.
Considering I was an atheist for several years, I feel I have as much right to define it as you. Besides, you are hardly an unbiased source yourself. And finally, if a theist can't possibly hope to plumb the endlessly unique depths of atheism which a whole 2% of the world subscribes to, how can an atheist hope to conceive of every religious person's point of view, beliefs, and philosophy? And don't say, "Cause you got a book." That's a cop out and an oversimplification. We have many books and philosophers the same as you. If it were all based on one book there would be only one denomination/interpretation instead of hundreds.


Nice try, but wrong in every respect. It is not a worldview, as neatly evinced by the fact that several hundred million Buddhists are atheists who have a diametrically different worldview to me.
I don't consider Buddhists atheists. Besides, I have a worldview which is different from Jews, Muslims, or Hindus, but we are all theists. You need to try harder.


Atheism acts nothing like a religion. Despite your attempts to paint leaders, there are none. No central doctrine, nothing. The idea that atheism is anything like religion is absurd.
Atheism acts exactly like an emerging religion. The sociology, psychology, and anthropology studies all confirm it.


Nonsense.

A typical strawman attack that has been tried thousands of times and failed.
Or, you know, common sense and I'm completely right.


No. Unsurprisingly, you are completely wrong.

A= without. Theos = god. Without god. Nothing about evidence, science or rationalism.
That's just etymology. It's not a definition of the concept and doesn't show the context with which the word is used in our society. Again you are oversimplifying a complex subject.

[mortalterror]

FYI, the Buddha was an atheist. Look it up.

Edit: in fact, I'll do it for you:

'Gautama Buddha rejected the existence of a creator deity'

Buddhism also rejects personal deities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Buddhism

Whether Buddhism is atheist or theistic is somewhat ambiguous, and I'm not enough of an eastern religious scholar to sort it out, but from what I've gathered it's a little bit of both and depends on which sect and which period of history you are looking at. Buddhism is just way to big and old to be any one thing. Just look at their expansive pantheon of deities, their buddhas, bodhisattvas, wisdom kings, heavenly deities, gongen, arhats, devas, nagas, yakshas, gandharva, asura, Guanyin. That's all pretty explicitly theistic.


Yeah, this I've generally found to be the case.

@Pumkin337: If the Buddha was an atheist, rejecting a creator god, and Buddhism rejects the idea of a personal god, then it is by definition atheistic. Plenty of Buddhists also call themselves atheists too, so who am I to believe? You who is clearly not a Buddhist talking about what you think Buddhism is? Or a Buddhist telling me what they think Buddhism is?

@Iain Sparrow: if he made a decision, who are you to assume he's just sitting on a fence when you don't even know the guy? I don't get it.
Unless you met them in the East I wouldn't put too much stock in what a western Buddhist believes. I've had some Buddhist friends in my day that understood next to nothing about the religion. My friend just adopted some eastern affectations because he liked martial arts movies, had some white guilt, a love for the exotic, and no firm upbringing in his own culture. My experience has been that if you are a westerner and you get into Eastern mysticism, you are probably just some sort of lightweight hippy douchebag. Religion, when it comes down to it is culture, and when I see people trying to adopt practices alien to their culture, it's like watching them wear clothes that don't fit. They are just flailing, trying to be different. When we explore our own culture, it generally fits us better. Whatever appealing feature you may find in another culture, there is usually an analog in your native culture, if you'd only bothered to look.

My Tibetan roommate in college, I'm pretty sure was a Buddhist well steeped in it's traditions, ways of acting, and thought. He wouldn't eat meat and used to catch our rooms spiders on a paper and set them alive outside.

[mortalterror]

Without a holy book one doesn't just make up morality out of whole cloth. You actually have to work together and agree with other humans to find out what seems right and wrong. You actually have to do a little work instead of having all of life's answers handed to you on a silver platter. Without citing from a holy book if you're shown to be wrong, you can just admit it, instead of holding fast because god said it so he must be right. Religious moral systems aren't even moral systems, they are just a list of rules without any regard for why the rules should be followed.

The bible, for example, never touches on why killing or theft is wrong, it merely proclaims that they are wrong. This causes people to just follow rules blindly instead of thinking for themselves, which leads to people committing atrocities while thinking they are doing the right thing. Picture an old woman who is perfectly nice to everybody, like really the nicest old lady you've ever seen. This old woman could be driven to bigotry against gays because the bible says so, and she would feel like she's doing the right thing, and nobody could ever convince her otherwise because that would be asking her to admit god was wrong. This is the failure of so called "objective" moral systems based on holy books. It destroys people's natural tendency to actually think about their actions and the consequences of them, instead allowing them to just follow a list of rules.

Without the "holy books" you pretty much are starting from zero and making it up as you go along. The non-aggression principle, which is natural to human biology will work as a basic guide to moral behavior, to average level moral behavior, but to be better than that you need an external philosophy. Religion is essentially 5 thousand years of ethical philosophy. Christian Theology offers many reasons for why we should behave as Christians. It's not just a set of rules as you claim.

Then again, think of the same old woman, thinking for herself, but committing atrocities because no one ever told her not to and still thinking she was doing the right thing. Picture that old woman who is driven to bigotry because she read something James Watson said about black people not being as smart as white people, books on phrenology, or scientific racism which were used as pretexts for slavery, or the holocaust. Imagine she was told that a fetus has no right to life, that we don't have souls, that we're entirely material, that it's okay to do what we want to living organisms so long as they aren't big and fully developed, and she had no problem aborting millions of babies. Imagine a scientist driven by a technological necessity for progress creating weapons which could destroy the world, or torturing monkeys because there is no law against it and it's for the good of science, or performing immoral experiments on humans and children. People do a lot of things out of self-interest, for fame, for money, but they don't do it as much when they are regularly reminded by external institutions that it would be wrong. The church is a counter balance against the pressures of the material world, and one of the only educators in ethics and philosophy we have. Personally, I'm pro-education.

[Pumpkin337]

Whether Buddhism is atheist or theistic is somewhat ambiguous, and I'm not enough of an eastern religious scholar to sort it out, but from what I've gathered it's a little bit of both and depends on which sect and which period of history you are looking at. Buddhism is just way to big and old to be any one thing. Just look at their expansive pantheon of deities, their buddhas, bodhisattvas, wisdom kings, heavenly deities, gongen, arhats, devas, nagas, yakshas, gandharva, asura, Guanyin. That's all pretty explicitly theistic.

that was pretty much the knowledge base I was coming from :)



Unless you met them in the East I wouldn't put too much stock in what a western Buddhist believes. I've had some Buddhist friends in my day that understood next to nothing about the religion. My friend just adopted some eastern affectations because he liked martial arts movies, had some white guilt, a love for the exotic, and no firm upbringing in his own culture. My experience has been that if you are a westerner and you get into Eastern mysticism, you are probably just some sort of lightweight hippy douchebag. Religion, when it comes down to it is culture, and when I see people trying to adopt practices alien to their culture, it's like watching them wear clothes that don't fit. They are just flailing, trying to be different. When we explore our own culture, it generally fits us better. Whatever appealing feature you may find in another culture, there is usually an analog in your native culture, if you'd only bothered to look.

My Tibetan roommate in college, I'm pretty sure was a Buddhist well steeped in it's traditions, ways of acting, and thought. He wouldn't eat meat and used to catch our rooms spiders on a paper and set them alive outside.

Well I wouldn't have put it that harshly but I agree.

PS I also catch spiders and put them out, although mostly I leave them alone ... I have one permanent resident in my bathroom :D ..but I'm not a Buddhist.


The non-aggression principle, which is natural to human biology will work as a basic guide to moral behavior, to average level moral behavior, but to be better than that you need an external philosophy.

Oh please don't make me laugh ... non-aggression principle? Yup that explains perfectly why men have been going to war with other men for just about all of human history ... pray tell please explain how your mythical non-aggression principle explains the basic aggressive and martial tendencies of mankind?

[Pumpkin337]

In what school of logic did you learn that the burden of proof is always on the side making a claim, or that atheism makes no claims? That doesn't sound like logic to me. That sounds like Dawkins or Hitchens, but it doesn't sound like Aristotle or Descartes. What rule of logic are we actually discussing? Who came up with it? And is it a law or just a custom? I think it's a custom, and a crutch for those who feel the need to always be on offense but never play defense. It's like expecting to always play white and go first in Chess and your opponent must always be black. It feels dishonest and hypocritical, as does the notion that atheism makes no truth claims or is a single logical point without a whole range of associated ideas.

I find the fellow's analogy of the sun to be quite apt. In fact we have more evidence for God than we do for the sun, because the sun and everything that is is our evidence. You cannot find anything which is not evidence for God in the universe. That is natural theology and was once the foundation for all the sciences. If you think there is no evidence of God perhaps it's because you are looking in the wrong places. Atheists are like men with their backs to the sun denying it's existence, or like Plato's allegory of the cave where men are chained looking at a wall. Either way, they live in darkness and fear the truth.

The contrarian title now, hmmm. I've known logical people who weren't contrarian. It's sort of like how there are people who are rude who say that they are just being honest. Perhaps, the problem with contrarians isn't that they are using logic so much as they have a habit of using logic only for their own personal hobbyhorse and when it suits them. Or they will deny that a majority point of view which conflicts with their personal beliefs can also be reached and defended through logical premises. So you can be logical, but wielding logic in a peevish and illogical fashion, which makes it offensive, idiosyncratic, or contrarian. I suggest that it isn't logic which finds you at odds with the rest of society time after time, it's a personality disorder which you defend with logic.

Thank you! And it would be great if some of the atheists in this thread actually answered the point instead of always just pooh-poohing it. Saying that some one's else argument is weak, stupid, invalid, wrong doesn't make yours any stronger. As I said ... it just makes you look an argumentative contrary idiot who has no defense for what you think you believe, but who just likes to attack people of an opposite opinion ... perhaps to vent some of the anger they feel towards a god they claim not to believe in because god has disappointed them in some way or failed to live up to their expectations. Ultimately the accusations leveled against god which lead to a rejection of god come down to a few basic things:

1. the person grew up in a rigid home / church community which was restrictive, hurtful and rejection of the narrowness of that view has led to a rejection of god.

2. the person has looked at the state of the world and concluded that no loving god would let the world get into this state therefore there is no loving god to believe in. Sometimes the slightly watered down version is 'therefore I do not want to believe in such a god if such a god exists'.

3. the person has looked at various bits of the OT taken out of context and gotten hot under the collar about what they think it says and (usually also argues these random bits of scripture in online forums with vast amounts of heat and anger behind their words) comes to the conclusion that god is unfair, misogynistic, unenlightened, and cruel and .... comes to the conclusion that they do not wish to believe in such a god.

4. There was some situation in the person's life where they turned to god / thought god should intervene and they think god didn't and as result have turned against god.

I am yet to hear anyone on any of these forums who claims to be an atheistic Jew, former follower of Islam or any one of the many other theistic religions who have decided that god does not exist and feels the need to vent their anger against those religions which is why I said earlier that the way in which these conversations go always devolves into an anti-Christian rant which seems to me to be more than a little biased.

(I specify "on forums" because there are examples like Marx who was an atheistic Jew and Salman Rushdie who is an atheistic Muslim and I'm sure many others less famous. They just don't seem to feel the need to vent their feelings online.)

If you truly do not believe in god then your argument is against ALL theistic beliefs just not one in particular, and you should then also be able to defend your position against anyone who comes with any POV about god(s) they believe in rather than just simply whipping out your invective against Christianity.

If your only argument is against christianity and the bible ... then are you really an atheist or just some one who has rejected the faith you were exposed to / grew up in?

Whatever your position is, you should be able to defend it, .... the word is 'apologetics' which means to have a ready defense for your beliefs.

Again, as I said, earlier, it is not enough to just say that others arguments are invalid / wrong you must actually be able to show why they are wrong, as well as defend your own.


(whilst I am not going to elaborate deeply on my own personal position I will say that my basic beliefs lean towards theism simply because I think the world is up the proverbial creek without a paddle if we have to rely on ourselves to pull ourselves up by the bootstraps but I am not big fan of organised religion of any flavour. And I most certainly do not place a great deal of faith in some innate higher quality of mankind that if we all just sat around a campfire and sang Kumbaya and thought happy thoughts it would come out and we would enjoy world peace. I do enjoy a good debate though :) )

[Poetaster]

YesNo, this may be influenced by how often I find myself agreeing with your opinions, but I'm always surprised and impressed by the content of your ideas in these threads. I hadn't even considered the free will and consciousness aspects of this debate.

And Poetaster, you're a sharp cookie too, and as far as I can tell, not like the typical New Atheists I so often run into in the States.

It's a pleasure to read both of your comments in this conversation.

First of all I have to say: thank you. This was actually a nice thing to read, it made me smile. So thanks. :)

There is quite a lot to get through and to respond to, so forgive me if my response might take a while.


See my earlier post on page 16? about Russell's teapot. In your example it is just one person making the claim that you have the Philosopher's Stone by your laptop. But in the case of a god there are literally thousands, possibly millions, of eye witness sightings and historical documents. Then there are the other reasons for believing in a god which I mentioned may be inferred from verifiable phenomena. If a thousand people told me that you had a Philosopher's Stone, and there were historical evidence to prove that one actually existed in the distant past, I'd say we'd be justified to believe it.

This isn't a bad argument I must admit - having an agreed conscientious is the point of peer revision, however, say there were a thousand people saying that I had the Philosopher's Stone beside my laptop, with a picture of a stone beside a laptop. What kind of process has that thousand people used to come to that conclusion? Have they heard me saying it, and just taken it on faith or have they actually seen the stone, and seen it really is the Philosophers Stone through demonstration?

With regards to the Teapot/Santa Clause post, yes, it is impossible to disprove the existence of God, however, it seems to be equally impossible to prove the existence of God. I'm sure no one in this thread arguing the atheist case would deny this. The typical argument is while this might be the case, it goes back to the thing Pumkin337 and I were discussing about the rejection of a positive claim. This was Russell's point with the teapot. Yes, records in history can be debated, and the existence of things can be inferred without observations - like Dark Matter. However, those things are not consciousness entities with the power to create universes. Logic might actually fall apart when it comes to more technical scientific fields, like Quantum Mechanics say, or Relativity (I don't think it's logical that Time itself can bend, but it appears to do so) but those are laws - a deity that can bend natural laws is so utterly unknown, logic is all we really have.


Your responses are your story. I am providing you prompts with my posts. Once you compose the post, you understand better what you know, perhaps for the first time.

I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around this point, but fair enough.


Do the chemistry and biology rely upon either determinism or chance? Can the species as a whole or individuals make choices in your view even at the E. coli level?

E. Coli doesn't, as far as we know, have a decision making process or consciousness. I do believe in free will (in some ways I think that's all we have) so chemistry is just deterministic, biology it becomes more complex when more complex animals starts needing to make decisions. Consider a snail, a snail 'knows' to eat leafs and how to move, but it's not a process that a snail could put into language, language is the construction of more intelligent animals - and even decisions more impressive than the basic drives for life come with more intelligent animals. They may not have a language, but apes still play with things, and entertain themselves, and understand the basics of society. These certainly are not about the fulfillment of basic life needs, leading me to think that free will comes with genius (at least in terms of the animal kingdom).


I do see it as a manifestation of Consciousness. I see no reason to think otherwise. If you want to convince me that it is not, you will need to provide further arguments preferably based on modern science.

As far as my convincing you, I mentioned early on that I am not interested in convincing you of anything.

Well, exactly for the reason above. The universe seems to only abide by the laws of physics, and does not seem to do anything that suggests it entertains itself or even intakes any form of sustenance. It doesn't show any signs of life, instead it shows me all the signs of waves lashing against the shore. It just seems to follow the laws of physics, and that's all.


Look at the video again and point to something in it you disagree with. I would be interested to know what it is.

Physicists, like anyone else, will believe whatever they want about God. It not part of their specialty.

Physicists believing in god is not the point I was making - obviously, but have you ever heard the quotation (I forget who said it) 'one experiment is worth a thousand expert opinions'? This is something many theists do not seem to understand about the scientific method (and to be fair, so do a lot of New Atheists) that unless you actually know something beyond reasonable doubt your opinion is worthless. We have both admitted we do not know very much about Quantum Mechanics, and are complete amateurs, I'll even say I'm not a very good, or even interested amateur in the subject, so like it or not, my opinion is worthless on the subject. And so, I'm sorry to say, is yours.


Do you think you have any sort of free will? On what do you base that belief?

Yes I think I do, and because I've just sang to myself the song 'Total Eclipse of the Heart' replacing the word 'heart' with 'fart'. I wanted to do it, and could have decided not to do it. I could have also decided to do that and not done it anyway. Determinism puts it's trust in either math (in which case you are an existentialist too because everything is utterly meaningless, you even go one step further than I do because I at least believe in subjective meaning whereas that wouldn't) or a god, which I do not believe exists. It might be a leap of faith to believe in free will, but it's the one that doesn't assume anymore than I am a living thing that can think and make independent decisions - and what I see of the universe it justifies this at least.


I would say you do because your consciousness is not reducible to matter. Otherwise you do not because then you are determined.

Well, 'matter'? Thinking is apparently electrical signals in the brain, communication between cells. You may think consciousness is not just matter, but I don't see why not. Some living things are not conscious, like viruses.


So, if consciousness is trivial, if it can be explained as an epiphenomenon of our chemistry and physics, then we do not have free will. I don't think that is the case.

Rubbish, and completely unsupported by anything more than your opinion. If consciousness is chemistry then why can't that chemistry mutate into intelligence? What is the difference between a virus (which is alive) and a fish (which is obviously alive)? That to be honest is more of a rhetorical question, a philosophical point to consider.


Have you read Sam Harris's Free Will? He would be an example of an atheist who doesn't believe in free will. Do you agree with him or not?

No, I don't agree with him at all - and allow me to be vulgar for a moment, I think he's a dick. But I tend to think that about people who try to justify torture, as Harris has with torturing Islamic extremists.


Here's a tip: When I make a claim that you think is wrong, use it to state something new that moves the discussion in the direction you are interested in seeing it go.

Seems a bit of a sneaky tactic, have I honestly been doing this?


Show me that it can depend upon only matter. It did have a beginning. That's what raises the doubt. Where did it come from?

Negative claim since you are talking about the universe having a consciousness - I've actually explained my reason above to be honest, but really - the pressure is on you to explain your positive claim which you haven't actually done, despite me asking at least twice.


Sure. I've read all your posts as well as those of others in this thread. I want to see the scope of the argument. It doesn't matter if "many" think something. Only their arguments matter if they have any. If I can compose the sentence and post it I am in a position to declare my opinions on whatever I choose.

I agree.


I also believe in a sort of monism. Basically, matter is an epiphenomenon of consciousness, not the other way around as in materialism. Nagel has a different sort of monism. He thinks consciousness and matter work together and can't be separated. This allows him to justify reductionism by giving up on materialism. A dualism would be what Descartes promoted, but then the question of how mind interacts with matter raises additional questions.

Fair enough.


Whether Buddhism is atheist or theistic is somewhat ambiguous, and I'm not enough of an eastern religious scholar to sort it out, but from what I've gathered it's a little bit of both and depends on which sect and which period of history you are looking at. Buddhism is just way to big and old to be any one thing. Just look at their expansive pantheon of deities, their buddhas, bodhisattvas, wisdom kings, heavenly deities, gongen, arhats, devas, nagas, yakshas, gandharva, asura, Guanyin. That's all pretty explicitly theistic.

This is exactly why I didn't say Buddhism is officially atheist, only that the Buddha was an atheist (which he seems to have been given the writings and traditions) and can be practiced in an atheistic way. I'm aware of the grey area, and was being careful to avoid it.


Unless you met them in the East I wouldn't put too much stock in what a western Buddhist believes. I've had some Buddhist friends in my day that understood next to nothing about the religion. My friend just adopted some eastern affectations because he liked martial arts movies, had some white guilt, a love for the exotic, and no firm upbringing in his own culture. My experience has been that if you are a westerner and you get into Eastern mysticism, you are probably just some sort of lightweight hippy douchebag. Religion, when it comes down to it is culture, and when I see people trying to adopt practices alien to their culture, it's like watching them wear clothes that don't fit. They are just flailing, trying to be different. When we explore our own culture, it generally fits us better. Whatever appealing feature you may find in another culture, there is usually an analog in your native culture, if you'd only bothered to look.

My Tibetan roommate in college, I'm pretty sure was a Buddhist well steeped in it's traditions, ways of acting, and thought. He wouldn't eat meat and used to catch our rooms spiders on a paper and set them alive outside.

Some undergrad who is really into Buddhism and mysticism as a way of appearing deep and intellectual to get laid is not the same as someone like my uncle who is a spiritually ordained Buddhist monk, and who has traveled to Tibet to study under the Lama. When it comes to Buddhism I tend to know what I'm talking about.


Because we don't pick our beliefs by reason. We form our opinions and then build reasons around them for being true. Basic psychology. The logic of a claim also has little baring on it's persuasiveness, and most belief is driven by personality and biological differences in the brain. Hence those with naturally negative, melancholy, or skeptical dispositions tend to gravitate toward one end of the bubble and those with positive, cheerful, and trusting dispositions end up on the other. Some of the basic ability to believe in other minds outside our own, teleological thinking, or the ability to see cause and effect or meaning in actions is also ingrained into personality. It's not logical, it's biological.

Well, logical? The willingness of people to believe in a fantasy is very clearly attested to. I'm going to make an obscure example but one well known to a reader of Orwell. During the 1930s and 1940s the western intelligentsia believed that there was a Socialist utopia being slowly created in the USSR, and the great action and battle was to work to make this utopia grow - sure Stalin was using drastic actions, but it was all for a good cause, for paradise on earth and the end of history. Was this true? No, it took the end of the second world war for these people to finally realize the USSR was being led by a psychopathic murderer.

This was an ideology, sure, but it was still a belief not based on reason but the illusion that Socialism could really end history and create a paradise on earth - seeming to ignore most of the lessons of history that Socialism was claiming to be ending.


Besides, I've never met a person who had a systematic and self-coherent philosophy. People's beliefs are a mishmash of facts and opinions, things they've reasoned for themselves, things they were told by others, vague yearnings, artifacts of youth, delusions, wishes, and half figured out ideas they are still struggling with. You might say that most of your belief system is subconscious.

You could certainly say that too. I often suspect it is.


Here we are not debating the truth value of a claim but rather it's persuasive value. The threshold for belief varies among the population from not requiring much evidence to not being persuaded no matter how much evidence is presented. I find that to be a key distinction between believers and skeptics. It's not so much a matter of proof or no proof as some have suggested. The debate runs more along the lines of enough proof versus not enough evidence.

The distinction to me is not much of a one, but that might be a meaningless point to you - I don't know.


Fine tuned universe for one thing. Evolution for another. The order, the fact that things follow rational laws instead of being completely chaotic and random, etc.

Really? Rational? Just because the laws of physics seem to suit us, does that mean they are rational? If they were different then we wouldn't be here to talk about it, so the question is, what is really special about humanity? What is special about earth? Sure physics has seemingly decided earth is our home, but why must we exist? Why must the earth exist, or be able to support life? Why wasn't it Mars? I do not understand the claim that the laws of physics show intelligence, many different universes might exist, so in that respect there is no chance or need for intelligence, it's the infinity principle.

... that might have been a tangent, haha.


Social conditioning in the subculture peer group of scientists, materialistic nature of their studies and the philosophy thereof, monetary and honorary incentives toward skepticism in their profession, psychological leanings which predisposed them toward a life of scientific pursuit, pervasiveness of liberal ideology among academic institutions where the majority of research is conducted, the over representation of western affluent white males in the sample, etc.

Except from the working scientists I've met at university (I'm an A-level teacher, but I'm about to start an MA and I am aiming to do PhD, so I keep close to the staff of two universities on a personal level) this apparent social conditioning does not really happen. Especially among theoretical science like Quantum Mechanics. Any strange theory might find justification, from the idea of one universe, to the idea of multiple universes and dimensions, to the idea that the multiverse is another dimension. Academic institutions are often claimed to be 'liberal breeding grounds', but the number of professors that I know of who still call themselves Marxists make this problematic.

In an organization and community like a university Science Department, you can say and think whatever you please, what matters is if you can back up the claim - in my own field of English this also holds true. If I make the claim I think Victor Frankenstein is a bad protagonist and a pillock (and to be honest, I do) if I said that to a professor I'd expect this feeling toward that character to be probed and challenged. If scientists, and any academic for that matter, has came to a consensus about something then there is (not even must be - is) a very good reason for that.

That's just how the game is played. It is not something you can dismiss on the grounds of mere opinion, the only other alternative is that there is some kind of vast scientific conspiracy.


I have heard atheists argue in the past that since we are purely material creatures, our brains are a series of chemical reactions, and our bodies are just genes reacting to instincts and outside stimula, that everything is predictable. If everything is the biological nature of an animal plus it's environment then we are just automata without free will of our own.

Not necessarily. Just because we do not currently understand what intelligence is, exactly, does not mean that we must then jump to the assumption that there is no free will. It's a work in progress, and while you might have your opinion (I personally think free will exists) until we as a species actually knows, an opinion is not worth the bandwidth used to store this forum post.

Side note: hope you fellows appreciate this effort, because it took an hour to write this post out.

[Iain Sparrow]

@Iain Sparrow: if he made a decision, who are you to assume he's just sitting on a fence when you don't even know the guy?

I'm God, I know everything.
“He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters.” (Matthew 12:30)

There is a high road, and a low... but there is no middle road.:)

[Poetaster]

I'm God, I know everything.
“He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters.” (Matthew 12:30)

There is a high road, and a low... but there is no middle road.:)

Haha, fair enough. :)

[Ecurb]

My experience has been that if you are a westerner and you get into Eastern mysticism, you are probably just some sort of lightweight hippy douchebag.

.

MY EXPERIENCE has been that if you call large groups of people, "lightweight hippy douchebag(s)", qualifying the statement with "my experience has been" does not obviate your bigotry. It is good to see that bigotry is not limited to one side of the atheist vs. theist debate, however.

It is true that both Western Buddhists and hippys (members of the "counter culture", as they used to be called) reject at least some aspects of Western culture, and that, in a sense, in doing so they reject themselves. My limited knowledge of Buddhism suggests this might be appropriate for Buddhists. However, that doesn't make them "lightweights", let alone "douchebags". Most Westerners who practice Christianity and Judaism are "lightweights"(as are most atheists). We can't all be Acquinases or Augustines (or Buddhas). But "douchebags"? Come on now!

[mona amon]

This was way back in page 12 or something but better late than never -


Jesus also said, in Mathew 5:8 "For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."

And just a bit later in Mathew 5:19 "Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

Regardless, the real point for me is that Jesus himself embraced the old testament, and he spoke of moses and Isaac as real people. So according to Jesus the old testament was real. Now deciding to forsake the old testament and just follow Jesus is well and good. I am very glad that almost everybody has chosen to stop following those silly laws in the old testament, because they're mostly crap laws.

Absurd as it sounds, Jesus was a Jew but his followers are Christians, so Christians do not follow the same religion that Jesus did. This has to be kept in mind when trying to interpret the New Testament.

Mathew 5:8 "For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." Jesus is not saying that the Law will not change. He's saying it will happen, but only when "everything is accomplished."

I'm not suggesting that Jesus did not revere the Law. By all accounts he did respect it and was so thoroughly familiar with it that he could quote it at the drop of a hat and debate it with authority. Anyway, it's not about what he believed or what he was supposed to believe, but what he taught and what he did, and regardless of what he said or believed, we find him just a little later modifying these very laws, and out and out rejecting the "eye for an eye" law found in Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy, replacing it with its diametrical opposite, "turn the other cheek." He broke the Sabbath on several occasions, and challenged the existing divorce law. There are many other examples of Jesus subverting the Law but my favourite is the story of the woman caught in adultery - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+8:1-11 Here we have a blatantly evil law, and what's more everyone there, from Jesus to the Pharisees, (and with the possible exception of the zealots who caught her in the act and dragged her to the temple court) knows it is evil. I'd like to know what Christians who bend over backwards trying to defend every word of the Bible (not you of course, Frostball), have to say about this.

[Frostball]

In what school of logic did you learn that the burden of proof is always on the side making a claim, or that atheism makes no claims? That doesn't sound like logic to me. That sounds like Dawkins or Hitchens, but it doesn't sound like Aristotle or Descartes. What rule of logic are we actually discussing? Who came up with it? And is it a law or just a custom? I think it's a custom, and a crutch for those who feel the need to always be on offense but never play defense. It's like expecting to always play white and go first in Chess and your opponent must always be black. It feels dishonest and hypocritical, as does the notion that atheism makes no truth claims or is a single logical point without a whole range of associated ideas.

I find the fellow's analogy of the sun to be quite apt. In fact we have more evidence for God than we do for the sun, because the sun and everything that is is our evidence. You cannot find anything which is not evidence for God in the universe. That is natural theology and was once the foundation for all the sciences. If you think there is no evidence of God perhaps it's because you are looking in the wrong places. Atheists are like men with their backs to the sun denying it's existence, or like Plato's allegory of the cave where men are chained looking at a wall. Either way, they live in darkness and fear the truth.

The contrarian title now, hmmm. I've known logical people who weren't contrarian. It's sort of like how there are people who are rude who say that they are just being honest. Perhaps, the problem with contrarians isn't that they are using logic so much as they have a habit of using logic only for their own personal hobbyhorse and when it suits them. Or they will deny that a majority point of view which conflicts with their personal beliefs can also be reached and defended through logical premises. So you can be logical, but wielding logic in a peevish and illogical fashion, which makes it offensive, idiosyncratic, or contrarian. I suggest that it isn't logic which finds you at odds with the rest of society time after time, it's a personality disorder which you defend with logic.

Well I didn't mean to suggest I was using aristotelian logic or modal logic or anything. Perhaps I should have use the word rational. I was pretty sure I explained it well enough, but the whole teapot thing, the whole burden of evidence thing, all that is to show why we don't sit here and try to disprove faeries, leprechauns, ghosts, santa, what have you. We simply don't just accept claims right off the bat, but instead wait until somebody or something provides evidence for it. God is exactly the same way. If you say god is different then that's special pleading. It doesn't matter how many people believe in god either, that's the ad populum fallacy.

But I actually agree slightly here. Many atheists are very afraid of the burden of proof, though I don't know why. It honestly does not make sense to defend a negative, such as that one simply does not believe in a god. But most atheists do, in fact, think it's the case that there are no gods, as I do. I have no problem defending the case that there are no gods. Such a thing can obviously not be proven, but this is never about proof but about evidence to justify a reasonable belief or disbelief. The reason I don't think atheists should be afraid of the burden of proof is because the burden is much much lighter on our end. If theists and atheist both put all their points on the table the atheist will, in my opinion, come out ahead every time. It's simply much easier to be sure that this world exists without adding extra unnecessary things, than it is to argue that a super intelligent, all powerful, all good consciousness exists and created everything. It's just such a wild claim compared the the claim that such a thing doesn't exist.





I find the fellow's analogy of the sun to be quite apt. In fact we have more evidence for God than we do for the sun, because the sun and everything that is is our evidence.


Come on... This is classical begging the question, which is assuming the conclusion of an argument inside your very argument. Obviously if you were a theist you would believe the sun was made by god, and if you weren't you would believe the sun is made by natural means. Just looking at the sun can't be taken as evidence for god unless we actually establish that god is the one who made the sun. So I live in the darkness and fear the truth.. Ok... Can you please tell me where the evidence for god is that I'm missing? Paul got a road to damascus vision, what do I get? Does god care more about paul than me?

I didn't put the contrarian title on myself, in fact I don't think I'm being contrarian but just saying what I believe and why I believe it. If you find me peevish and offensive, then all I can say is that I'm sorry you feel that way. I don't mean to be like that, I'm just trying to explain what I think.

[Frostball]

I don't know about that. I don't think the dogma comes just from having a book. I've met too many atheists with too many common beliefs for it to just be chance, or for them to come to the same conclusions all on their own. The way atheists act you'd think they were the first atheists ever and all of their ideas are entirely original, but anthropology, and sociology should teach us that no man is an island.

It's also an oversimplification to say that all of Christian beliefs are ancient or derived from just one book. There's so many other sources to consider from the institutions, to the theologians Augustine, Aquinus, Calvin, Luther, Tillich, Barth, Newman, Niebhur, Whitehead, Swedenborg, Kierkegaard, Plantinga, Bonhoeffer, traditions, and diverse cultural influences, ecumenical councils, creeds, etc.

I've already talked about atheism as a subculture, or as a movement, which is different from atheism as the single position that one doesn't believe in gods. It's not just chance that atheists have common beliefs, it is a product of conversation and these atheists figuring out the arguments that work best, and the positions that are most sound. Good ideas, good arguments, and good positions tend to stick longer than bad ones, naturally, just like good traits with evolution. So good arguments and positions are selected in this way, and so only the better ones are left over. Just like evolution there is nobody watching the selection, so sometimes bad arguments get popular, but what are you going to do?

It may be an oversimplification to say that all Christian beliefs are derived from one book, and I acknowledge that all the people you mentioned had many things to add to christianity. But weren't all those guys pretty much going back to the same collection of books called the bible as well? This isn't even just me claiming this, but Christians almost ubiquitously say that the bible is at the core of their beliefs.

[Frostball]

Without the "holy books" you pretty much are starting from zero and making it up as you go along. The non-aggression principle, which is natural to human biology will work as a basic guide to moral behavior, to average level moral behavior, but to be better than that you need an external philosophy. Religion is essentially 5 thousand years of ethical philosophy. Christian Theology offers many reasons for why we should behave as Christians. It's not just a set of rules as you claim.

Then again, think of the same old woman, thinking for herself, but committing atrocities because no one ever told her not to and still thinking she was doing the right thing. Picture that old woman who is driven to bigotry because she read something James Watson said about black people not being as smart as white people, books on phrenology, or scientific racism which were used as pretexts for slavery, or the holocaust. Imagine she was told that a fetus has no right to life, that we don't have souls, that we're entirely material, that it's okay to do what we want to living organisms so long as they aren't big and fully developed, and she had no problem aborting millions of babies. Imagine a scientist driven by a technological necessity for progress creating weapons which could destroy the world, or torturing monkeys because there is no law against it and it's for the good of science, or performing immoral experiments on humans and children. People do a lot of things out of self-interest, for fame, for money, but they don't do it as much when they are regularly reminded by external institutions that it would be wrong. The church is a counter balance against the pressures of the material world, and one of the only educators in ethics and philosophy we have. Personally, I'm pro-education.

Starting at zero would be much better than where the bible starts us. But we quite obviously don't start at zero, anyway. We are a social species with evolved social behaviors, and so have a pretty automatic feeling of right and wrong. This is definitely not enough, and I agree that one needs some other philosophy to actually have a good system of morality. You certainly can't get any morality from atheism since it's just a single position. Morality instead needs to come from rational thought and hard work figuring out how we should live together.

Your version of my old woman example is different because she is either preposterously ignorant of everything (impossible), or reading some books that advocate immoral things and probably incorrect things. I find it funny that your defense is to bring of an apparently racist writer's book and say "Look, that would be just as bad". But the thing is nobody is shelling this guy's book as a book written by god and the ultimate answer to all of life's questions. This is the real problem with the bible as a moral guide. A person who got racist ideas from James Watson's book could at least be convinced that maybe the author was wrong. Not so with the bible, since people firmly believe it was inspired by god. To say something is incorrect makes all the rest crumble to some people. Not to everybody, of course, as many Christians are great people who follow only the good parts of the bible.

You continue on to state some moral dilemmas which, yes, are dilemmas and need to be worked out. All of these things should be discussed and figured out fervently. These are hard issues with no clear cut answer. One certainly isn't going to find a satisfactory answer in a holy book, and even if you claim to do so, it will undoubtedly contradict answers other people have gotten from the same book.

You say religion is 5000 years of ethical philosophy, and that may be. But it is ethical philosophy based on ridiculous notions of what "good" is and what "bad" is, with good being what god wants, and bad being what god doesn't want. Whatever ethical philosophy that comes from Christianity must also be working under the assumption that this life is only temporary, and thus unimportant, compared with the ultimate afterlife, so I would expect a great emphasis on how to get into heaven from this philosophy. Since if one believed in heaven, getting others to heaven would be the best thing you could do for a person, and so prosthelytizing people or even manipulating people into belief would be a good action. This is just an example of how having false premises at the beginning can ruin an entire moral philosophy.

I am by no means an expert in philosophy or ethics, but I know there are non-religious ethical philosophies, and I would bet they are superior for it.

[Frostball]

This was way back in page 12 or something but better late than never -



Absurd as it sounds, Jesus was a Jew but his followers are Christians, so Christians do not follow the same religion that Jesus did. This has to be kept in mind when trying to interpret the New Testament.

Mathew 5:8 "For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." Jesus is not saying that the Law will not change. He's saying it will happen, but only when "everything is accomplished."

I'm not suggesting that Jesus did not revere the Law. By all accounts he did respect it and was so thoroughly familiar with it that he could quote it at the drop of a hat and debate it with authority. Anyway, it's not about what he believed or what he was supposed to believe, but what he taught and what he did, and regardless of what he said or believed, we find him just a little later modifying these very laws, and out and out rejecting the "eye for an eye" law found in Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy, replacing it with its diametrical opposite, "turn the other cheek." He broke the Sabbath on several occasions, and challenged the existing divorce law. There are many other examples of Jesus subverting the Law but my favourite is the story of the woman caught in adultery - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+8:1-11 Here we have a blatantly evil law, and what's more everyone there, from Jesus to the Pharisees, (and with the possible exception of the zealots who caught her in the act and dragged her to the temple court) knows it is evil. I'd like to know what Christians who bend over backwards trying to defend every word of the Bible (not you of course, Frostball), have to say about this.

Jesus was a great guy for his time, and had many very cool things to say. He did indeed change the laws, somewhat contradicting what he says in other places. Mathew 5:8 "until everything is accomplished" does not address how those laws were ever ok.

But like I said, Jesus said a lot of great things, and I think one can follow his best things and probably be a better person for it. But what I don't think is good is when people actually believe he was god, and also that the old testament really happened as it states it, and that the god as the bible describes exists.

The Jesus and the woman taken in adultery story is often seen to be a forgery that was added in later, and not by the author of John. The story isn't in the original manuscripts, and is apparently in an atypical style for John. You can look up this for yourself, and I would suggest you try both christian and non christian sources so you can figure it out for yourself.

[Frostball]

YesNo, this may be influenced by how often I find myself agreeing with your opinions, but I'm always surprised and impressed by the content of your ideas in these threads. I hadn't even considered the free will and consciousness aspects of this debate.

And Poetaster, you're a sharp cookie too, and as far as I can tell, not like the typical New Atheists I so often run into in the States.

It's a pleasure to read both of your comments in this conversation.

Ooh... Snubbed.

Mortalterror I appreciate your comments in this conversation anyway, as well as those of Poetaster, YesNo, Mona Amon, Ecurb, Pumpkin337 and others.

[mortalterror]

Well I didn't mean to suggest I was using aristotelian logic or modal logic or anything. Perhaps I should have use the word rational. I was pretty sure I explained it well enough, but the whole teapot thing, the whole burden of evidence thing, all that is to show why we don't sit here and try to disprove faeries, leprechauns, ghosts, santa, what have you. We simply don't just accept claims right off the bat, but instead wait until somebody or something provides evidence for it. God is exactly the same way. If you say god is different then that's special pleading.
It's not special pleading if you have it in the wrong category. Your hypothesis only works for things for which there is absolutely no evidence, and there is clearly a vast storehouse of evidence for God, therefore you cannot treat his existence the same way you would treat Russell's teapot. And I've also explained that Saint Nicolas has a basis in fact, was a historical person, who's bones you can visit in Italy, so he obviously doesn't belong in that category either. If I stated that he has flying reindeer, that would need additional evidence to justify. Miracles are harder to substantiate, although they are not necessarily unprovable either.


It doesn't matter how many people believe in god either, that's the ad populum fallacy.
I didn't say that the number of people who believe in god means he exists. I said that he has been sighted and left numerous documents, and other proofs of his existence, that there is a corpus or large body of available evidence and sworn witness testimony. This may not amount to absolute unshakeable mathematical proof, but it should raise the probability that something is possible. The fallacy is in thinking it amounts to proof, not in thinking that something with a lot of evidence is more likely true than something with no evidence. But in strictly mathematical terms, no amount of evidence ever amounts to proof, hence skeptics can deny anything, even reality itself.


But I actually agree slightly here. Many atheists are very afraid of the burden of proof, though I don't know why. It honestly does not make sense to defend a negative, such as that one simply does not believe in a god. But most atheists do, in fact, think it's the case that there are no gods, as I do. I have no problem defending the case that there are no gods. Such a thing can obviously not be proven, but this is never about proof but about evidence to justify a reasonable belief or disbelief.
There we go, proof vs justification for belief, that's a good way of putting it. As for the burden of proof, when I took debate in high school we had to compile a case to plead for both sides of an argument. You had to plead for and against abortion, god, taxes, universal health care. Oh, here we go, found this under wikipedias philosophic burden of proof (proving a negative):

When the assertion to prove is a negative claim, the burden takes the form of a negative proof, proof of impossibility, or mere evidence of absence. If this negative assertion is in response to a claim made by another party in a debate, asserting the falsehood of the positive claim shifts the burden of proof from the party making the first claim to the one asserting its falsehood, as the position "I do not believe that X is true" is different to the explicit denial "I believe that X is false" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof


The reason I don't think atheists should be afraid of the burden of proof is because the burden is much much lighter on our end. If theists and atheist both put all their points on the table the atheist will, in my opinion, come out ahead every time. It's simply much easier to be sure that this world exists without adding extra unnecessary things, than it is to argue that a super intelligent, all powerful, all good consciousness exists and created everything. It's just such a wild claim compared the the claim that such a thing doesn't exist.
It was probably once hard to prove eclipses in years they didn't happen too. Rare occurrences are harder to prove than common ones. Still, proving the existence of a god is different from proving the nature of a god, and a lot of those objections seem to be with the particular characterization of the Christian God.


Come on... This is classical begging the question, which is assuming the conclusion of an argument inside your very argument. Obviously if you were a theist you would believe the sun was made by god, and if you weren't you would believe the sun is made by natural means. Just looking at the sun can't be taken as evidence for god unless we actually establish that god is the one who made the sun.
I think it makes as much sense as implying the existence of Michelangelo from his David and Sistine Chapel paintings. It makes as much sense as fingerprints at a crime scene. We have physical artifacts left behind by a creator. Then as I said the evidence of design in the universe, the rational laws instead of chaos, the finely tuned universe, the evolution of life and consciousness, all point to the fact that the universe is God's child being taken to term.


So I live in the darkness and fear the truth.. Ok... Can you please tell me where the evidence for god is that I'm missing? Paul got a road to damascus vision, what do I get? Does god care more about paul than me?
I think God is mostly a hands off kind of guy, who doesn't intervene that much, and when he does it's through the rules he set down already. I figure he doesn't need to appear to everyone, just like Obama doesn't need to shake hands with every single person in the country. He talked to Paul because Paul was a good messenger and would communicate his message so well that he wouldn't have to appear to everyone individually. It's sort of an efficiency of effort kind of thing. Don't move a mountain when a molehill will do. Besides, I also think that he is probably personally accessible to anyone who believes in him. You just have to be in the proper frame of mind and there are all sorts of ways to do that. After all, human beings are prone to Peak Experiences as Abraham Maslow called them, it's hard wired into our biology, like we are radio antennas for God.


I didn't put the contrarian title on myself, in fact I don't think I'm being contrarian but just saying what I believe and why I believe it. If you find me peevish and offensive, then all I can say is that I'm sorry you feel that way. I don't mean to be like that, I'm just trying to explain what I think.
I don't personally find you peevish or offensive. I was just explaining why some people are labeled contrarians, and I think that it's a common category for atheists to fall into, a prime example being Christopher Hitchens.

[mortalterror]

I've already talked about atheism as a subculture, or as a movement, which is different from atheism as the single position that one doesn't believe in gods. It's not just chance that atheists have common beliefs, it is a product of conversation and these atheists figuring out the arguments that work best, and the positions that are most sound. Good ideas, good arguments, and good positions tend to stick longer than bad ones, naturally, just like good traits with evolution. So good arguments and positions are selected in this way, and so only the better ones are left over. Just like evolution there is nobody watching the selection, so sometimes bad arguments get popular, but what are you going to do?

It may be an oversimplification to say that all Christian beliefs are derived from one book, and I acknowledge that all the people you mentioned had many things to add to christianity. But weren't all those guys pretty much going back to the same collection of books called the bible as well? This isn't even just me claiming this, but Christians almost ubiquitously say that the bible is at the core of their beliefs.

Sort of, but that's like saying that the Torah is central to Judaism, which while true ignores the influence of the Tanakh, the Talmud, the Midrash, and it doesn't emphasize which parts of the Torah are more important than others. It leaves out the philosophy of Maimonides and all sorts of cultural stuff. Emphasis and interpretation of key passages are pretty important and can mean the difference between being a member of the Saducees, Pharisees, Essenes, Zealots, Karaite, Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, Hasidic. Here check out these diagrams of Christian denominations. Some sects reject parts and some sects include extra texts.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/55/Christianity-Branches-2013update.png/800px-Christianity-Branches-2013update.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3c/Protestant_branches.svg/800px-Protestant_branches.svg.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b7/Syriac_Christian_Churches.svg/800px-Syriac_Christian_Churches.svg.png

[The Atheist]

Considering I was an atheist for several years, I feel I have as much right to define it as you. Besides, you are hardly an unbiased source yourself.

That's why I have referenced many sources to show that atheism is exactly as stated: without god/s.


And finally, if a theist can't possibly hope to plumb the endlessly unique depths of atheism which a whole 2% of the world subscribes to, how can an atheist hope to conceive of every religious person's point of view, beliefs, and philosophy?

Nah, I look at actions - books are irrelevant, even though they may be the original driver.


I don't consider Buddhists atheists.

Luckily, we have actual Buddhists who agree that they are, so your consideration is both wrong and irrelevant.



Besides, I have a worldview which is different from Jews, Muslims, or Hindus, but we are all theists. You need to try harder.

Can you find a single example of me (or anyone else) saying that there is any common worldview among theists?

Your statement is all straw.


Atheism acts exactly like an emerging religion. The sociology, psychology, and anthropology studies all confirm it.

Yes indeed. Just as religions that have sprung up, atheism has a leader and council of leaders.

You'll have to refresh my memory on who they are, because I must have missed that information.

I do like the comment about studies confirming it. Which studies are these?


That's just etymology. It's not a definition of the concept and doesn't show the context with which the word is used in our society. Again you are oversimplifying a complex subject.

Given that whatever you might have been, you are now a theist, I'm not convinced you aren't a touch biased.

Just as your consideration of Buddhism is demonstrably incorrect, so is your consideration of what atheism is.

[YesNo]

It's simply much easier to be sure that this world exists without adding extra unnecessary things, than it is to argue that a super intelligent, all powerful, all good consciousness exists and created everything. It's just such a wild claim compared the the claim that such a thing doesn't exist.

If the problem of the existence of God were adding some thing, then you might have a point. But adding in God's existence is not pointing to some thing. It is acknowledging the consciousness that perceives the universe so that the universe can manifest itself to us as part of the universe and be reasonably consistent.

Now, if culturally you are like myself, you probably think there isn't much to consciousness. It seems flimsy and easily lost. You might think, if that is all God is, then God is irrelevant. But then along comes quantum physics and one finds that the awareness (consciousness) of the experimenter affects the outcome of a double-slit experiment or, even worse, that a particle has neither position nor momentum until at the moment its position or moment is measured. Once that sinks in, one wonders how the universe could be there without some transcendent Consciousness.

The only way that atheism has any chance of being correct is for it to come up with an interpretation for quantum physics in which matter is really there without some consciousness perceiving it.

[The Atheist]

The only way that atheism has any chance of being correct is for it to come up with an interpretation for quantum physics in which matter is really there without some consciousness perceiving it.

I'm saving that - another masterpiece of unintentional humour.

[Frostball]

It's not special pleading if you have it in the wrong category. Your hypothesis only works for things for which there is absolutely no evidence, and there is clearly a vast storehouse of evidence for God, therefore you cannot treat his existence the same way you would treat Russell's teapot. And I've also explained that Saint Nicolas has a basis in fact, was a historical person, who's bones you can visit in Italy, so he obviously doesn't belong in that category either. If I stated that he has flying reindeer, that would need additional evidence to justify. Miracles are harder to substantiate, although they are not necessarily unprovable either.

I maintain that it is special pleading. Miracles could be very easily shown to be real, but the reality is that they never are. People who are cured are always cured of things that could get better on their own anyway, it's never things like amputees.



I didn't say that the number of people who believe in god means he exists. I said that he has been sighted and left numerous documents, and other proofs of his existence, that there is a corpus or large body of available evidence and sworn witness testimony. This may not amount to absolute unshakeable mathematical proof, but it should raise the probability that something is possible. The fallacy is in thinking it amounts to proof, not in thinking that something with a lot of evidence is more likely true than something with no evidence. But in strictly mathematical terms, no amount of evidence ever amounts to proof, hence skeptics can deny anything, even reality itself.

I think you're mistaking evidence of a religion, and of religious people for evidence for god. Yes, we have tons of evidence for people who really believe in a god. There are so many testimonies of all different kinds, for different gods, of magic, of ghosts, or even testimonies of the same god that are contradictory. Who are we suppose to believe? This is evidence that religious claims, and even religious experiences are things that happen to humans, but it remains to be shown that the actual cause is a god. I think there is far more evidence that these things have origins within our own mind, personally.



I think it makes as much sense as implying the existence of Michelangelo from his David and Sistine Chapel paintings. It makes as much sense as fingerprints at a crime scene. We have physical artifacts left behind by a creator. Then as I said the evidence of design in the universe, the rational laws instead of chaos, the finely tuned universe, the evolution of life and consciousness, all point to the fact that the universe is God's child being taken to term.

The reason your examples are different is because we know that artists exist, we know humans exist, we know criminals exist, we know humans leave fingerprints. These are all things things that we know, so in the case of Michelangelo we know that the pieces of art exist, we know artists make art, we probably even have, I assume, sources that mention michelangelo's name (I'm not versed in art history), and even if we didn't we could safely assume somebody made them because that's how art comes about. In the case of the crime scene, we know crimes happen, and that fingerprints have proven to be a reliable method of finding the culprit

In the case of god, on the other hand, we don't have any examples to compare to, or any reason to believe that universes are created by gods. You simply can't use "the universe" as evidence that god created the universe, that is precisely what begging the question is. The very thing that I'm saying didn't happen was god creating the universe, so you can't use the universe as evidence that god created the universe. It's like when people say "creation needs a creator" but you have to prove that it's a creation first. It's an unfounded assumption. It's also similar to when people say if you see a watch floating up on a beach, you would automatically know it was designed by somebody. This isn't because it's complex (simplicity is actually a hallmark of design), but because we know people make watches.



I think God is mostly a hands off kind of guy, who doesn't intervene that much, and when he does it's through the rules he set down already. I figure he doesn't need to appear to everyone, just like Obama doesn't need to shake hands with every single person in the country. He talked to Paul because Paul was a good messenger and would communicate his message so well that he wouldn't have to appear to everyone individually. It's sort of an efficiency of effort kind of thing. Don't move a mountain when a molehill will do. Besides, I also think that he is probably personally accessible to anyone who believes in him. You just have to be in the proper frame of mind and there are all sorts of ways to do that. After all, human beings are prone to Peak Experiences as Abraham Maslow called them, it's hard wired into our biology, like we are radio antennas for God.

That sounds perfectly reasonable. It's entirely possible that god exists, and simply hasn't shown himself to me. I don't see why god needs to be efficient with all his power, but ok. This is perfectly fine as long as he isn't angry at me for not believing him when I die. I don't know if you believe in hell, but many theists do. If god sees fit to send me to hell for not believing him (something I can't control) then he's simply evil. I won't argue with the fact that some humans seem to have a biological disposition towards religion, or even maybe believing in god. But it's, again, begging the question to assume this is the case because a god made it that way. All we have is a phenomenon, you can't just assert the cause, it actually has to be shown to be the cause.[/quote]


I don't personally find you peevish or offensive. I was just explaining why some people are labeled contrarians, and I think that it's a common category for atheists to fall into, a prime example being Christopher Hitchens.
I love Christopher Hitchens. I don't agree with him on everything, but he was a very interesting person.

[Frostball]

Sort of, but that's like saying that the Torah is central to Judaism, which while true ignores the influence of the Tanakh, the Talmud, the Midrash, and it doesn't emphasize which parts of the Torah are more important than others. It leaves out the philosophy of Maimonides and all sorts of cultural stuff. Emphasis and interpretation of key passages are pretty important and can mean the difference between being a member of the Saducees, Pharisees, Essenes, Zealots, Karaite, Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, Hasidic. Here check out these diagrams of Christian denominations. Some sects reject parts and some sects include extra texts.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/55/Christianity-Branches-2013update.png/800px-Christianity-Branches-2013update.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3c/Protestant_branches.svg/800px-Protestant_branches.svg.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b7/Syriac_Christian_Churches.svg/800px-Syriac_Christian_Churches.svg.png

I found those timelines very interesting. I still don't see how that changes the fact that it's all built upon the bible, which is literally the only source we have for what god supposedly wants for and from us. Speaking for Christianity only, of course.

One does wonder, though, if all these people are following the same god, the same original text, and are getting inspiration from god, why there continues to be so many splinters. In science, for example, usually when there is a new mystery there are many competing hypotheses at first, but they get whittled down the the one that explains everything the best and makes the best predictions, and this one becomes a theory or something. With religion, as time passes it only splinters off more and more, with more conflicting opinions all the time.

[Pumpkin337]

Miracles could be very easily shown to be real, but the reality is that they never are. People who are cured are always cured of things that could get better on their own anyway, it's never things like amputees.

Actually ... this is not true, there is a lot of medical evidence (and indeed an entire group of doctors who meet every year to present their evidence) (google to the rescue
- http://www.charismanews.com/us/34002-doctors-academics-unite-to-prove-miracles) but the problem is that none of this evidence is ever accepted because people do not want to be convinced.

I could google more specific examples but something along the lines of this gem:
I'm saving that - another masterpiece of unintentional humour. will be the answer to whatever I can find.

Instead of actually saying WHY these people did not experience some kind of miraculous healing, why their belief that something out of the ordinary occurred to them is wrong, you just say 'not true, don't believe it' and once again ... that isn't good enough!!


This is perfectly fine as long as he isn't angry at me for not believing him when I die. I don't know if you believe in hell, but many theists do. If god sees fit to send me to hell for not believing him (something I can't control) then he's simply evil.

WHY??? It IS something you can control - belief is ALWAYS a choice therefore what you choose to believe is perfectly within your control.

[Iain Sparrow]

Actually ... this is not true, there is a lot of medical evidence (and indeed an entire group of doctors who meet every year to present their evidence) (google to the rescue
- http://www.charismanews.com/us/34002-doctors-academics-unite-to-prove-miracles) but the problem is that none of this evidence is ever accepted because people do not want to be convinced.

Are you out of your mind?.. you give us your views on miracles and proceed to back those views up with information found on a goofy religious site?

Hey everyone, I just found out that Global Warming and Climate Change isn't real... yeah that's right, I read all about it on Exxon's website.:)

[Pumpkin337]

Are you out of your mind?.. you give us your views on miracles and proceed to back those views up with information found on a goofy religious site?

Hey everyone, I just found out that Global Warming and Climate Change isn't real... yeah that's right, I read all about it on Exxon's website.:)

what was that I said about the expected response? Thank you for being so utterly predictable.

Regardless of your feelings about the site, that does not change the fact that it reports on a group of medical doctors who meet specifically to present cases of unexplained healings they have encountered. You didn't address that in your ludicrous response. Your response only proves a. how biased you are b. how lacking in anything approaching a rational response you have. Instead of relying so heavily on putdowns and mockery why don't you try addressing the facts with reasonable facts of your own?

PS My VIEW on miracles, which I did not give earlier (so dissing it is really ridiculous) is that I am not so arrogant as to believe that inexplicable things do not happen all the time all around us and these things are often called miracles. After all every day we use one miraculous and inexplicable thing ... electricity. Now you can choose to believe or not, but the people to whom these things happen, call them miracles and have their lives for ever changed by the experience, and to take that away from them because of your bias and prejudice against the possibility is not only unfair but positively malicious.

[Frostball]

WHY??? It IS something you can control - belief is ALWAYS a choice therefore what you choose to believe is perfectly within your control.

Belief is actually not something you can control. If you don't believe me, try to believe that you are of the opposite sex. Try it, right now. Can you do it? Or here's a good one, try to believe that your house is on fire. If you don't run out of your house screaming, you didn't do it right.

Beliefs are a product, an end result, a conclusion the brain comes to when thinking about something. A person can no more control their beliefs than they can control their preference for certain foods. You could try many different foods and eventually that can have an effect on your taste, similarly you can do research on certain subjects or engage in conversation that can eventually end up changing your beliefs, but the actual change of beliefs isn't something you can just dictate to your brain.

[Frostball]

what was that I said about the expected response? Thank you for being so utterly predictable.

Regardless of your feelings about the site, that does not change the fact that it reports on a group of medical doctors who meet specifically to present cases of unexplained healings they have encountered. You didn't address that in your ludicrous response. Your response only proves a. how biased you are b. how lacking in anything approaching a rational response you have. Instead of relying so heavily on putdowns and mockery why don't you try addressing the facts with reasonable facts of your own?

PS My VIEW on miracles, which I did not give earlier (so dissing it is really ridiculous) is that I am not so arrogant as to believe that inexplicable things do not happen all the time all around us and these things are often called miracles. After all every day we use one miraculous and inexplicable thing ... electricity. Now you can choose to believe or not, but the people to whom these things happen, call them miracles and have their lives for ever changed by the experience, and to take that away from them because of your bias and prejudice against the possibility is not only unfair but positively malicious.

You can't just supply a bad piece of evidence, while saying you don't expect us to accept it, then criticize us for not accepting it. A group of Christian doctors who believe in miracles doesn't mean anything, nor even the fact that the majority of doctors believe in miracles. The majority of cosmologists do not believe in god, but that doesn't make it true either.

But even with that said, the very best thing they have here is, as you say, "unexplained healings". If they are unexplained, then why are those doctors, and you, assuming they are miracles from god? Somebody who is sick--but then gets better--is not a miracle! it's something that happens all the time. Again, why doesn't god heal amputees? He never does.

If your definition of miracle includes simply things that are unexplained, or even things like electricity, then I might have to say I believe in miracles by your definition. But I personally would call neither of these things miracles.

[Pumpkin337]

Belief is actually not something you can control. If you don't believe me, try to believe that you are of the opposite sex. Try it, right now. Can you do it? Or here's a good one, try to believe that your house is on fire. If you don't run out of your house screaming, you didn't do it right.

Beliefs are a product, an end result, a conclusion the brain comes to when thinking about something. A person can no more control their beliefs than they can control their preference for certain foods. You could try many different foods and eventually that can have an effect on your taste, similarly you can do research on certain subjects or engage in conversation that can eventually end up changing your beliefs, but the actual change of beliefs isn't something you can just dictate to your brain.

You can CHOOSE to believe anything you like including all those things you mentioned. Your belief may not be based on reality or on facts, but you can still choose to believe it. Ask any lunatic in many a mental home about choosing to believe any number of crazy things not based in reality.

[Frostball]

You can CHOOSE to believe anything you like including all those things you mentioned. Your belief may not be based on reality or on facts, but you can still choose to believe it. Ask any lunatic in many a mental home about choosing to believe any number of crazy things not based in reality.

No, you really can't. If you really believed your house was on fire, what would you do? You would probably rush up and tell anybody in the house, check on your pets maybe, try to put it out perhaps, or just run out immediately. So unless you did any of these things, you didn't really believe your house was on fire. I challenge you to try it again, and if you just sit calmly in your chair, you did not succeed in convincing yourself that your house is on fire. All you have done is imagined it.

[Iain Sparrow]

You can CHOOSE to believe anything you like including all those things you mentioned. Your belief may not be based on reality or on facts, but you can still choose to believe it. Ask any lunatic in many a mental home about choosing to believe any number of crazy things not based in reality.

You are actually... wrong.
Though my opinion is that Frostball is overstating the concept a bit (as even the most recent research ends with scientists scratching their collective heads over Free Will), we humans have precious little say in what we believe and how we arrive at those beliefs.

Try this little experiment on yourself... next time you're drinking a hot cup of coffee, think about it; why did you reach for the cup and take a drink at that exact time?.. you put the cup down, you watch some tv or read a paragraph in a book... you again reach for the coffee and take a drink. Now extrapolate that connection to "choosing" and free will to everything that you believe, every action you take or don't take... there are some scientists that think we have very little free will.

Some medications don't work on a patient, or are inert unless the patient knows they are taking the medication... such are miracles.

[YesNo]

Some medications don't work on a patient, or are inert unless the patient knows they are taking the medication... such are miracles.

The interesting cases are when the medication is inert and the patient consciously believes it is effective in one way or the other and they get cured or sick: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo

[YesNo]

The Atheist is correct - Buddhists are neither pantheists nor just a branch of Hinduism. The website you've linked to claiming Buddhists are theists seems to have a Christian agenda. The Buddha rejected the idea of a soul and the conception of a creator God. His claim that the ultimate nature of reality or emptiness is another word for God has no basis in the teachings.

The problem with the Hindu website is that Hindus claim The Buddha as an incarnation of Siva. This is a largely political claim. The Buddha expressly rejected key tenets of Hinduism - particularly the caste system as an expression of Karma. This is potentially damaging for Hinduism as lower caste people are often drawn to Buddhism as an essentially caste and classless system. It has caused tension in India.

Interestingly, the original Hindu claim had The Buddha as an incarnation of Siva whose purpose was to tempt Hindus from the true path. Later - presumably when it didn't work - it tried to co-op Buddhism on the basis that you cannot reject Hinduism if you are born into it.

I think Pumpkin337 is right about Buddhism in general mainly based on the article he cited "The Teachings of Soyen Shaku" http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/zfa/zfa04.htm

However, there are many Buddhist variations as mortalterror mentioned and some could be atheistic such as the Secular Buddhism cults that Pumpkin337 mentioned.

What really interests me is why did I ever think that Buddhism was atheistic? I think the reason for that is because the Christian culture generally views it as atheistic. This is a way to discredit it. Also the atheistic, anti-Christian culture views it as atheistic. They want to manipulate its presence ideologically to help legitimate their own position.

Is Christianity is any less atheistic than Buddhism? I don't think so. Christians don't believe in the Hindu set of Gods and Goddesses either. Buddhism just isn't interested in avatars and stories of deities. So it doesn't focus on creating another God or Goddess to believe in but concentrates more on dharma. This separates it from Hinduism.

[Iain Sparrow]

The interesting cases are when the medication is inert and the patient consciously believes it is effective in one way or the other and they get cured or sick: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo


Exactly right, and even more worrisome to the medical community is that as we understand more about how our brains function, they're finding that the Placebo Effect has a far broader and more direct influence on what we believe, and how we build our individual realities.

Does anybody here believe in the "science" of Homeopathy?.. yeah, me neither.
But I read a book recently that covered scientific anomalies and I was surprised to find homeopathy had its own chapter. It most definitely does not cure ailments, but after scientists completed tests the results were baffling. The base water had a substance added, went through an insane amount of dissolution and other homeopathic nonsense, was rendered back to pure water with not one molecule of the added substance being detected... yet the water had changed, it retained a sort of 'signature' of the entire process, including the substance that was no longer there.

[Paulclem]

I think Pumpkin337 is right about Buddhism in general mainly based on the article he cited "The Teachings of Soyen Shaku" http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/zfa/zfa04.htm

However, there are many Buddhist variations as mortalterror mentioned and some could be atheistic such as the Secular Buddhism cults that Pumpkin337 mentioned.

What really interests me is why did I ever think that Buddhism was atheistic? I think the reason for that is because the Christian culture generally views it as atheistic. This is a way to discredit it. Also the atheistic, anti-Christian culture views it as atheistic. They want to manipulate its presence ideologically to help legitimate their own position.

Is Christianity is any less atheistic than Buddhism? I don't think so. Christians don't believe in the Hindu set of Gods and Goddesses either. Buddhism just isn't interested in avatars and stories of deities. So it doesn't focus on creating another God or Goddess to believe in but concentrates more on dharma. This separates it from Hinduism.

After looking for a minute I came up with the Wikipedia page God in Buddhism, and more authoritatively,

http:budsas.org/ebud/ebdha068.htm

Buddhism does not endorse a creator God. Your quoted website is from a noted Zen teacher who travelled to the USA and interpreted the highest nature of reality - Emptiness or the Dharmakaya. He's saying that this ultimate nature is equivalent to God, but this is denied in most schools of Buddhism. Do you not think he might have been bridge building between Western Christians and Buddhists? He doesn't actually say anything very controversial - it's just an interpretation of Emptiness. I could probably find a website that says Buddhism originated in Neanderthals.

You probably thought Buddhism was atheistic because it is.

As for Hinduism, the Gods and Goddesses are to be found in Buddhist stories and teachings. There is a God realm in the Wheel of Life, but this is merely a part of Samsara, that is a state which will end with the death of the God.

Buddhism rejects a creator God and as such is nothing like either Christianity or more importantly Hinduism. As has been pointed out, The Buddha was born a Hindu. He rejected many of the tenets of Hinduism including the Hindu concept of Karma and reincarnation for a radically different interpretation of these. Ideas like these are what separates Buddhism and Hinduism.

[YesNo]

Soyen Shaku does seem like he was trying to make a bridge between Buddhism and Christianity. That also implies his school of Buddhism, at least, was theistic.

I can see how Buddhism can be separated from Hinduism, but now I wonder, if you are right, how can Buddhism be separated from western "new atheism".

[YesNo]

Exactly right, and even more worrisome to the medical community is that as we understand more about how our brains function, they're finding that the Placebo Effect has a far broader and more direct influence on what we believe, and how we build our individual realities.

It looks to me that the connection goes the other way. Our consciousness has an effect on our bodies more than the medicine. I have heard that the placebo effect is worrisome to the pharmaceutical industry because the new drug has got to do better than a placebo would.



Does anybody here believe in the "science" of Homeopathy?.. yeah, me neither.
But I read a book recently that covered scientific anomalies and I was surprised to find homeopathy had its own chapter. It most definitely does not cure ailments, but after scientists completed tests the results were baffling. The base water had a substance added, went through an insane amount of dissolution and other homeopathic nonsense, was rendered back to pure water with not one molecule of the added substance being detected... yet the water had changed, it retained a sort of 'signature' of the entire process, including the substance that was no longer there.

This could be an example of the placebo effect. Then again, if the results are better than what a placebo could explain the data needs to be taken seriously.

[mortalterror]

I think Pumpkin337 is right about Buddhism in general mainly based on the article he cited "The Teachings of Soyen Shaku" http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/zfa/zfa04.htm

However, there are many Buddhist variations as mortalterror mentioned and some could be atheistic such as the Secular Buddhism cults that Pumpkin337 mentioned.

What really interests me is why did I ever think that Buddhism was atheistic? I think the reason for that is because the Christian culture generally views it as atheistic. This is a way to discredit it. Also the atheistic, anti-Christian culture views it as atheistic. They want to manipulate its presence ideologically to help legitimate their own position.

Is Christianity is any less atheistic than Buddhism? I don't think so. Christians don't believe in the Hindu set of Gods and Goddesses either. Buddhism just isn't interested in avatars and stories of deities. So it doesn't focus on creating another God or Goddess to believe in but concentrates more on dharma. This separates it from Hinduism.

Whenever I read the old Chinese books like Journey To the West or Dream of the Red Chamber the interpretation of Buddhism seems to have a lot of recognizable theistic elements. The gods, demi-gods, and demons in Journey to the West are written like they are real people sort of like in the Iliad. Did anybody here ever read The Tale of Genji? It's supposed to be heavy on the Buddhism. How atheistic or theistic was Japanese court life in the middle ages?

[YesNo]

Whenever I read the old Chinese books like Journey To the West or Dream of the Red Chamber the interpretation of Buddhism seems to have a lot of recognizable theistic elements. The gods, demi-gods, and demons in Journey to the West are written like they are real people sort of like in the Iliad. Did anybody here ever read The Tale of Genji? It's supposed to be heavy on the Buddhism. How atheistic or theistic was Japanese court life in the middle ages?

I agree. I've enjoyed Journey to the West as well. It certainly seemed theistic to me. I remember telling my wife when we were in China visiting her relatives that I thought a jade statue of a monkey (Sun WuKong) in a large hand (God's hand) was quite lovely and I suggested we buy it. She's quite anti-Buddhist and told me the statue represented a common tale everyone knew: it was nothing special. Of course, I never heard the story (and we didn't get the statue).

The story goes like this. The monkey, Sun Wukong, thought he could escape from the hand of God and God told him to try. He flew away and when the monkey thought he was far enough away he stopped and took a piss on a pillar to prove he was there. Then he came back to brag. After his boasting was finished, God asked Sun Wukong why he pissed on his fingers.

My suspicions at the moment is that Buddhism is basically theistic with the Buddha being the God along with a whole pantheon of Others. At least some Buddhists do have Gods and Goddesses based on this information: http://www.chinabuddhismencyclopedia.com/en/index.php?title=Buddhist_Gods_and_Goddesses I suspect most of them do.

Frankly, I don't trust western Buddhism any more than I trust western Hinduism although I have enjoyed Sally Kempton's books on Hinduism (Awakening Shakti and Meditation for the Love of It) which I found enchanting.

[108 fountains]

I’m finding your discussions on whether Buddhism is theistic or non-theistic (or atheistic) to be very interesting. It depends much, I think, on what you define as theism - or even how you define God. And then of course Buddhism itself is so amorphous - and so adaptable - that it’s really difficult to talk about it at all in general terms. Buddhism as practiced on a day-to-day basis is quite different from how Westerners think about “Buddhist thought,” and even among Buddhist practitioners, there is quite a bit of difference between popular practice, monastic practice, and philosophical thinking, and even wider differences between Buddhism as practiced in geographical areas. I’ve lived 15 years in four Buddhist countries, have visited several more, and have tried to learn something about Buddhism, but I’ll be the first to admit I am not an expert. Still, I’ll share my thoughts below.

There are as many sects of Buddhism as there are of Christianity, and they differ from each other as much as Catholicism differs from Pentecostalism. Buddhism tends to incorporate beliefs, as well as gods and goddesses, from the geographical areas to which it has spread. My own opinion for the reason for this is that it does not have a universal set of scriptures (similar to the Bible in Christianity or the Quran in Islam) or a well-established hierarchy of leaders (aside from the Dalai Lama) who are considered authoritative on Buddhist doctrine. Vietnamese Buddhists incorporate an entire pantheon of Chinese Taoist/folk beliefs and gods and goddesses well as a good number of traditional Vietnamese gods and goddesses; Tibetan Buddhism has its own pantheon of gods and goddesses and bodhisattvas and demons, along with elaborate rituals (Tibetan Buddhism itself is divided into four main schools, each with its own traditions); the Theravada Buddhists of Sri Lanka, Thailand and Cambodia, tend not to have all these gods and goddesses, but they do retain belief in some Hindu legends, especially that of the Ramayana, including some of the Hindu gods, goddesses and demons. Some of these Buddhist sects even have their own versions of heaven and hell. In this sense, you could say that Buddhism is theistic.

On the other hand, none of the Buddhist sects believes in a creator god, nor do Buddhists believe in an omniscient being who exists separately from the rest of the universe and who judges human behavior based on some moral standards of its own making. In that sense, you can say that Buddhism is non-theistic. (There are some Buddhist creation myths, mostly borrowed from ancient Hindu folklore, but they are not really central to how Buddhists perceive the universe and their place in it.)

One of the basic differences between Buddhism/Hinduism and Western religions is that the God of western religions created the universe, and as a result, He exists separately from the universe (including humanity). In Hindu philosophy, the universe (including humanity) is a manifestation of the supreme spirit Brahman. The concept of Brahman is hard to describe - he is “being” itself and all that accompanies being, including time, space, the material world, and human existence. Buddhism retains the concept of Brahma; the search for nirvana is, in fact, the search for oneness with Brahma, the merging of the self with the Self, the realization that the supreme spirit is within everything and that everything exists within the supreme spirit. In a sense, this could be called theism, but it is certainly not the same type of theism that one associates with Western religions.

All the discussions in this post are interesting, and it is fascinating for me (as an atheist) to see how people become so passionate when they feel their own belief system threatened by others who do not share their views. I’ve refrained from adding to that discussion, but I did want to jump in and contribute to the side discussion that has developed about Buddhism. I’ll look forward to hearing others’ thoughts.

[Pumpkin337]

All the discussions in this post are interesting, and it is fascinating for me (as an atheist) to see how people become so passionate when they feel their own belief system threatened by others who do not share their views.

including quite a few of the atheists despite their adamant refusal to believe their atheism IS a personal belief system :) but as soon as your 'defense' is to deride, mock or belittle what is presented to you then you are defending your beliefs which you believe to be threatened.

[Paulclem]

No Buddhist Creator Gods

This is a quote from the website you've cited- it has it's own paragraph - the ninth.

://www.chinabuddhismencyclopedia.com/en/index.php?title=Buddhist_Gods_and_Goddesses

The reason for the confusion is exactly as 108 Fountains has said - the definition of theism. In Christianity, Islam etc, you have a creator God who perhaps has a plan and can respond in human affairs and to prayer. The God is also a personal God and can be defined as the one in whom the image of man is made. (Apologies to any Christians, Muslims if this does not do justice or is inaccurate - it can be modified.) The closest definition of God from a Christian scholar - though I forget his name but I think he is associated with the death of God theology - is God as the "ground of being".

The ground of being description is closest to the emptiness that Soyen Shaku is describing, but is that the accepted definition and conception of God in Christianity etc?

As I and 108 fountains said earlier, the Gods and Goddesses described in Buddhism are another form of being still subject to the laws of Karma and the Wheel of Life

http://ntbf.groupsite.com/post/the-wheel-of-life-or-wheel-of-existence

which has the fortunate realms at the top of the wheel, with Gods and Goddesses within that top realm. This is different from the Christian etc conception.

As for the Chinese novels, there may be translation issues, but if you consider how HH The Dalai Lama is referred to by UK and possibly western media as a God-King, you can see where the confusion of meanings arises. He is neither a king nor a God, it is simplified term for western audiences who have no knowledge of Buddhism. And there is very likely references to Gods demons etc without it implying that the religion is theistic.

Journey to the West or Monkey is described thus:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journey_to_the_West


Journey to the West is a Chinese novel published in the 16th century during the Ming Dynasty and attributed to Wu Cheng'en. It is one of the Four Great Classical Novels of Chinese literature. In English-speaking countries, the work is widely known as Monkey, the title of Arthur Waley's popular abridged translation.

The novel is an extended account of the legendary pilgrimage of the Tang dynasty Buddhist monk Xuanzang who traveled to the "Western Regions", that is, India, to obtain sacred texts (sūtras) and returned after many trials and much suffering. It retains the broad outline of Xuanzang's own account, Great Tang Records on the Western Regions but the Ming dynasty novel adds elements from folk tales and the author's invention, that is, that the Buddha gave this task to the monk and provided him with three protectors who agree to help him as an atonement for their sins. These disciples are Sun Wukong, Zhu Bajie, and Sha Wujing, together with a dragon prince who acts as Xuanzang's steed, a white horse.

Journey to the West has strong roots in Chinese folk religion, Chinese mythology, Taoist and Buddhist philosophy, and the pantheon of Taoist immortals and Buddhist bodhisattvas are still reflective of some Chinese religious attitudes today. Enduringly popular, the tale is at once a comic adventure story, a spring of spiritual insight, and an extended allegory in which the group of pilgrims journeys towards enlightenment which each of them can achieve only with the help of all of the others.

[Pumpkin337]

I think that some of the above answers have hit the nail on the head with regard defining 'theism' and I think a further part of the difficulty in defining something as theistic or not is in the practice. Many people do bow before statues of Buddha and light candles and pray before him (as well as the countless other divinities that have been borrowed, kept, absorbed etc)... which is a form of deification ... and worship of a perceived higher being or deity (even if Buddha was a human, but then so was Jesus, and Mohammad) is a form of theism.

Just to add another variation to the mix ... Japanese Buddhism is also partly animist where it has absorbed traditional Japanese (Shintoism) views on spirits residing in rocks, trees etc.

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2007/09/04/reference/japans-shinto-buddhist-religious-medley/

[Poetaster]

Awww. :'( No one is responding to the comments I made in that long post, I feel ejected from the conversation.

Would it be better if I broke it up?

[Pumpkin337]

Well, 'matter'? Thinking is apparently electrical signals in the brain, communication between cells. You may think consciousness is not just matter, but I don't see why not. Some living things are not conscious, like viruses.

viruses are not alive by any definition of the word.

Let’s first define life. According to the online Merriam-Webster Dictionary, life is “an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction.”

Viruses are not living things. Viruses are complicated assemblies of molecules, including proteins, nucleic acids, lipids, and carbohydrates, but on their own they can do nothing until they enter a living cell. Without cells, viruses would not be able to multiply. Therefore, viruses are not living things.

When a virus encounters a cell, a series of chemical reactions occur that lead to the production of new viruses. These steps are completely passive, that is, they are predefined by the nature of the molecules that comprise the virus particle. Viruses don’t actually ‘do’ anything. Often scientists and non-scientists alike ascribe actions to viruses such as employing, displaying, destroying, evading, exploiting, and so on. These terms are incorrect because viruses are passive, completely at the mercy of their environment.

http://www.virology.ws/2004/06/09/are-viruses-living/



Rubbish, and completely unsupported by anything more than your opinion. If consciousness is chemistry then why can't that chemistry mutate into intelligence? What is the difference between a virus (which is alive) and a fish (which is obviously alive)? That to be honest is more of a rhetorical question, a philosophical point to consider.

The point is that consciousness can not be solely defined mechanically.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness

And it is an ongoing thorny issue in research.

[Poetaster]

viruses are not alive by any definition of the word.

Let’s first define life. According to the online Merriam-Webster Dictionary, life is “an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction.”

Viruses are not living things. Viruses are complicated assemblies of molecules, including proteins, nucleic acids, lipids, and carbohydrates, but on their own they can do nothing until they enter a living cell. Without cells, viruses would not be able to multiply. Therefore, viruses are not living things.

When a virus encounters a cell, a series of chemical reactions occur that lead to the production of new viruses. These steps are completely passive, that is, they are predefined by the nature of the molecules that comprise the virus particle. Viruses don’t actually ‘do’ anything. Often scientists and non-scientists alike ascribe actions to viruses such as employing, displaying, destroying, evading, exploiting, and so on. These terms are incorrect because viruses are passive, completely at the mercy of their environment.

http://www.virology.ws/2004/06/09/are-viruses-living/




The point is that consciousness can not be solely defined mechanically.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness

And it is an ongoing thorny issue in research.

It might be true that viruses are not 'alive' - I'm happy to admit I might be wrong about that. But the point remains that some forms of life do not show as much consciousness as others. Say a worm - is a worm as fully conscious as a human being, say? It's really more of a philosophical question I think, but my point is as you say we do not really understand intelligence, so to say it is evidence of God is nonsensical.

(Side note: happy to be back, I missed this conversation)

[Paulclem]

I think that some of the above answers have hit the nail on the head with regard defining 'theism' and I think a further part of the difficulty in defining something as theistic or not is in the practice. Many people do bow before statues of Buddha and light candles and pray before him (as well as the countless other divinities that have been borrowed, kept, absorbed etc)... which is a form of deification ... and worship of a perceived higher being or deity (even if Buddha was a human, but then so was Jesus, and Mohammad) is a form of theism.

Just to add another variation to the mix ... Japanese Buddhism is also partly animist where it has absorbed traditional Japanese (Shintoism) views on spirits residing in rocks, trees etc.

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2007/09/04/reference/japans-shinto-buddhist-religious-medley/

It is a common misconception but is also not true. It's another example of interpretation from peopke's own standpoint and experience. It is merely respect for the Buddha and the teachings. Teachers are similarly treated with respect but no one regards them as Gods either.

There are prayers - sutras- but these have various purposes including requesting blessings from Buddhas and the achievement of certain goals. No Buddhist considers them to be creator Gods.

[mona amon]

Jesus was a great guy for his time, and had many very cool things to say. He did indeed change the laws, somewhat contradicting what he says in other places. Mathew 5:8 "until everything is accomplished" does not address how those laws were ever ok.

But like I said, Jesus said a lot of great things, and I think one can follow his best things and probably be a better person for it. But what I don't think is good is when people actually believe he was god, and also that the old testament really happened as it states it, and that the god as the bible describes exists.

The Jesus and the woman taken in adultery story is often seen to be a forgery that was added in later, and not by the author of John. The story isn't in the original manuscripts, and is apparently in an atypical style for John. You can look up this for yourself, and I would suggest you try both christian and non christian sources so you can figure it out for yourself.

Some of the old testament laws were never ok, and Jesus never tried to justify any of those. He never preached the Law, but preached his own gospel. Christianity, like Jainism, Buddhism, Sikhism etc., is a breakaway religion, so it obviously cannot be held accountable for the bad aspects of the religion it broke away from.

As for the adultery story, I've only gone through this Wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_the_woman_taken_in_adultery which was very informative, giving evidence for both points of view. Anyway it really doesn't matter if it was not originally written by the author of John, for as this author tells us, "Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written." (John 21:25) The main thing is whether it is consistent with other things that Jesus said and did, and it is, totally. It is just so like Jesus. Also, there's the pattern of the Pharisees and teachers of the law trying to trap him into contradicting the law, and Jesus using a certain amount of subterfuge or gamesmanship even, to evade the trap. Examples - the answer he gives the Pharisees when his disciples are caught gleaning the fields on the Sabbath, when he heals a man's hand on the Sabbath, or when he is asked if it is ok for a man to kick his wife out, as long as he gives her a certificate of divorce (Moses said it was fine), or when he was asked whether it was right to pay taxes to Caesar (Mark 12:17).

This was in the beginning of his ministry. Later he seems to have abandoned the subterfuge and started openly declaring he was Lord of the Sabbath, Son of Man and so on.

[Pumpkin337]

what has the notion of 'creator' gods got to do with a religion being theistic which just means that there are god(s) of some kind.

Theism:

1. a belief in the existence of a god or gods.

Monotheism is the doctrine or belief that there is only one God.

Atheism:

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.

Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, as well as other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown or unknowable. According to the philosopher William L. Rowe, in the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities, whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively.

So can A. all the atheists who agreed with me that there is exists no proof either for or against god(s) existence in an empirical measurable sense ... please immediately change their self-labeling from atheist to agnostic. B. can all those who say atheism is NOT a belief system please change their unsupportable stance on that too. (note to self ... look things up more often).

[YesNo]

No Buddhist Creator Gods

This is a quote from the website you've cited- it has it's own paragraph - the ninth.

://www.chinabuddhismencyclopedia.com/en/index.php?title=Buddhist_Gods_and_Goddesses

I agree. I don't think Buddhism has creator Gods either. If the universe is eternal there is no need for a creator God. Also the emphasis on escaping suffering and the world has even an anti-universe feel about it. All that does not mean there aren't other Gods, no matter how long they live. Those are the Gods and Goddesses that make Buddhism theistic.



The reason for the confusion is exactly as 108 Fountains has said - the definition of theism. In Christianity, Islam etc, you have a creator God who perhaps has a plan and can respond in human affairs and to prayer. The God is also a personal God and can be defined as the one in whom the image of man is made. (Apologies to any Christians, Muslims if this does not do justice or is inaccurate - it can be modified.) The closest definition of God from a Christian scholar - though I forget his name but I think he is associated with the death of God theology - is God as the "ground of being".

The ground of being description is closest to the emptiness that Soyen Shaku is describing, but is that the accepted definition and conception of God in Christianity etc?

When I claim that Buddhism is theistic in general (which I think it is), I am not saying it has any God or Goddess like the western monotheisms do.



As I and 108 fountains said earlier, the Gods and Goddesses described in Buddhism are another form of being still subject to the laws of Karma and the Wheel of Life

http://ntbf.groupsite.com/post/the-wheel-of-life-or-wheel-of-existence

which has the fortunate realms at the top of the wheel, with Gods and Goddesses within that top realm. This is different from the Christian etc conception.

In terms of having a God or not, does it really matter how long they live?



As for the Chinese novels, there may be translation issues, but if you consider how HH The Dalai Lama is referred to by UK and possibly western media as a God-King, you can see where the confusion of meanings arises. He is neither a king nor a God, it is simplified term for western audiences who have no knowledge of Buddhism. And there is very likely references to Gods demons etc without it implying that the religion is theistic.


What Journey to the West shows is popular culture. One of the Goddesses that figures prominently in that book is Guanyin.

What I am most curious about from your perspective as a western Buddhist who believes in atheism is how your atheism differs from that of someone like Dawkins.

[Pumpkin337]

But don't you get it yet... there is an anti-Christian bias here. Buddhism can't be theistic because it is not monotheistic like Christianity.

The syncretism of various Hindu, Japanese, Chinese, Thai, etc etc etc traditional gods and goddesses and animism in varying degrees into Buddhism is not theism .. again because it does not measure up to the measurement of Christianity as the yardstick.

Most specifically because Buddha rejected the notion of a creator-god (which probably had sweet fanny adams to do with any notion of Christianity other than the anti-Christian bias the current atheist brings to the table) which is fundamental to any monotheistic religion (of which surprise surprise) there are several:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Monotheistic_religions

and there are pantheistic religions (everything is god and god is everything)

http://religions.findthebest.com/d/d/Pantheistic

and polytheistic religions (there are many gods)

http://religions.findthebest.com/d/d/Polytheistic

but no ... the only validation for why Buddhism can't possibly be a form of theism, if not in its purest philosophical sense, at least in its daily practice for millions of people, especially where it has liberally absorbed existing beliefs from the local people, is because it isn't like Christian notions of God.

How biased and stupid is that?

Actually given the complete lack of any rants against any of the other theistic religions in the world I am very tempted to say ... is it possible that the reason that Christianity and Christianity alone gets up people's noses so much ... is because there is something in it, that isn't in any other religion in the same way? What other rational explanation do you have for the reason that these threads go on and on and on and on about the Bible and Christianity and not say .. Zoroastrianism? Just thinking aloud and looking logically at these threads for some time, not just here, but in many places on the net. Find any forum, with any similar discussion and it will be the same endless rants against the Bible and Christianity and never any other religions ... one has to wonder why.

[Iain Sparrow]

So can A. all the atheists who agreed with me that there is exists no proof either for or against god(s) existence in an empirical measurable sense ... please immediately change their self-labeling from atheist to agnostic. B. can all those who say atheism is NOT a belief system please change their unsupportable stance on that too. (note to self ... look things up more often).


You're setting up an argument that no atheist who is mature in their atheism even considers... by using the word "proof" you've stacked the deck, as they say. An atheist does not require 100% proof to come to certain conclusions regarding God & Religion. That's why I used the analogy of a court trial to illustrate how we make a choice to not believe in a God, not that a God cannot exist on appeal. Remember, it's "beyond a reasonable doubt", not "100% proof". Huge difference, both philosophically and in practice.

Let us take the three primary religions of Western Culture; there is considerable evidence that much of the scriptures these three mainstream religions hold to be true and of God, are nothing more than the musings of human imagination... you follow the evidence and at some point it becomes convincing enough to stick a fork in it. Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.
It is reasonably common for religious persons and others to class Atheists as those that have a “belief” system. It is taken for granted that the Atheist’s “belief” system is somewhat different from a “belief” in the supernatural and sundry. Proponents of such loose use of the language would wish to bring Atheists down to their level of accepting un-evidenced dogma.

Another way to illustrate what "belief" is, and is not... is since we do not fully understand how electricity works, we somehow have a “belief” in the workings of electricity. It may not be fully understood but it is accepted that if a toaster is connected to it, the bread will cook. Again and so on and so forth, “belief” has naught to do with it. If religions and such could do likewise and show by previous experience or experiment that some part of future action could be predicted, it would then no longer be a “belief” system. If “belief” in the supernatural had some kind of quantifiable substance to it, then it would escape the realms of our acceptance of ignorance as a way of explaining the world.
Think of God as a Toaster, just a common toaster that most of us have in our kitchens at home. You put your bread in and you are about 99.9% certain it will toast that bread, and being God it will toast it perfectly every time... unless you've sinned recently and perhaps it will burn your toast on one side while leaving the other side nicely toasted, as my crappy toaster does.:)

The religious and others have a “belief” that ignorance is superior to empirical knowledge.

[Iain Sparrow]

Jesus was a great guy for his time, and had many very cool things to say. He did indeed change the laws, somewhat contradicting what he says in other places. Mathew 5:8 "until everything is accomplished" does not address how those laws were ever ok.

But like I said, Jesus said a lot of great things, and I think one can follow his best things and probably be a better person for it. But what I don't think is good is when people actually believe he was god, and also that the old testament really happened as it states it, and that the god as the bible describes exists.


uhm... I'm surprised at this coming from an atheist?.. do you actually believe this Jesus person existed?

[Paulclem]

How biased and stupid is that?

Actually given the complete lack of any rants against any of the other theistic religions in the world I am very tempted to say ... is it possible that the reason that Christianity and Christianity alone gets up people's noses so much ... is because there is something in it, that isn't in any other religion in the same way? What other rational explanation do you have for the reason that these threads go on and on and on and on about the Bible and Christianity and not say .. Zoroastrianism? Just thinking aloud and looking logically at these threads for some time, not just here, but in many places on the net. Find any forum, with any similar discussion and it will be the same endless rants against the Bible and Christianity and never any other religions ... one has to wonder why.

I'm merely refuting you assertion that Buddhism is a theistic religion. So here we go again.

But don't you get it yet... there is an anti-Christian bias here. Buddhism can't be theistic because it is not monotheistic like Christianity.

The syncretism of various Hindu, Japanese, Chinese, Thai, etc etc etc traditional gods and goddesses and animism in varying degrees into Buddhism is not theism .. again because it does not measure up to the measurement of Christianity as the yardstick.


This is one of the features of Buddhism - that it is able to adapt to and adopt local customs. It does not force people to believe in Buddhism, but is rather accommodating. Hence in Japan you do have Shinto practiced alongside Buddhism. In fact my son reported that Japanese people often use the two religions for different rites of passage.

It was the same in Tibet where local deities were converted to Buddhist beliefs and often became adopted into Buddhism as Dharma protectors. The spirit oracle Neching was instrumental in advising HH The Dalai Lama to escape from the Chinese army in 1959. These are often inconvenient facts for those who approach Buddhism with western conceptions of what religion is, and it is played down or ignored. Buddhism accommodates lots of non-humans.

One class is referred to as Gods. These - as I have said - inhabit samsara and are part of the wheel of life and subject to karma and death. You say that this doesn't matter, but it is essential. It means that they do not hold the knowledge with which to escape samsara - or else they would. Instead they are wrapped up in a pleasurable existence which distracts them from dharma and results in them frittering their eon long lives away. In contrast, the brutal suffering of human life is the perfect place to realise the truth of suffering, and so humans are considered to be more fortunate in this.

The other thing is a qualitative aspect. Monotheistic religions rely upon God for guidance, blessings, favours etc etc. Gods in the Buddhist system are as much a part and so there is no use relying upon them. You are quite right to point out that there are lots of local practices associated with pre-Buddhist religions, and that's alright. To an extent the practice of Buddhism is a full time practice which is why there is a monastic community which supports, teaches and guides the local community. In the West we are more fortunate in that we generally have more choice and leisure over what we can do than the average Buddhist in Asian countries. This, of course, is only generally true. As such in many Buddhist countries, local people are often limited to celebrations etc in much the same way that Christmas is observed here in the West.

And of course there is the definition of theism:

https://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=&oq=theism+definition&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4TEUA_en___GB499&q=theism+definition&gs_l=hp...0l3j0i22i30l2.0.0.2.815306...........0.m 0CD6svUdXo#q=theist+definition&safe=off


theism

In a more specific sense, theism is commonly a monotheistic doctrine concerning the nature of a deity, and that deity's relationship to the universe. Theism, in this specific sense, conceives of God as personal, present and active in the governance and organization of the world and the universe.

That's the generally accepted use of the word - not as a catch all for Buddhism which has Gods within the system.

[Paulclem]

What Journey to the West shows is popular culture. One of the Goddesses that figures prominently in that book is Guanyin.

What I am most curious about from your perspective as a western Buddhist who believes in atheism is how your atheism differs from that of someone like Dawkins.

I know her as Kuanyin - she is the Chinese version of Chenrezig or Avolokitesvara Bodhisattva of Compassion - not a God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guanyin

What I am most curious about from your perspective as a western Buddhist who believes in atheism is how your atheism differs from that of someone like Dawkins

It's an interesting question. I've not read any Dawkins, but I suppose his stance is from a scientific worldview. Buddhism has a definite rationalism about it in the spirit of discovery. The concepts can be tested through various meditations and the Buddha's last words were to be a lamp to yourself - rely on yourself. That's the key in terms of atheism and theism. The Gods have no relations with man as they are too wrapped up. There's no god to pray to for favour, and the prospect of birth ageing, suffering and death - again and again in possibly lower forms of life - is not a comfortable one.

The Buddhas themselves are unreachable for an ordinary mind except through the teachings - due to the karmic effects of delusions on an ordinary person's mind. That leaves yourself, your family and friends, and the sangha - your spiritual comrades with which to develop and receive guidance. If a person is lucky - ie has good karma - they may find a teacher who will guide them. If they are very fortunate they will find their teacher - the one who will introduce them to the reality of their mind.

So then karma - or your actions are the key. You task is to develop a good life - harmlessness, but also develop wisdom that will be able to face and cope with the innumerable difficulties of life. It's not about being a doormat - and letting it all wash over you. You are an active force in your own development.

[Pumpkin337]

That's the generally accepted use of the word - not as a catch all for Buddhism which
has Gods within the system.

so you admit Buddhism has gods then? Which would mean it is not atheistic ... which would mean it was theistic

[Poetaster]

uhm... I'm surprised at this coming from an atheist?.. do you actually believe this Jesus person existed?

I'm surprised by people who do not think at least someone like Jesus existed. The bible says there was a census taken to get Jesus to be born in Jerusalem, despite the fact that he was from Bethlehem. The story is that under Roman law you had to return to the place of your birth to register. I may not know a lot about the origin of Christianity, but I do know a thing or two about the Roman empire and no such census ever took place - you were not required to go back to your place of birth to register. That was never the case as far as I'm aware.

Sure travel wasn't easy under Rome, but people still did it. Having people register in their place of birth would have created a logistical nightmare, and that's one thing the Romans didn't exactly care for. Because it was an empire, it needed the roads clear to move troops about, imagine the roads clogged with every kind of tradesman and artisan, and then add hordes of legionnaires and you are imagining pandemonium.

This apparent nonsense is obviously deliberate, and seems to be an attempt to make history fit with legend.

[Paulclem]

so you admit Buddhism has gods then? Which would mean it is not atheistic ... which would mean it was theistic

Hahaha

I said several posts back that God's and Goddesses inhabit the Wheel of Life. I wonder why you are so desperate to bring Buddhism into the theist fold? Given everything I've answered, why are you desperate to affix a familiar label to it? Buddhism arose from within Hinduism a poly theistic religion which still holds that all the aspects of God are United into one God. This is the theistic religion.

The Buddha rejected this. In fact, in conversation with a knowledgeable friend of mine a few years ago, he made the point that Buddhism has no need of an ultimate Godhead. Karma as a natural law ensures justice. The Buddha's teachings provide a means to escape the suffering of countless repeated rebirths. Reincarnation effects the workings of Karma. Beings are born and reborn according to the ripening of good or bad karma. The ultimate nature of reality and Enlightenment are the goal for every Buddhist, not the temporary heavens that exist within Samsara - the realm of suffering.

And yet, after saying all that, it doesn't really matter what you or I say or think about it. The practice is what really matters. I could declare myself a theistic Buddhist and, so long as I practised and maintained my faith in The Buddha's path, then I'd still be a Buddhist and the world would roll on. It is after all, why there are different local deities and customs still practiced around the world. What you would find though is a consistency of teaching from Zen to Tibetan to Sri Lankan Buddhism. Teachers can move between schools and learn the different emphases and techniques. A famous Burmese Buddhist Master, Dr Rewata Dhamma was not only a practitioner in Therevadan Buddhism, but also studied Tibetan Mahayana Buddhism. There was no problem or conflict in him doing that.

I think it's a pity that the various theistic religions can't be as tolerant and accommodating with and within each other. The lack of tolerance is what I see in many religions - the unwillingness to allow another to believe or practice what is not held or believed by the first. Perhaps that's why you are unwilling to allow my religion to define itself without trying to slap your own label on it.

[Iain Sparrow]

I'm surprised by people who do not think at least someone like Jesus existed. The bible says there was a census taken to get Jesus to be born in Jerusalem, despite the fact that he was from Bethlehem. The story is that under Roman law you had to return to the place of your birth to register. I may not know a lot about the origin of Christianity, but I do know a thing or two about the Roman empire and no such census ever took place - you were not required to go back to your place of birth to register. That was never the case as far as I'm aware.

Sure travel wasn't easy under Rome, but people still did it. Having people register in their place of birth would have created a logistical nightmare, and that's one thing the Romans didn't exactly care for. Because it was an empire, it needed the roads clear to move troops about, imagine the roads clogged with every kind of tradesman and artisan, and then add hordes of legionnaires and you are imagining pandemonium.

This apparent nonsense is obviously deliberate, and seems to be an attempt to make history fit with legend.

Yeah, most people have a very poor understanding of the The Roman Empire and how business was conducted. They were in fact quite modern, even by today's bureaucratic standards. Indeed part of their downfall was the reliance of bureaucracy and lack of a coherent central (federal) government at various times. The Romans did what so many empires have done since, became hopelessly overextended and Roman citizens could no longer foot the bill by way of tax revenues.

There is no record of Caesar Augustus' decree that "all the world should be enrolled". The Romans kept extremely detailed records of such events. Not only is Luke's census not in these records, it goes against all that we know of Roman economic history. Roman documents show that taxation was done by the various governors at the provincial level. The property tax was collected on site by travelling assessors, thus making unnecessary Joseph's journey away from what little property he must have owned. The idea that the Romans enumerated citizens and their property to determine their liabilities, and did so every five years or so is, absurd.

[YesNo]

I know her as Kuanyin - she is the Chinese version of Chenrezig or Avolokitesvara Bodhisattva of Compassion - not a God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guanyin

What I am most curious about from your perspective as a western Buddhist who believes in atheism is how your atheism differs from that of someone like Dawkins

It's an interesting question. I've not read any Dawkins, but I suppose his stance is from a scientific worldview. Buddhism has a definite rationalism about it in the spirit of discovery. The concepts can be tested through various meditations and the Buddha's last words were to be a lamp to yourself - rely on yourself. That's the key in terms of atheism and theism. The Gods have no relations with man as they are too wrapped up. There's no god to pray to for favour, and the prospect of birth ageing, suffering and death - again and again in possibly lower forms of life - is not a comfortable one.

The thread asks: do we need God? As I hear your description of western Buddhism, you don't need Gods because, even if they existed, they couldn't help. Is Kuanyin, not a God by your characterization of her, able to help in any way? Could she be invoked through mantras?



The Buddhas themselves are unreachable for an ordinary mind except through the teachings - due to the karmic effects of delusions on an ordinary person's mind. That leaves yourself, your family and friends, and the sangha - your spiritual comrades with which to develop and receive guidance. If a person is lucky - ie has good karma - they may find a teacher who will guide them. If they are very fortunate they will find their teacher - the one who will introduce them to the reality of their mind.

Perhaps this answered my previous question. Although Kuanyin might be able to help, she cannot be reached by ordinary minds. Then why do people bother making statues of her? (I remember seeing a beautiful, life-size one made out of wood in Chicago's Chinatown. We were buying a dining table and after I looked at the price I didn't even consider suggesting that we buy it.)



So then karma - or your actions are the key. You task is to develop a good life - harmlessness, but also develop wisdom that will be able to face and cope with the innumerable difficulties of life. It's not about being a doormat - and letting it all wash over you. You are an active force in your own development.

Who sets this task for you? What are you developing toward?

It looks like our situation is dismal. We cannot escape repeated rebirths. Being here is not a good thing because of the suffering. There are no Gods or Goddesses to help. If we make a mistake there is no forgiveness only cause and effect karma. I suppose the only difference between this position and that of a typical atheist is (1) the rebirths and (2) the value of your consciousness.

The idea of emptiness or maya in Buddhist and Hindu traditions interests me. One gets a similar empty result from quantum physics. I don't understand how someone who is simply meditating can come up with the same kind of results, but since consciousness seems to be involved at the quantum level there may be a way.

[Paulclem]

Could she be invoked through mantras?

Chenrezig's mantra is Om Mani Padme Hum which literally means hail to the jewel in he lotus. The purpose of reciting this is to gain merit, but more importantly to bring the mind back to virtuous thoughts. It's not an appeal for help. Kuanyin has her own mantra.

Then why do people bother making statues of her?

There is a tradition of respect for Buddhas and Bodhisattvas like KuanYin, and this is best expressed to a statue which can become the focus of a shrine or a temple. It is meritorious to make offerings and bow to statues, and it often becomes part of preparatory prayers as a precursor to meditation and study.

Who sets this task for you? What are you developing toward?

The long term task of any Buddhist is to achieve enlightenment. This, though is like making a determination to win a gold medal at the Olympics. As such the teachings advise people according to their capacity. An initial practice involves stopping doing anything that is negative. This might be controlling anger and developing the antidote patience. These tasks can be read, there are mediation guides and books, but most people who undertake a practice start with a group on such general tasks before developing their own practice under the guidance of a teacher.

It looks like our situation is dismal. We cannot escape repeated rebirths.

The Buddha's path illustrates that it is possible for a human to achieve enlightenment. If you don't think this then you are probably not a Buddhist. Practitioners are encouraged by the example of their teachers. You read about the brilliance of some teachers such as Lama Yeshe who died decades ago, but who embody the teachings in how they respond to people, teach, deal with problems etc. A qualified teacher is very important. They have to be an example of what they teach and as such are treated with respect.

I suppose the only difference between this position and that of a typical atheist is (1) the rebirths and (2) the value of your consciousness.


It is a massive difference, but there are many more elements too, particularly regarding Mahayana Buddhism. Non humans for example are regarded as realities. One example of this is Nechung, HH The Dalai Lama's oracle to whom he seeks advice. It was this spirit that advised HH when and where to go when escaping from Tibet.

I don't understand how someone who is simply meditating can come up with the same kind of results, but since consciousness seems to be involved at the quantum level there may be a way

There are guidelines to meditation. Often there are graduated steps and conclusions for the meditator to test out. It is this which attests to the truth of the teachings? Is what the teacher saying actually true?

[Pumpkin337]

Before you get all excited about Buddhism you might want to read a bit more about its dark side:

http://www.extibetanbuddhist.com/tag/lama-sexual-abuse/

http://www.lamashree.org/dalailama_08_childabuse_tibetanbuddhistmonasteries .htm

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2012/oct/08/tibetan-lamas-buddhism

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/culture-lifestyle/world-religion/130621/child-abuse-cases-bhutan-buddhist-monks

And because a great many people think 'oh shame poor Tibetans, poor Dalai Lama, bad Chinese' there is another side to the story:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2009/feb/10/tibet-china-feudalism

http://www.rense.com/general81/faeeof.htm

http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html

And lets not forget the violence that has been ongoing in Myanmar by Buddhists against Muslims:

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/globalpost-blogs/groundtruth-burma/buddhist-monk-wirathu-969-muslims-myanmar

....

wait for the outpouring of vitriol against these evil actions

....

no?

....


aah well that was expected.

[Paulclem]

Before you get all excited about Buddhism you might want to read a bit more about its dark side:

http://www.extibetanbuddhist.com/tag/lama-sexual-abuse/

http://www.lamashree.org/dalailama_08_childabuse_tibetanbuddhistmonasteries .htm

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2012/oct/08/tibetan-lamas-buddhism

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/culture-lifestyle/world-religion/130621/child-abuse-cases-bhutan-buddhist-monks

And because a great many people think 'oh shame poor Tibetans, poor Dalai Lama, bad Chinese' there is another side to the story:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2009/feb/10/tibet-china-feudalism

http://www.rense.com/general81/faeeof.htm

http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html

And lets not forget the violence that has been ongoing in Myanmar by Buddhists against Muslims:

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/globalpost-blogs/groundtruth-burma/buddhist-monk-wirathu-969-muslims-myanmar

....

wait for the outpouring of vitriol against these evil actions

....

no?

....


aah well that was expected.

Let me add another website for guidance.

http://viewonbuddhism.org/controversy-controversial-teacher-group-center-questionable.html

It would be foolish to think that there were no controversies or bad practitioners of a religion of an estimated 360 million.

So now am I supposed to come back with a list of bad christians and then we go into a game of recrimination ping pong?

I really don't know what the problem is. You made a statement in error and I put across the actual viewpoint of Buddhists. If you don't want that discussion then don't post it publicly to be questioned.

It seems to be a bit more than that though, and I can understand that to have your religion criticised causes some anger. As the leading religion in the west you have to accept that it will come under scrutiny and criticism - some, like some of the links you posted about Buddhism, are justified. Some won't be. After all, it's just a discussion and christianity won't be adversely affected by the views of a few atheists. The healthiest way is to look into criticism fairly - as the Pope seems to be doing and improve it from there.

[Pumpkin337]

So now am I supposed to come back with a list of bad christians and then we go into a game of recrimination ping pong?

Well don't bother some one else will. (or has already)

We could also talk about the wrongs of any other religion just to make it completely fair. How about Islam? Let's discuss the role of women in the Islamic world, or the wrongs of religious fanatics with their bombs.

How about the use of cannabis and the veneration of Haile Selassie in Rastafarianism?

Let's spread the accusations with an even knife shall we? But no .. your bias shows in your response.


It seems to be a bit more than that though, and I can understand that to have your religion criticised causes some anger. As the leading religion in the west you have to accept that it will come under scrutiny and criticism - some, like some of the links you posted about Buddhism, are justified. Some won't be. After all, it's just a discussion and christianity won't be adversely affected by the views of a few atheists. The healthiest way is to look into criticism fairly - as the Pope seems to be doing and improve it from there.

No idea where you get that idea from... I'm more attempting to show the clear bias that has already been shown in this thread multiple times.

I'm also not angry ... I just believe in fairness. It pleases me no end to put the bullies on the defensive.

[Paulclem]

Well don't bother some one else will. (or has already)

We could also talk about the wrongs of any other religion just to make it completely fair. How about Islam? Let's discuss the role of women in the Islamic world, or the wrongs of religious fanatics with their bombs.

How about the use of cannabis and the veneration of Haile Selassie in Rastafarianism?

Let's spread the accusations with an even knife shall we? But no .. your bias shows in your response.



No idea where you get that idea from... I'm more attempting to show the clear bias that has already been shown in this thread multiple times.

I'm also not angry ... I just believe in fairness. It pleases me no end to put the bullies on the defensive.

Alright. I'll let the bullies respond then.

[mortalterror]

But don't you get it yet... there is an anti-Christian bias here. Buddhism can't be theistic because it is not monotheistic like Christianity.

The syncretism of various Hindu, Japanese, Chinese, Thai, etc etc etc traditional gods and goddesses and animism in varying degrees into Buddhism is not theism .. again because it does not measure up to the measurement of Christianity as the yardstick.

Most specifically because Buddha rejected the notion of a creator-god (which probably had sweet fanny adams to do with any notion of Christianity other than the anti-Christian bias the current atheist brings to the table) which is fundamental to any monotheistic religion (of which surprise surprise) there are several:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Monotheistic_religions

and there are pantheistic religions (everything is god and god is everything)

http://religions.findthebest.com/d/d/Pantheistic

and polytheistic religions (there are many gods)

http://religions.findthebest.com/d/d/Polytheistic

but no ... the only validation for why Buddhism can't possibly be a form of theism, if not in its purest philosophical sense, at least in its daily practice for millions of people, especially where it has liberally absorbed existing beliefs from the local people, is because it isn't like Christian notions of God.

How biased and stupid is that?

Actually given the complete lack of any rants against any of the other theistic religions in the world I am very tempted to say ... is it possible that the reason that Christianity and Christianity alone gets up people's noses so much ... is because there is something in it, that isn't in any other religion in the same way? What other rational explanation do you have for the reason that these threads go on and on and on and on about the Bible and Christianity and not say .. Zoroastrianism? Just thinking aloud and looking logically at these threads for some time, not just here, but in many places on the net. Find any forum, with any similar discussion and it will be the same endless rants against the Bible and Christianity and never any other religions ... one has to wonder why.

They go after Jews and Muslims too. I see it sort of like atheism is a break off religion itself from Christianity. I forget where I heard the theory, but someone once said that atheism was an Abrahamic style belief system itself. So you see it reacting to Christianity, conflicting with it, growing in opposition to it the same way as Christianity grew in opposition to Judaism, or say how Protestantism initially grew out of Catholicism. A lot of atheists see the recent growth of their belief system as an unending trend until eventually everyone will be atheist. I think they will just capture a certain percentage of the market share and subsist alongside all the other religions. I also think it's probably fair to say that the brand of atheism practiced in this thread is mostly underpinned by western ideas and western values, even if they are not necessarily Abrahamic values, and so the beliefs and practices of a Western atheist are likely to be very different from those of an Asian, African, or Middle Eastern atheist. In the West, it is more than just a negative claim since it is usually deeply interwoven and defended with all the values of the Enlightenment.

[mortalterror]

uhm... I'm surprised at this coming from an atheist?.. do you actually believe this Jesus person existed?
Jesus was a real person, but only two events in his life are authenticated outside of the Gospels.

The historicity of Jesus concerns the analysis of historical evidence to determine if Jesus of Nazareth existed as a historical figure, and if any of the major milestones in his life as portrayed in the gospels can be confirmed as historical events, as opposed to the Christ myth theory, which holds that he is a fictional figure. The related study of the historical Jesus attempts to reconstruct portraits of his life and teachings, based on methods such as biblical criticism of gospel texts and the history of first century Judea.

Historicity is the study of the historical actuality of persons and events, meaning the quality of being part of history as opposed to being a historical myth or legend, or of being part of prehistory. Questions of historicity arise where accounts of events are believed by some to be true, but cannot be verified, either due to the absence of historical records or where historical accounts incorporate folklore, theological views or literature as fact.

Most modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed,[1][2][not in citation given][3][4] but scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the Biblical accounts of Jesus,[5] and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[6][7][8] Biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[9][10][11] Most scholars agree that Jesus was a Galilean Jew who was born between 7 and 2 BC and died 30–36 AD,[12][13][14] that he lived in Galilee and Judea, did not preach or study elsewhere,[15][16][17] and that he spoke Aramaic and perhaps also Hebrew and Greek.[18][19][20]

Since the 18th century a number of quests for the historical Jesus have taken place, and historical critical methods for studying the historicity of Jesus have been developed. Various Christian and non-Christian sources are used to study and establish the historicity of Jesus, e.g. Jewish sources such as Josephus, and Roman sources such as Tacitus. These sources are compared and contrasted to Christian sources such as the Pauline Letters and the Synoptic Gospels. These sources are usually independent of each other (e.g. Jewish sources do not draw upon Roman sources), and similarities and differences between them are used in the authentication process.

Josephus
Main article: Josephus on Jesus

The writings of the 1st century Romano-Jewish historian Flavius Josephus include references to Jesus and the origins of Christianity.[119][120] Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, written around 93–94 AD, includes two references to Jesus in Books 18 and 20.[119][121]

Of the two passages, the James passage in Book 20 is used by scholars to support the existence of Jesus, the Testimonium Flavianum in Book 18 his crucifixion.[21] Josephus' James passage attests to the existence of Jesus as a historical person and that some of his contemporaries considered him the Messiah.[21][122] According to Bart Ehrman, Josephus' passage about Jesus was altered by a Christian scribe, including the reference to Jesus as the Messiah.[123]

A textual argument against the authenticity of the James passage is that the use of the term "Christos" there seems unusual for Josephus.[124] An argument based on the flow of the text in the document is that, given that the mention of Jesus appears in the Antiquities before that of the John the Baptist, a Christian interpolator may have inserted it to place Jesus in the text before John.[124] A further argument against the authenticity of the James passage is that it would have read well even without a reference to Jesus.[124]

The passage deals with the death of "James the brother of Jesus" in Jerusalem. Whereas the works of Josephus refer to at least twenty different people with the name Jesus, this passage specifies that this Jesus was the one "who was called Christ".[125][126] Louis Feldman states that this passage, above others, indicates that Josephus did say something about Jesus.[127]

Modern scholarship has almost universally acknowledged the authenticity of the reference in Book 20, Chapter 9, 1 of the Antiquities to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James",[128] and considers it as having the highest level of authenticity among the references of Josephus to Christianity.[119][120][129][130][131][132]

The Testimonium Flavianum (meaning the testimony of Flavius [Josephus]) is the name given to the passage found in Book 18, Chapter 3, 3 of the Antiquities in which Josephus describes the condemnation and crucifixion of Jesus at the hands of the Roman authorities.[133][134] Scholars have differing opinions on the total or partial authenticity of the reference in the passage to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate.[119][134] The general scholarly view is that while the Testimonium Flavianum is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it is broadly agreed upon that it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus with a reference to the execution of Jesus by Pilate which was then subject to Christian interpolation.[122][134][135][136][137] Although the exact nature and extent of the Christian redaction remains unclear,[138] there is broad consensus as to what the original text of the Testimonium by Josephus would have looked like.[137]

The references found in Antiquities have no parallel texts in the other work by Josephus such as the Jewish War, written twenty years earlier, but some scholars have provided explanations for their absence, such as that the Antiquities covers a longer time period and that during the twenty year gap between the writing of the Jewish Wars (c. 70 AD) and Antiquities (after 90 AD) Christians had become more important in Rome and were hence given attention in the Antiquities.[139]

A number of variations exist between the statements by Josephus regarding the deaths of James and the New Testament accounts.[140] Scholars generally view these variations as indications that the Josephus passages are not interpolations, because a Christian interpolator would more likely have made them correspond to the Christian traditions.[125][140] Robert Eisenman provides numerous early Christian sources that confirm the Josephus testament, that James was the brother of Jesus.[14]

Tacitus
Main article: Tacitus on Christ

The Roman historian and senator Tacitus referred to Christ, his execution by Pontius Pilate and the existence of early Christians in Rome in his final work, Annals (written ca. AD 116), book 15, chapter 44.[142][143][144] The relevant passage reads: "... called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus ..."

Scholars generally consider Tacitus's reference to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate to be both authentic, and of historical value as an independent Roman source about early Christianity that is in unison with other historical records.[101][145][146][147][148] Eddy and Boyd state that it is now "firmly established" that Tacitus provides a non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus.[149] Although a few scholars question the passage given that Tacitus was born 25 years after Jesus's death, the majority of scholars consider it genuine.[101] William L. Portier has stated that the consistency in the references by Tacitus, Josephus and the letters to Emperor Trajan by Pliny the Younger reaffirm the validity of all three accounts.[148]

Tacitus was a patriotic Roman senator and his writings shows no sympathy towards Christians.[145][150][150][151][152] Andreas Köstenberger and separately Robert E. Van Voorst state that the tone of the passage towards Christians is far too negative to have been authored by a Christian scribe - a conclusion shared by John P. Meier[101][153][154] Robert E. Van Voorst states that "of all Roman writers, Tacitus gives us the most precise information about Christ".[101] John Dominic Crossan considers the passage important in establishing that Jesus existed and was crucified, and states: "That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be, since both Josephus and Tacitus... agree with the Christian accounts on at least that basic fact."[155] Bart D. Ehrman states: "Tacitus's report confirms what we know from other sources, that Jesus was executed by order of the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, sometime during Tiberius's reign."[156]

Some scholars have debated the historical value of the passage, given that Tacitus does not reveal the source of his information.[157] Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz argue that Tacitus at times had drawn on earlier historical works now lost to us, and he may have used official sources from a Roman archive in this case; however, if Tacitus had been copying from an official source, some scholars would expect him to have labeled Pilate correctly as a prefect rather than a procurator.[158] Theissen and Merz state that Tacitus gives us a description of widespread prejudices about Christianity and a few precise details about "Christus" and Christianity, the source of which remains unclear.[159] However, Paul R. Eddy has stated that given his position as a senator Tacitus was also likely to have had access to official Roman documents of the time and did not need other sources.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
As for the historical accuracy of the Bible, some parts of it are very accurate, some parts are partially accurate, and some parts are probably inaccurate. For instance, Herod the Great was a real king and a friend of Augustus Caesar. Lots of the kings and wars in the Bible are authenticated in other books. Nebuchadnezzar, real dude, king of the Neo-Babylonian Empire.

When Atheists question the historical existence of Jesus, it makes them hard to take seriously. Atheists love a good lie so long as it casts Christianity in a poor light. It's because of Draper and White that the Conflict Thesis is still popular among laymen even though scientists ceased to believe in it many decades ago, or the myth that everyone believed that the earth was flat up to Columbus' day. When they talk about Bruno as a scientist or any of that other bunk they are always spouting, it shows how profoundly ignorant of history many of them are, and how little the truth interests them.

[mortalterror]

Alright. I'll let the bullies respond then.

Are there any "atheists" here besides Paulclem who believe in reincarnation and spirits?

[YesNo]

I suppose the only difference between this position and that of a typical atheist is (1) the rebirths and (2) the value of your consciousness.


It is a massive difference, but there are many more elements too, particularly regarding Mahayana Buddhism. Non humans for example are regarded as realities. One example of this is Nechung, HH The Dalai Lama's oracle to whom he seeks advice. It was this spirit that advised HH when and where to go when escaping from Tibet.

I agree that there must be a massive difference. Thanks for responding to my questions.

[YesNo]

When Atheists question the historical existence of Jesus, it makes them hard to take seriously.

That's right. Atheists who who don't believe in the existence of Jesus need to address the arguments that he did exist provided by people like Bart Ehrman, an agnostic New Testament scholar, in "Did Jesus Exist?" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/03/did-jesus-exist-bart-ehrman_n_1400465.html

Whether one wants to believe in Jesus or not is a different question. Questioning his existence should not be an issue.

What I think is the most powerful argument for Christianity are the quantity of shared death experiences reported in the New Testament after Jesus's crucifixion and the inspired ability of Christians to develop that through the centuries. That is evidence enough for me that Jesus was a divine incarnation. Admittedly Christians made mistakes, but overall there is no need for any Christian to leave their religion for something better.

[blazeofglory]

Why we need God? God is something that comforts you and you feel secured or we are unsatisfied with the world we are in and we want more of it and break through boundaries. We do not want live satisfied that this world or our life ends with death. We want supernaturals to widen our domain of life and we want to realize things transcendentally or something of other worldliness intrigues us

[Iain Sparrow]

Jesus was a real person, but only two events in his life are authenticated outside of the Gospels.

Nonsense.
Tacitus, whom you mention as authenticating the life of Jesus, was born 25 years after Jesus' death, and his accounts amount to hearsay... he is echoing the teachings of a religious movement which is at the time, spreading across parts of the empire. Tacitus is not a reliable source. Charles Guignebert argued that "So long as there is that possibility [that Tacitus is merely echoing what Christians themselves were saying], the passage remains quite worthless".
Even in our enlightened modern times, with 24/7 cable news, the information we're given is often incorrect, incomplete, and at times driven by agents of misinformation (propaganda)... and that's within 25 minutes of the breaking news story. Imagine Tacitus, who comes on to the scene decades after the supposed events, and chronicles those events decades later... 50 to 60 years after!

[Iain Sparrow]

That's right. Atheists who who don't believe in the existence of Jesus need to address the arguments that he did exist provided by people like Bart Ehrman, an agnostic New Testament scholar, in "Did Jesus Exist?" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/03/did-jesus-exist-bart-ehrman_n_1400465.html

Whether one wants to believe in Jesus or not is a different question. Questioning his existence should not be an issue.

What I think is the most powerful argument for Christianity are the quantity of shared death experiences reported in the New Testament after Jesus's crucifixion and the inspired ability of Christians to develop that through the centuries. That is evidence enough for me that Jesus was a divine incarnation. Admittedly Christians made mistakes, but overall there is no need for any Christian to leave their religion for something better.


That is not how one builds a coherent argument... by arriving at conclusions beforehand and with no evidence to back them up, "Questioning his existence should not be an issue".
It is the issue, because so many of the surrounding elements of the story can be completely discounted by third party sources that were contemporary to that time, and subsequently by modern historians, that the entire story is called into question.


And again, quoting my other post...
Tacitus, whom you mention as authenticating the life of Jesus, was born 25 years after Jesus' death, and his accounts amount to hearsay... he is echoing the teachings of a religious movement which is at the time, spreading across parts of the empire. Tacitus is not a reliable source. Charles Guignebert argued that "So long as there is that possibility [that Tacitus is merely echoing what Christians themselves were saying], the passage remains quite worthless".
Even in our enlightened modern times, with 24/7 cable news, the information we're given is often incorrect, incomplete, and at times driven by agents of misinformation (propaganda)... and that's within 25 minutes of a breaking news story. Imagine Tacitus, who comes on to the scene decades after the supposed events, and chronicles those events decades later... 50 to 60 years after!

[mortalterror]

I know that an atheist is some one who doesn't believe in dieties, but what do you call a person who doesn't believe in history?

[Pumpkin337]

as one person put it ...


To any unbiased observer who is willing to evaluate it without prejudice, the accumulated evidence regarding the Gospel record is truly overwhelming

the issue is not with the evidence, but with one's willingness to evaluate it without prejudice.

[YesNo]

That is not how one builds a coherent argument... by arriving at conclusions beforehand and with no evidence to back them up, "Questioning his existence should not be an issue".
It is the issue, because so many of the surrounding elements of the story can be completely discounted by third party sources that were contemporary to that time, and subsequently by modern historians, that the entire story is called into question.

I built my argument by citing Bart Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist?", which I read some time ago, and provided a link to a review of the book. Ehrman is an "agnostic", so I picked an authority that should appeal to atheists. That's my evidence. My conclusion is the same as Ehrman's: Jesus existed.

If you want to disagree with me, get a copy of Ehrman's book from the library and cite where you think he was wrong. I'm not a New Testament scholar. I haven't even read all of it, but I will try to respond. However, doubting the existence of Jesus, just makes atheism look dumber than I already thought it was.

[Ecurb]

I know that an atheist is some one who doesn't believe in dieties, but what do you call a person who doesn't believe in history?

It seems to me that those with modern, scientific (and often atheistic) worldviews often doubt historical accounts (of anything). In our legal system, eye witness accounts (which used to be the surest evidence, and are equivalent to "historical evidence") are now less readily believed than scientific evidence. On these very discussion boards, I've seen atheists claim there is no evidence for the existence of God, thereby ignoring the reams of historical evidence, personal testimony, etc. What they mean is that there is no good, "scientific" or "experimental" evidence for the existence of God, as if to say only science qualifies as "evidence".

No doubt historical accounts are influenced by political, literary and religious factors -- but they still constitute "evidence".

I remember C.S. Lewis writing that the Gospels read more like biography than like myth, from a literary perspective. This doesn't (of course) verify the Gospel's accounts of Jesus' life, but I agree with Lewis -- the Gospels are dominated by Jesus' words and teachings, which reminds me more of "Life of Johnson" than of most myths. Myths are oral histories, and, over time, the words get lost and changed (except for a few homilies or dramatic statements). What remains is the basic story (there are parts of the Gospels, like the crucifixion and resurrection that resemble other myths more than other sections do).

[Frostball]

My opinion is that Jesus probably did exist, and may even had said many of the things and parables it has him saying in the bible. If so he was a thinker very different from others in his time and place, and had some pretty interesting things to say. This isn't an extreme claim, and I think the bible and the other evidence is enough for me to believe there was a guy who came up with all that stuff attributed to Jesus. Somebody had to come up with it.

But I see no reason to believe he was the son of god, or did miracles. The bible is not good enough evidence to support such an extreme claim, and there isn't enough (any) non religious sources corroborating any miracles.

[Lokasenna]

On the subject of Tacitus, he's usually seen as quite a reliable source. I've used his Germania in my own research, as do many other scholars of pre-Christian northern religions. I can't swear to the Annals, as I've not read it, but my understanding is that it is seen as his crowning work. If Germania is anything to go by, he has a tendency to speak directly, even bluntly, with little desire to impose a dogamtic reading on the things he discusses.

With regard to the historicity of Christ, I must admit I thought there wasn't much debate as to his actual existence? Regardless of whether he was god or man (and my money is pretty firmly on the latter), I thought most scholars were in agreement that some bloke named Jesus was knocking around the Holy Land at roughly that time, stirring things up and generally making a nuisance of himself?

[Cleanthes]

Since we cannot go back in time and witness directly what happened, we have to go by what we have.

The one fact we know for sure is that by the end of the first Century there was a Jewish movement centered around a certain 'Chrestus', as mentioned by Tacitus.

Next we have some texts that, according to most scholars, were likely written somewhere between the second half of the first Century and the first half of the second Century.

These texts mention the deeds and teachings of someone or something called Jesus or Christ. Setting aside for the moment the fact of whether or not those texts are complete fabrications, the gospel truth or somewhere in between, something must have motivated their authors to write them. Some interesting theories (among many) to explain why these texts came to be written are that:
1) There was an actual man named Jesus and some people wanted to document his life or at least write down what they had heard about him or received as a vision. This is the majority view among New Testament researchers and historians.

2) Some people thought that the secret religious knowledge and myths of their sect would be more safely transmitted in public in the form of stories about something called a Christ, and somehow there was a break in the transmission line of this secret knowledge. This view is partly based on how little overlap there is between what Paul wrote about Christ and what Mark wrote about Jesus.

3) Maybe the texts as we have now are a syncretism of 1 and 2. Somehow mystic secret teachings about a supernatural being called Christ (a part of a larger mythology or gnostic belief system) were mixed with tales about a rabbi named Jesus and this became the basis of the Jesus movement. Bart D. Ehrman in his latest book, How Jesus Became God describes how beliefs about Jesus differed almost from the very beginning among different groups of believers (adopted or exalted by God, possessed by God, dual nature, God incarnated, etc.)

[Poetaster]

On the subject of Tacitus, he's usually seen as quite a reliable source. I've used his Germania in my own research, as do many other scholars of pre-Christian northern religions. I can't swear to the Annals, as I've not read it, but my understanding is that it is seen as his crowning work. If Germania is anything to go by, he has a tendency to speak directly, even bluntly, with little desire to impose a dogamtic reading on the things he discusses.

With regard to the historicity of Christ, I must admit I thought there wasn't much debate as to his actual existence? Regardless of whether he was god or man (and my money is pretty firmly on the latter), I thought most scholars were in agreement that some bloke named Jesus was knocking around the Holy Land at roughly that time, stirring things up and generally making a nuisance of himself?

It's generally agreed that Jesus was a real person, but people point to certain things, like the C in 'christiani' is apparently not capitalized in the original. And that uncapitalized it can mean something like 'The kind people'. These are reasons given, that I've heard. I don't buy it.

[cacian]

Jesus is real god is not.
in jurisdiction terms that would be a fair statement.

[Iain Sparrow]

I built my argument by citing Bart Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist?", which I read some time ago, and provided a link to a review of the book. Ehrman is an "agnostic", so I picked an authority that should appeal to atheists. That's my evidence. My conclusion is the same as Ehrman's: Jesus existed.

If you want to disagree with me, get a copy of Ehrman's book from the library and cite where you think he was wrong. I'm not a New Testament scholar. I haven't even read all of it, but I will try to respond. However, doubting the existence of Jesus, just makes atheism look dumber than I already thought it was.


uhm, no I'm not going to read entire books in order to have a debate with someone who lives in a silly world where a Messiah loves him, and will get him into heaven.

Here you go, a real book by a real historian about the life of Jesus that never was... Nailed: Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed at All, by David Fitzgerald.

[Iain Sparrow]

My opinion is that Jesus probably did exist, and may even had said many of the things and parables it has him saying in the bible. If so he was a thinker very different from others in his time and place, and had some pretty interesting things to say. This isn't an extreme claim, and I think the bible and the other evidence is enough for me to believe there was a guy who came up with all that stuff attributed to Jesus. Somebody had to come up with it.


Are you certain you're an atheist?
What interesting things did Jesus have to say?.. that he was the son of God, or that it was his way or the highway, or what?

[Poetaster]

Well, Jesus wasn't a bad guy. He was a socialist, a pacifist, and an egalitarian.

[cacian]

Are you certain you're an atheist?
What interesting things did Jesus have to say?.. that he was the son of God, or that it was his way or the highway, or what?

''...that he was the son of god''
let's not forget it was Jesus who apparently said it not god.
I guess that was the most and only interesting thing he would've ever said if he said it at all. ;)
don't forget doubt is all around. doubting Thomas and all that.
religion however does not doubt. I wonder out.

[cacian]

Well, Jesus wasn't a bad guy. He was a socialist, a pacifist, and an egalitarian.

that is politics is it not??

[YesNo]

uhm, no I'm not going to read entire books in order to have a debate with someone who lives in a silly world where a Messiah loves him, and will get him into heaven.

Here you go, a real book by a real historian about the life of Jesus that never was... Nailed: Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed at All, by David Fitzgerald.

First, I'm all in favor that you keep believing that Jesus didn't exist. It is more entertaining that way.

Second, I recite mantras to Saraswati. I don't know much about her, but the more I find out, the more I like her. My theism is based, however, on my view of the role of consciousness as seen through quantum physics. I know that doesn't make any more sense to you (and probably doesn't make any more sense to anyone else reading this) than your not believing that Jesus existed makes any sense to me.

Third, in spite of my attraction to Saraswati, I think Christians have got a pretty good religion. You're right. Their God loves them. That's what a decent God is supposed to do. You could almost say that is why we need God.

Fourth, the reason I think Christianity has something going for it is because of the shared death experiences reported after Jesus's crucifixion. Rising from the dead is on the level of the miracles. They don't interest me as much. They could all be made up and Christianity would still be valuable based on the appearances of Jesus after death and the inspired development of Christianity.

Fifth, some things Christians have done have been unfortunate, in particular, antisemitism. Atheists, however, when they behave badly are far worse than Christians just by body count alone. Check out the Khmer Rouge as one example. At least Christians have a God they must be accountable to. Thank God for hell. Atheists don't have jack to be accountable to except their own self-righteousness (unless they are the sort of Buddhists who believe in atheism who will get their butts kicked with karma if they misbehave--again, thank God for karma).

If I run into the Fitzgerald book, I'll check it out. Thanks for the reference.

[mona amon]

Are you certain you're an atheist?
What interesting things did Jesus have to say?.. that he was the son of God, or that it was his way or the highway, or what?


With regard to the historicity of Christ, I must admit I thought there wasn't much debate as to his actual existence? Regardless of whether he was god or man (and my money is pretty firmly on the latter), I thought most scholars were in agreement that some bloke named Jesus was knocking around the Holy Land at roughly that time, stirring things up and generally making a nuisance of himself?

Iain, is it not possible to believe that a man such as Loka describes existed, without compromising your atheist stance? :)

[Paulclem]

Are there any "atheists" here besides Paulclem who believe in reincarnation and spirits?

I suppose this expresses the middle ground a Mahayana Buddhist occupies not acknowledging a creator God but accepting that a person like Jesus may have had miracle powers. (I used to think it ironic that I had no problem with this whereas the then Bishop of Durham did.

The key is in the definition of miracle in translation again which, from a Buddhist point of view, is not an expression of divine power but is a natural side effect of being an advanced meditator/ spiritual being.

I also think there's nothing wrong being open minded. The religious - particularly Christian worldview is often at odds on here with the scientific worldview, but it could be argued that both are narratives - like any worldview - that people for various reasons subscribe to without being finally able to describe it as truth. What I mean is the unknowable, ineffable nature of God and the fact that science is a developing discipline which is attempting to establish material truths, but which as yet is still developing. It seems to me that the polarisation of discussion on both sides fails to acknowledge this developing narrative.

[cacian]

I also think there's nothing wrong being open minded. The religious
I am not sure that when one subscribes to religion one is open minded. I would say it is the opposite.

[Frostball]

Are you certain you're an atheist?
What interesting things did Jesus have to say?.. that he was the son of God, or that it was his way or the highway, or what?

Admitting there may have been an historical Jesus does not mean I follow him or think him in any way divine. By interesting I mean his bits of philosophy, like turning the other cheek, and helping your neighbor. Things which seem pretty facile and obvious now, but back then may have been some pretty interesting and new ideas. I personally do not think turning the other cheek or loving your enemy are either very good ideas, but I could see people following the principles and being good people, so I don't have very much against these ideas, they just aren't for me.

Basically, without all the religious junk and miracle junk, you're left with something of a philosopher-pacifist-man spreading some ideas that were at the time very interesting and different from what people were hearing. An interesting thing to happen in history, even if the actual ideas he espoused may not have been that interesting to me. So that's what I mean by "interesting things to say". Obviously I think his words on the old testament, god, and hell in particular, to be uninteresting and vile, but only to the extent people really believe those things now. Without that fact, I read it as simply some stories or mythology, so yes, even those bits are interesting in that way to me.

All this said, in the end, there may not have been a real Jesus. I really don't know, and it doesn't much matter to me one way or the other. Most experts seem to agree that there was, so I tag along with their collective opinion since I am not an expert. The real question, as I see it, is how much the Jesus as described in the gospels actually matches on to a real person. We don't know how much is made up, and how much comes from the real Jesus. There is no way to answer this question sans time travel, so the question of what the "real" Jesus was like is irrelevant, or at least unanswerable. All we have is Jesus as a character in the gospels who may very well have been based on a real person.

[Paulclem]

I am not sure that when one subscribes to religion one is open minded. I would say it is the opposite.

Surely you mean religious and intolerant?

[cacian]

Surely you mean religious and intolerant?

haha religious yes
intolerant maybe not so much
intolerant means one is incapable of reaffirming ones' beliefs because one is saturated because
religious has made it so because the latter is close minded.
I believe when one gets god's exploring one gets nothing else done.

[Iain Sparrow]

Iain, is it not possible to believe that a man such as Loka describes existed, without compromising your atheist stance? :)

Oh most definitely yes, it is a possibility, and truth be known it's the one I'm most partial to. The teachings of Jesus Christ are revolutionary for their time, and "love they neighbor" is something we should all aspire to. I think the message of Jesus, whomever and however his philosophy came about, is beautiful... humanity at its most enlightened.

As I see it, these are the options we have;
1. Jesus Christ existed, and was the Messiah (son of God), and will one day return
2. Jesus existed , was not the son of God, but was a revolutionary philosopher
3. Jesus is a composite of more than one person
4. Jesus is a myth
5. the last option, albeit quite remote, is that I am Jesus... this is a photo of me at a Halloween costume party. The resemblance is uncanny don't you think?.. the sword I carry is The Sword of Truth... or a Lord of the Rings replica?
(later this week my dad [God] will make an announcement... so stay tuned to BBC World News):yesnod:

http://i1181.photobucket.com/albums/x426/Sparrowyn/Photos/Me_Halloween07_zps3ea91f5b.jpg

[Paulclem]

haha religious yes
intolerant maybe not so much
intolerant means one is incapable of reaffirming ones' beliefs because one is saturated because
religious has made it so because one is close minded.
I believe when one gets god's exploring one gets nothing else done.

Intolerance means not putting up with other points of view, attitudes and worldviews.

Buddhists don't get God. : )

[cacian]

Oh most definitely yes, it is a possibility, and truth be known it's the one I'm most partial to. The teachings of Jesus Christ are revolutionary for their time, and "love they neighbor" is something we should all aspire to. I think the message of Jesus, whomever and however his philosophy came about, is beautiful... humanity at its most enlightened.

As I see it, these are the options we have;
1. Jesus Christ existed, and was the Messiah (son of God), and will one day return
2. Jesus existed , was not the son of God, but was a revolutionary philosopher
3. Jesus is a composite of more than one person
4. Jesus is a myth
5. the last option, albeit quite remote, is that I am Jesus... this is a photo of me at a Halloween costume party. The resemblance is uncanny don't you think?.. the sword I carry is The Sword of Truth... or a Lord of the Rings replica?
(later this week my dad [God] will make an announcement... so stay tuned to BBC World News):yesnod:

http://i1181.photobucket.com/albums/x426/Sparrowyn/Photos/Me_Halloween07_zps3ea91f5b.jpg

oh my
why a BBC World NEws
why not
a God's News?

[cacian]

Intolerance means not putting up with other points of view, attitudes and worldviews.

Buddhists don't get God. : )

yes it does mean just that but the question is why intelorance??
I ask myself that and I realise that is because when one is saturated one comes to believe in none. hence suicide bombing for example.
in the name of religion.
normally one commits suicide when one loses faith in one self. this same applies to fanatic who kill themselves.
intelerance is fanatism.
this means one has lost the belief of one self and that of religion.
hence saturation.

[Pumpkin337]

uhhh have you devoted ANY time researching why people become suicide bombers at all ... because you are utterly wrong. Dying in a Holy War gives you a free do not pass go, do not collect $200, go straight to Paradise ticket. How else do you convince anyone to willingly strap a bomb to their body and blow themselves up? Except for extreme coercion the only way is to convince them that what's on the otherside is better.

[cacian]

uhhh have you devoted ANY time researching why people become suicide bombers at all ... because you are utterly wrong. Dying in a Holy War gives you a free do not pass go, do not collect $200, go straight to Paradise ticket. How else do you convince anyone to willingly strap a bomb to their body and blow themselves up? Except for extreme coercion the only way is to convince them that what's on the otherside is better.

you do not need research to see what is going on
all you need is to look and you will understand how mentally desperate these suiciders are.
these individuals are mentally saturated.
anyone who believes that committing suicide by blowing oneself up and killing others as well gives you one way ticket to paradise is a deluded self deprecated ill being
there is no guarantee in death it is blind to think so
the only guarantee is life and if one choses to take it off in this way is bluntly saturated mentally incapable and delluded
I guess the scary one is not the one that kill themselves because once they are gone they are gone
by the time they have finished killing themselves there will be none left
the scary ones are the one who convince others to commit suicide by bomb explosion
they are the one to watch for
I guess their turn will come because they will have to step up to the mark and show they will do it too
time is a great healer it eventually catches up on everyone

[Pumpkin337]

double post

[Pumpkin337]

you genuinely have absolutely no concept of what it means to believe in something do you?

http://www.frontline.org.za/index.php?option=com_content&id=832:jihad-islamic-holy-war

The whole thing is frightening reading (which makes the US support of some Islamic factions incomprehensible) but in support of what I said above:


here is the Jihad of the Sword. After fleeing to Medina (the Hijra) in AD622, Muhammad started to summon his followers to attack and plunder the caravans of Mecca. His followers initially resisted these calls until Muhammad presented a series of “revelations” commanding Jihad (holy war) and permitting looting (“Whoever has killed an enemy and has proof of that, will possess his spoils” – The Hadith, Vol. 4 no. 370). Where the booty was not large enough, Muhammad held captives as hostages until their families paid a high ransom for their release. Hostage taking has continued to be a common practise in Islam to this day. Those who participate in Jihad are granted a blanket absolution (Surah 8:17) and guaranteed to go straight to Paradise (Heaven) if killed.

[cacian]

you genuinely have absolutely no concept of what it means to believe in something do you?

http://www.frontline.org.za/index.php?option=com_content&id=832:jihad-islamic-holy-war

The whole thing is frightening reading (which makes the US support of some Islamic factions incomprehensible) but in support of what I said above:

I am very much aware of what is going on you have my guarantee on that.
I am indeed baffled to why the US is in support of anything of such but then the US has a story of being incoherent with its laws and beliefs it is too busy flying nasa and conquering to a land where the alien is not.
it is a very much a divided nation from the onset.
there is a law different in every state you go and so I am not surprised of this.
about the Jihad speech I notice there is not one mention of the word god in there.
there is Muhammad a lot though.
it is obvious those who wrote this had very much the word Muhammad in mind.
killing is a present word throughout all religions.
it seems to be the driving force of religion
anyone who believes death is paradise is out of belief
and so yeah I think it is severe and it needs a stop to it sooner rather then later.

[Paulclem]

yes it does mean just that but the question is why intelorance??
I ask myself that and I realise that is because when one is saturated one comes to believe in none. hence suicide bombing for example.
in the name of religion.
normally one commits suicide when one loses faith in one self. this same applies to fanatic who kill themselves.
intelerance is fanatism.
this means one has lost the belief of one self and that of religion.
hence saturation.

You're not allowing for the very much greater number of religious people who are neither intolerant nor suicide bombers, but who are ordinary citizens who happen to hold and be content with their religion without trying to convert others. Religion does not = intolerance though you will find small elements like that within it. Those small elements so often come to represent the rest in the minds of others.

Such attitudes are diappointing especially when someone like Pumpkin rails against what they see as victimisation of their religion, but then go on to do exactly the same thing to another religion.

[cacian]

You're not allowing for the very much greater number of religious people who are neither intolerant nor suicide bombers, but who are ordinary citizens who happen to hold and be content with their religion without trying to convert others.

true but they are not actively prominent in their belief their gratification and content is not changing the world for the better and so I question they very chore of belief that is strong yet inactive .
how does one contribute towards others and the bigger picture when one is content with one's religion?
I personally consider it to be a type of extreme opposite the dormant opposite of the fanatic who under extreme hounding saturation is exterminate toward oneself and others.
dormant versus destructive.


Religion does not = intolerance though you will find small elements like that within it. Those small elements so often come to represent the rest in the minds of others.
true but what religion does is state who is who and who does what.
religions sets boundaries and dictate by order of different itself/religion hence the present state of religious beliefs.
religion does not wave one flags it waves many and end up creating a wave of any.


Such attitudes are disappointing especially when someone like Pumpkin rails against what they see as victimisation of their religion, but then go on to do exactly the same thing to another religion.
religion is an attitude and it comes with a price unfortunately for many it is within the characteristic of a human to carry it on.

[Pumpkin337]

perhaps I should clarify ... it does not matter what normal sane people believe, but what is in the psychology of the person strapping a bomb to their chest, and in the minds of their mother, father, brother, sister who assist them, kiss them goodbye and send them off with love.

Now what normal sane parent would do that? To be sure almost any person can be convinced to lay their life down for family, for comrades, even for an ideology if they are convinced their action will bring greater good. A person can be coerced into doing it if their loved ones are held hostage. But what force could convince a parent to willingly participate in allowing their child to turn themselves into a bomb? I would argue nothing less than the absolute belief that it was to their child's advantage / betterment would persuade a mother to do that. This belief might be an erroneous interpretation of the Koran, it may not be supported by moderates, but if it is what the bomber believes then it is not a suicidal act of the hopeless but an act of firm and active faith and not an example of oversaturated whatever nonsense put forward above.

In the same way - what motivates a Buddhist monk to immoliate himself? It would be so easy to dismiss such actions as 'insanity' or as 'suicidal' or whatever it was that was said above (which indicates a complete utter lack of any level of comprehension about faith) but these aren't - these are acts of faith.

[YesNo]

5. the last option, albeit quite remote, is that I am Jesus... this is a photo of me at a Halloween costume party. The resemblance is uncanny don't you think?.. the sword I carry is The Sword of Truth... or a Lord of the Rings replica?
(later this week my dad [God] will make an announcement... so stay tuned to BBC World News):yesnod:


Jesus of the Dark Side.

I found Fitzgerald's text online: http://www.nazarethmyth.info/Fitzgerald2010HM.pdf

I agree that numbers 4 and 5 are probably myths, but I don't know that it matters much.

[Ecurb]

It would be so easy to dismiss such actions as 'insanity' or as 'suicidal' or whatever it was that was said above (which indicates a complete utter lack of any level of comprehension about faith) but these aren't - these are acts of faith.

I don't think it's that simple. NO doubt there are religious motivations for such martyrdom (and Christian martyrs are revered just as Muslim martyrs are). However, it seems to me that you are suggesting that martydom is somehow a selfish act -- done simply to gain access to the virgins, or the Kingdom of Heaven, or whatever. I think this is merely an attempt to explain a complicated behavior in economic terms (that is, in terms of cost / benefit). If we see all human behavior as selfishly motivated, as many people do, this makes sense. I don't buy it, though. Humans (and, indeed, all mammals) are clearly not selfish. All mammalian females must regularly give scarce resources to their offspring, or the species wouldn't survive.

We know that religious "faith" sometimes motivates people, and sometimes does not. Highly religious Christians sin with monotonous regularity -- but I never see them thrusting their hands into a red-hot fire. Perhaps their "belief" in hell is somehow different than their belief in the pain the flames would cause.

I'm guessing suicide bomber have complicated and often noble motives for their acts -- and their parents have complicated and often noble motives for their support of those acts. WE humans are motivated by social rewards -- the opinions of others. I remember after 9/11 G.W. Bush repeatedly called the suicide attack "cowardly". Huh? The one thing we know about the pilots who flew their planes into the Twin Towers is that they were NOT cowardly, and no amount of rigamarole about their "faith' in eternal rewards can suggest otherwise. Similarly, I don't buy that suicide bombers, or the G.I. who leaps on a grenade to save his buddies, have "selfish" motives. The meaning of the word "selfish" must be so twisted to accomadate such an interpretation as to make it meaningless.

[Paulclem]

perhaps I should clarify ... it does not matter what normal sane people believe, but what is in the psychology of the person strapping a bomb to their chest, and in the minds of their mother, father, brother, sister who assist them, kiss them goodbye and send them off with love.

Now what normal sane parent would do that? To be sure almost any person can be convinced to lay their life down for family, for comrades, even for an ideology if they are convinced their action will bring greater good. A person can be coerced into doing it if their loved ones are held hostage. But what force could convince a parent to willingly participate in allowing their child to turn themselves into a bomb? I would argue nothing less than the absolute belief that it was to their child's advantage / betterment would persuade a mother to do that. This belief might be an erroneous interpretation of the Koran, it may not be supported by moderates, but if it is what the bomber believes then it is not a suicidal act of the hopeless but an act of firm and active faith and not an example of oversaturated whatever nonsense put forward above.

In the same way - what motivates a Buddhist monk to immoliate himself? It would be so easy to dismiss such actions as 'insanity' or as 'suicidal' or whatever it was that was said above (which indicates a complete utter lack of any level of comprehension about faith) but these aren't - these are acts of faith.

My complaint is that you are taking the extreme to attack the normal and moderate whilst complaining about people who attack Christianity.

As I said before, as the dominant religion in a mainly western forum, people's experience of religion is usually about Christianity, and so, in religious discussions, that's what they refer to. Religion for them means Christianity. Our previous discussion is a case in point where a serious misunderstanding can come about through what seem to be logical deductions based upon erroneous assumptions.

what motivates a Buddhist monk to immoliate himself?

The Vietnamese Monk I read/ heard about did it through compassion in an effort to bring the notice of the world media to the plight of Vietnamese during the Vietnam war. In this he was successful and achieved his aim. It's down to motivation. A skilful compassionate motivation in that case was successful. Suicide is not usually regarded as a positive act though and is not encouraged. The monk in question does not seem to have been in any distress and this is because he is in a state of meditation. An experienced meditator will not feel pain if they have had a realisation of emptiness. Rather than an act of faith I think this is a skilful act in that it achieved its aims.

Also remember that westerners tend to have a 1 unique life view, which enhances the undoubted horror of the act, whereas in Buddhism the cycle of lives is a process working in this case towards a positive aim.

There have been immolations since in India and Tibet, and it has been used as a form of protest tragically by young untrained people. It is very sad.

[Paulclem]

I don't think it's that simple. NO doubt there are religious motivations for such martyrdom (and Christian martyrs are revered just as Muslim martyrs are). However, it seems to me that you are suggesting that martydom is somehow a selfish act -- done simply to gain access to the virgins, or the Kingdom of Heaven, or whatever. I think this is merely an attempt to explain a complicated behavior in economic terms (that is, in terms of cost / benefit). If we see all human behavior as selfishly motivated, as many people do, this makes sense. I don't buy it, though. Humans (and, indeed, all mammals) are clearly not selfish. All mammalian females must regularly give scarce resources to their offspring, or the species wouldn't survive.

We know that religious "faith" sometimes motivates people, and sometimes does not. Highly religious Christians sin with monotonous regularity -- but I never see them thrusting their hands into a red-hot fire. Perhaps their "belief" in hell is somehow different than their belief in the pain the flames would cause.

I'm guessing suicide bomber have complicated and often noble motives for their acts -- and their parents have complicated and often noble motives for their support of those acts. WE humans are motivated by social rewards -- the opinions of others. I remember after 9/11 G.W. Bush repeatedly called the suicide attack "cowardly". Huh? The one thing we know about the pilots who flew their planes into the Twin Towers is that they were NOT cowardly, and no amount of rigamarole about their "faith' in eternal rewards can suggest otherwise. Similarly, I don't buy that suicide bombers, or the G.I. who leaps on a grenade to save his buddies, have "selfish" motives. The meaning of the word "selfish" must be so twisted to accomadate such an interpretation as to make it meaningless.

Agreed. Siucide is often used as an act of war against an enemy as in the Kamikaze in Japan, or those who undertook suicide missions in the world wars.

I don't think the religious motivation played up by the media is as relevant as the great sense of grievance that must be felt by many young men in various countries who have lost family and friends in the various wars recently. The civilian casualties were enormous in recent conflicts. It's a wonder there aren't more given the anger it must have engendered in relatives of those collaterally damaged victims.

[Paulclem]

http://i1181.photobucket.com/albums/x426/Sparrowyn/Photos/Me_Halloween07_zps3ea91f5b.jpg

I can see you've been poised and waiting for an opportunity to post this. : )

[Pumpkin337]

I don't think it's that simple. NO doubt there are religious motivations for such martyrdom (and Christian martyrs are revered just as Muslim martyrs are). However, it seems to me that you are suggesting that martydom is somehow a selfish act -- done simply to gain access to the virgins, or the Kingdom of Heaven, or whatever. I think this is merely an attempt to explain a complicated behavior in economic terms (that is, in terms of cost / benefit). If we see all human behavior as selfishly motivated, as many people do, this makes sense. I don't buy it, though. Humans (and, indeed, all mammals) are clearly not selfish. All mammalian females must regularly give scarce resources to their offspring, or the species wouldn't survive.

We know that religious "faith" sometimes motivates people, and sometimes does not. Highly religious Christians sin with monotonous regularity -- but I never see them thrusting their hands into a red-hot fire. Perhaps their "belief" in hell is somehow different than their belief in the pain the flames would cause.

I'm guessing suicide bomber have complicated and often noble motives for their acts -- and their parents have complicated and often noble motives for their support of those acts. WE humans are motivated by social rewards -- the opinions of others. I remember after 9/11 G.W. Bush repeatedly called the suicide attack "cowardly". Huh? The one thing we know about the pilots who flew their planes into the Twin Towers is that they were NOT cowardly, and no amount of rigamarole about their "faith' in eternal rewards can suggest otherwise. Similarly, I don't buy that suicide bombers, or the G.I. who leaps on a grenade to save his buddies, have "selfish" motives. The meaning of the word "selfish" must be so twisted to accomadate such an interpretation as to make it meaningless.

I work from the POV that people are generally motivated by love, faith and a desire for better - sure there are some individuals who don't but they are generally suffering from some severe problems resulting in that negative behaviour - so if I assume that the mother of the suicide bomber is motivated by love and a desire for a better life, then how do I find some context for that in the fact that she encouraged him to strap on a bomb? How do I explain what is an apparent contradiction in motherly love and sending a child to their certain death in a horrible way. What could motivate that? It has to be something that makes her think that this is a good thing right? And the only way I can find that works in terms of the culture, religion and rhetoric is that they must be convinced that this is an honour, and that it is a way to something better. Otherwise I can not fathom it.

Even if you read accounts of people who survived Jones Town ... they say similar things ... they were so taken in with the beliefs of Jim Jones, that he was building a multi-racial utopia ... so again you have the notion that somehow all the insanity will lead to something better ... there is this element of faith, whether its in the Koran, the tennets of Buddhism that forbid harm to others, but say nothing about harming yourself, or a cult-leader, or whatever ... the elements are the same ... to douse yourself in petrol or strap a bomb or drink the cool aid ... first there has to be a belief that this is somehow BETTER or will result in something better.

And that isn't necessarily selfish, although if you think for one cotton picking moment that human beings are all wonderfully altruistically motivated .. think again. Its me and mine for the most part.

[mona amon]

5. the last option, albeit quite remote, is that I am Jesus... this is a photo of me at a Halloween costume party. The resemblance is uncanny don't you think?..

Nice picture! :D

[Iain Sparrow]

Nice picture! :D


Thanks!.. that comment made my day.:)

[Paulclem]

the tennets of Buddhism that forbid harm to others, but say nothing about harming yourself,

This is not true. Suicide is regarded as a very damaging thing because it is usually motivated by a negative emotion such as anger.

The reason it is regarded as negative is that the next incarnation is very uncertain - no-one will know - unless they ae advanced in practice - where they will be reborn. A suicide motivated by anger for example will propel the person into a lower rebirth.

Human life is seen as precious because it is the basis of attaining enlightenment for oneself and benefiting many other beings. The are meditations which explore this , one of which is called The Precious Human Life.

The Vietnamese Monk I referred to had a different motivation as I said. His primary concern was, out of compassion, to highlight the suffering of people in Vietnam, and, as I said he had a profound effect. Forty odd years later he is still recalled for this very unselfish act because of the impact he had.

Again, for the reasons above, suicide is not an option except in exceptional circumstances. Motivation is emphasised rather than hard and fast rules.

[Pumpkin337]

I think my point still is that these events are not suicidal acts.

[iamnobody]

I'm sure I'm not the first to point this out, but the short answer is.....we don't.

[YesNo]

Human life is seen as precious because it is the basis of attaining enlightenment for oneself and benefiting many other beings.

Initially this sentence made me wonder how someone's individual enlightenment can benefit other beings, but then I realized I was slipping into assumptions or illusions about our isolation from others as individuals.

Anyway, the thread asks why we need God. Iamnobody, as well as others, have said that we don't need God. I think that's wrong, but I understand how one can take that view: we are isolated and seem to be able to get along just fine on our own.

If one doesn't like the word, "God", replace it with (C)consciousness. Why do we need consciousness, both our own and that of others (Others)? Here are the answers I have so far:

1) We need God (consciousness) so that when we open our eyes and look at the world, something coherent will appear before us.

2) We need God (consciousness) to feel loved and be able to reciprocate.

3) We need God (consciousness) to escape the isolation of our individuality. This one I'm still trying to make sense out of, but it is related to someone's individual enlightenment being beneficial to others.

[Paulclem]

I think my point still is that these events are not suicidal acts.

Fine. I was just clarifying a point.

[Paulclem]

Initially this sentence made me wonder how someone's individual enlightenment can benefit other beings, but then I realized I was slipping into assumptions or illusions about our isolation from others as individuals.

Anyway, the thread asks why we need God. Iamnobody, as well as others, have said that we don't need God. I think that's wrong, but I understand how one can take that view: we are isolated and seem to be able to get along just fine on our own.

If one doesn't like the word, "God", replace it with (C)consciousness. Why do we need consciousness, both our own and that of others (Others)? Here are the answers I have so far:

1) We need God (consciousness) so that when we open our eyes and look at the world, something coherent will appear before us.

2) We need God (consciousness) to feel loved and be able to reciprocate.

3) We need God (consciousness) to escape the isolation of our individuality. This one I'm still trying to make sense out of, but it is related to someone's individual enlightenment being beneficial to others.

I think if people need or want a God then that's up to them. I don't feel that someone is inferior if they do believe in a God - it's their way and they are free to believe what they want.(within the law).

Problems arise when one group tries to force belief or non-belief on another. I think this often has the sheen of religion on it, but behind is often political motives from unscrupulous leaders. Because of the association of religion and God with the state and power, then religions leave themselves open to abuses from within and without. I my opinion a relationship with God/ religion is best at a personal level, though there are benefits from having organisations which run valuable charities.

[YesNo]

I agree that civil liberties need to be respected when it comes to religion or atheism.

[cacian]

I agree that civil liberties need to be respected when it comes to religion or atheism.

civil religion and atheism
three words that never agree.

[Pumpkin337]

Aah but a discussion on the necessity of separation between Church and State is a whole other discussion.

Why we need God?

It gives us a higher moral code than our own to answer to.

It resolves the question 'Why are we here?"

It gives meaning and value to life.

[Paulclem]

Aah but a discussion on the necessity of separation between Church and State is a whole other discussion.

Why we need God?

It gives us a higher moral code than our own to answer to.

It resolves the question 'Why are we here?"

It gives meaning and value to life.

In the UK 5 per cent of the population attend church it is said. A significant number though still believe in God without interacting with the established religion. In the UK's example, it is still presented as a largely Christian country, though what that actually means in reality is a moot point.

I think your three points may be a reason for an individual to believe in or want to believe in God. I would dispute that your three points cannot be held by atheists and others.

The law is a moral code that we can all answer to.
Your second point is an obvious point of dispute as is your third. The idea that a person cannot have meaning and value in their life is clearly untrue. An atheistic doctor for example could easily find meaning and value.

[Pumpkin337]

I think it is a mistake to equate concepts of God with a particular faith system and/or Church/religious ceremony attendance.

As to meaning and value ... so you are completely fulfilled in your life? All questions about your purpose, raison d'être, etc are all completely answered to your satisfaction? No nagging doubts about the meaning of existence, why you / mankind / any one is on this planet? No thoughts that make you wake up in the morning and wonder why the heck you are doing this? No nagging doubts that there is no point to making an effort, doing good, etc because the bad guys always seem to win and the poor, sick, needy are seemingly endless? And lets not forget the ultimate futility - nothing you do matters anyway because you are just going to feed the worms when you are done. None of that?

A question no atheistic can answer is this ... what is the point of bothering to exist if you are only here for a few years and then gone, leaving no trace of your passing through the world? I can't think of anything more pointless and meaningless than life without a sense of purpose and without a divine purpose to your existence, you are nothing more than the random result of evolution, it matters not if you are or are not and when you are dead you are gone. Please go find a bridge and take the dive immediately because you are the ultimate expression of pointless, purposeless nothingness.

On the other hand if we posit a god/divine being who purposed your existence, takes personal interest in every aspect of your life, your life takes on an entirely different meaning and purpose. You have a role to play in the universe, one only you as a unique divinely created individual can fulfill, and one that does not end when you die, because life does not end with the ending of your mortal body. A whole different picture to the bleakness of the meaningless existence of those with faith in science, evolution, and a lack of any divinity.

[cacian]

Aah but a discussion on the necessity of separation between Church and State is a whole other discussion.

Why we need God?

It gives us a higher moral code than our own to answer to.

It resolves the question 'Why are we here?"

It gives meaning and value to life.

do we need a god to give us morals?
are we incapable of it without?
It is fascinating to think we have to rely on others to forge our own morals.
this implies we depend on others to be and so the question:
why are we here ?
is
we are here because we depend on something else or someone one else.

[Pumpkin337]

do we need a god to give us morals?
are we incapable of it without?
It is fascinating to think we have to rely on others to forge our own morals.
this implies we depend on others to be and so the question:
why are we here ?
is
we are here because we depend on something else or someone one else.

to my mind that is better than the alternative ... which is ... what is the point of bothering to exist if you are only here for a few years and then gone, leaving no trace of your passing through the world? I can't think of anything more pointless and meaningless than life without a sense of purpose and without a divine purpose to your existence, you are nothing more than the random result of evolution, it matters not one bit if you are or are not and when you are dead you are gone because you are the ultimate expression of pointless, purposeless nothingness and this thought makes me wonder why the human race just doesn't do a lemming and a head for the nearest high point and take a dive. The fact we don't, that even the most die hard atheist persists in thinking that there is some point somewhere (even if they can't exactly point to one) is greater proof of the existence of god than any empirical proof.

[YesNo]

I agree with Pumpkin337 about values. I would add that as a fourth reason for a need for God, or Consciousness as I like to think of it.

Needing God doesn't mean we need to believe in any particular religion. We don't need to believe in God to get the benefits. Belief is irrelevant. In a similar way no one has to believe in the Higgs field for particles to get mass.

An argument claiming that since atheists are moral, and atheists don't believe in God therefore God is not necessary for moral intuition misses the point. Our need for God is not the same as our need to believe in God. We don't need to believe in God. The world will still exist if we believe in this dogma or that one. We will still intuit reasonable ethics. We can still feel love.

Belief adds a cultural clarification that sometimes misses the mark. Disbelief can also miss the mark resulting in delusion.

[Iain Sparrow]

to my mind that is better than the alternative ... which is ... what is the point of bothering to exist if you are only here for a few years and then gone, leaving no trace of your passing through the world? I can't think of anything more pointless and meaningless than life without a sense of purpose and without a divine purpose to your existence, you are nothing more than the random result of evolution, it matters not one bit if you are or are not and when you are dead you are gone because you are the ultimate expression of pointless, purposeless nothingness and this thought makes me wonder why the human race just doesn't do a lemming and a head for the nearest high point and take a dive. The fact we don't, that even the most die hard atheist persists in thinking that there is some point somewhere (even if they can't exactly point to one) is greater proof of the existence of god than any empirical proof.

That is the way children view the world. Time to grow up, Pumpkin.
There is no all-embracing purpose for humanity, no supernatural reason to why we exist, no revelation at the end of the road. We live our lives and when we're gone, it's as if we were never here. To me, that is sheer magic.

[mona amon]

Aah but a discussion on the necessity of separation between Church and State is a whole other discussion.

Why we need God?

It gives us a higher moral code than our own to answer to.

This is dangerous territory, relying on God for our moral code. Which God, who said what? Kill the homosexuals? Stone the adulterers? Give me secular laws which can be subjected to debate, any day.

[Ecurb]

to my mind that is better than the alternative ... which is ... what is the point of bothering to exist if you are only here for a few years and then gone, leaving no trace of your passing through the world? I can't think of anything more pointless and meaningless than life without a sense of purpose and without a divine purpose to your existence, you are nothing more than the random result of evolution, it matters not one bit if you are or are not and when you are dead you are gone because you are the ultimate expression of pointless, purposeless nothingness and this thought makes me wonder why the human race just doesn't do a lemming and a head for the nearest high point and take a dive. The fact we don't, that even the most die hard atheist persists in thinking that there is some point somewhere (even if they can't exactly point to one) is greater proof of the existence of god than any empirical proof.

Believing in God because life without God would be "pointless and meaningless" is a form of moral cowardice and intellectual dishonesty. There is only one reasonable reason to think something is true: because one's examination of the evidence in an honest and disinterested manner persuades one it IS true. This point, by the way, was emphasized by C.S. Lewis in "Mere Christianity".

If my life would be uncomfortable without a fairy godmother, does that mean I should start deluding myself so I can be more comfortable. This appears to by the "Ostrich head in the sand" approach to reality -- if I don't SEE the lion, he isn't there. It also appears to be the same approach Pumpkin took toward "Lolita", disapproving of it without actually reading the book. To be or not to be IS a a question with which we must all struggle -- intellecually dishonest reasoning cannot be accepted simply because it leads us to the answer ("to be") we desire.

[Frostball]

to my mind that is better than the alternative ... which is ... what is the point of bothering to exist if you are only here for a few years and then gone, leaving no trace of your passing through the world? I can't think of anything more pointless and meaningless than life without a sense of purpose and without a divine purpose to your existence, you are nothing more than the random result of evolution, it matters not one bit if you are or are not and when you are dead you are gone because you are the ultimate expression of pointless, purposeless nothingness and this thought makes me wonder why the human race just doesn't do a lemming and a head for the nearest high point and take a dive. The fact we don't, that even the most die hard atheist persists in thinking that there is some point somewhere (even if they can't exactly point to one) is greater proof of the existence of god than any empirical proof.

Life being finite does not at all affect what meaning there is in it. To anybody who likes watching movies, they don't enjoy or value the movie any less just because the movie always ends. It is fun while the movie is playing, and that's all that matters.

If anything thinking this life is finite lends more importance and value to life. The atheist (in general, not the user) realizes that this life will someday end, and that this time is all the time we have, and so we have to make the most of it. Theists are generally the ones who think this life is completely worthless, just a place to dust your feet off, or at most just a testing ground before the real life begins. Since nobody knows whether this next life really begins I think it's a tragedy that people waste so much time and effort trying to get into a place that might not exist when they could be living life to the fullest.

You also seem to think life can have no meaning unless it is externally imposed meaning. You seem to think meaning must be bestowed upon us by a greater being. I do not understand why meaning being imposed externally makes it more real. To me what gives our life meaning is up to us. Meaning and value is something conscious beings bestow on things, therefore it is something we have in ourselves. We find meaning and value in our own life, and we decide what we want to make of it. How does having a god insisting your meaning is X make meaning any more real?

An example is if you have children, you don't impose your dream on them. You don't say "Son, you're going to be a chiropractor because that's your dream" no, you let your son have his own dream, and make his own choices and find meaning for himself. That makes it so much better than if you had forced meaning onto your son, as it is much more genuine.

Come to think of it, what meaning can god's life have? (Speaking as though he exists, of course) What meaning could his life possibly have if he can do everything and knows everything? Nobody bestows meaning on him; does his life matter just because he thinks it matters? If so, isn't that how we all do it?

[Cleanthes]

Is God a useful fiction in the 'as if' Vaihinger sense? That is, "an idea whose theoretical untruth or incorrectness, and therewith its falsity, is admitted is not for that reason practically valueless and useless; for such an idea, in spite of its theoretical nullity, may have great practical importance." In Vaihinger's 'as if' philosophy the acceptance of patently false fictions is justified as a pragmatic non-rational solution to problems that have no rational answers.

[Frostball]

This is dangerous territory, relying on God for our moral code. Which God, who said what? Kill the homosexuals? Stone the adulters? Give me secular laws which can be subjected to debate, any day.

I agree so very much.

[Ecurb]

Is God an useful fiction in the 'as if' Vaihinger sense? That is, "an idea whose theoretical untruth or incorrectness, and therewith its falsity, is admitted is not for that reason practically valueless and useless; for such an idea, in spite of its theoretical nullity, may have great practical importance." In Vaihinger's 'as if' philosophy the acceptance of patently false fictions is justified as a pragmatic non-rational solution to problems that have no rational answers.

God might be a "useful fiction". Equally, God might "exist" in some metaphorical sense, rather than as a literal "being". After all, if God is ineffable and incorporeal, wondering whether He "exists" is a bit strange. He certainly doesn't "exist" in the same sense that corporeal beings exist. But He might "exist" as other incorporeal cultural constructs (like math or language) exist.

[Pumpkin337]

I love the way people can convince themselves up is down and black is white. Pity really.

[108 fountains]

A question no atheistic can answer is this ... what is the point of bothering to exist if you are only here for a few years and then gone, leaving no trace of your passing through the world? I can't think of anything more pointless and meaningless than life without a sense of purpose and without a divine purpose to your existence, you are nothing more than the random result of evolution, it matters not if you are or are not and when you are dead you are gone. Please go find a bridge and take the dive immediately because you are the ultimate expression of pointless, purposeless nothingness.

While I try my best to respect religious believers, I have to say that these particular comments are insulting, offensive and incredibly bigoted.

[Lokasenna]

to my mind that is better than the alternative ... which is ... what is the point of bothering to exist if you are only here for a few years and then gone, leaving no trace of your passing through the world? I can't think of anything more pointless and meaningless than life without a sense of purpose and without a divine purpose to your existence, you are nothing more than the random result of evolution, it matters not one bit if you are or are not and when you are dead you are gone because you are the ultimate expression of pointless, purposeless nothingness and this thought makes me wonder why the human race just doesn't do a lemming and a head for the nearest high point and take a dive. The fact we don't, that even the most die hard atheist persists in thinking that there is some point somewhere (even if they can't exactly point to one) is greater proof of the existence of god than any empirical proof.

Childish sentiments.

Some might argue that we would value the limited time we have specifically because it is limited - we are not harking after some 'eternal' existence that may or may not exist. If a resource is finite, it is infinitely more precious to us - which is presumably why you don't get atheist suicide bombers or mass suicides. There are no virgins in heaven waiting for us...

I agree with Iain. The universe is a magic place. One does not have to believe in God to be overwhelmed by the sheer wonder of it all. If anything, the paltry concerns of some petty and hideous Middle-Eastern tribal deity whose cult spread by a mixture of luck and the edge of the sword serve only to detract from the astonishing and profoundly beautiful cosmos we inhabit. Yahweh is a tiny, insignificant speck in the eye of the universe - and to focus on Him as one's sole reason for existing is myopic in the extreme.

[Iain Sparrow]

This is dangerous territory, relying on God for our moral code. Which God, who said what? Kill the homosexuals? Stone the adulterers? Give me secular laws which can be subjected to debate, any day.


I agree completely... and I'll add, that very often divine moral codes are steadfast, which even in western cultures is why it's taken so long for women to have the right to vote, access to birth control, equal pay, etc. We forget that many of these equal rights for women, gays, minorities, have come about in the last four decades.
In America we're struggling with Gay Marriage, in fact in many places the majority still won't allow it... and they pass laws formally defining marriage as between one man and one woman, and add amendments to State Constitutions. Thankfully, even conservative courts are striking down these amendments one by one. Secular Laws can change, become more progressive. And we're all subject to them equally.

[HCabret]

This is dangerous territory, relying on God for our moral code. Which God, who said what? Kill the homosexuals? Stone the adulterers? Give me secular laws which can be subjected to debate, any day.

Can i listen to the part where god said "treat others how you would want to treated"? Or should i just be an atheist and be done with it?

[mona amon]

Can i listen to the part where god said "treat others how you would want to treated"?

That was said by God after he became a Christian. :D

Jokes aside, I'd say listen to whatever you like, as long as it is consistent with your own inner moral code, and not just because it is in the scriptures.

[YesNo]

Needing God is close to needing our own consciousness. But who knows? Perhaps we don't need our own consciousness. Perhaps it is only an epiphenomenon of our brain functioning in some way. Perhaps the song is only the radio acting weird.

Hmm. Suppose you ran into people who did not believe in electromagnetism and claimed, since they can't see it, they don't need it. If you disagreed, they would point out that they don't believe in it and they can still use their smart phones even better than you can. So, you figure maybe they don't need it. Why wake a pit bull? That reminds me of the saying about pearls and swine. Go back to sleep, puppy.

Although I know western Buddhists don't believe they believe in anything, I wanted to find out what they really, really believed and so I turned to a source popular enough to be a bestseller. On page 37 of Stephen Bachelor's Buddhism Without Beliefs: A Contemporary Guide to Awakening, I found this:


All this has nothing to do, however, with the compatibility (or otherwise) of Buddhism and modern science. It is odd that a practice concerned with anguish and the ending of anguish should be obligated to adopt ancient Indian metaphysical theories and thus accept as an article of faith that consciousness cannot be explained in terms of brain function.
What if consciousness really cannot be explained in terms of brain function? Nagel doesn't think it can. What happens to western Buddhism when it finds out those ancient metaphysical theories were right after all? Probably nothing. They can still use their smart phones.

He also has this on page 42:


Dharma practice is the process of awakening itself: the thoughts, words, and deeds that weave the unfolding fabric of experience into a coherent whole.
But I wonder, after washing off the sentimentality, awakening into what? Some brain function?

I was thinking a better title for Batchelor's book would have been Buddhism Without the Junk I Don't Believe In: A Contemporary Guide to Snoring. Or even shorter: How to Sleep Like a Buddha.

[Frostball]

Needing God is close to needing our own consciousness. But who knows? Perhaps we don't need our own consciousness. Perhaps it is only an epiphenomenon of our brain functioning in some way. Perhaps the song is only the radio acting weird.

Hmm. Suppose you ran into people who did not believe in electromagnetism and claimed, since they can't see it, they don't need it. If you disagreed, they would point out that they don't believe in it and they can still use their smart phones even better than you can. So, you figure maybe they don't need it. Why wake a pit bull? That reminds me of the saying about pearls and swine. Go back to sleep, puppy.

Although I know western Buddhists don't believe they believe in anything, I wanted to find out what they really, really believed and so I turned to a source popular enough to be a bestseller. On page 37 of Stephen Bachelor's Buddhism Without Beliefs: A Contemporary Guide to Awakening, I found this:


All this has nothing to do, however, with the compatibility (or otherwise) of Buddhism and modern science. It is odd that a practice concerned with anguish and the ending of anguish should be obligated to adopt ancient Indian metaphysical theories and thus accept as an article of faith that consciousness cannot be explained in terms of brain function.
What if consciousness really cannot be explained in terms of brain function? Nagel doesn't think it can. What happens to western Buddhism when it finds out those ancient metaphysical theories were right after all? Probably nothing. They can still use their smart phones.

He also has this on page 42:


Dharma practice is the process of awakening itself: the thoughts, words, and deeds that weave the unfolding fabric of experience into a coherent whole.
But I wonder, after washing off the sentimentality, awakening into what? Some brain function?

I was thinking a better title for Batchelor's book would have been Buddhism Without the Junk I Don't Believe In: A Contemporary Guide to Snoring. Or even shorter: How to Sleep Like a Buddha.

I really don't see what god has to do with consciousness. If your opinion is that you can't see how consciousness can possibly exist without god, that is an argument from ignorance, straight up. Even if you don't think consciousness can be explained by evolution and the brain, that still leaves "I don't know" as the best answer not "god did it". You can't just say that just because you don't understand something that means god must have done it. Again, it's an argument from ignorance.

[Iain Sparrow]

Needing God is close to needing our own consciousness. But who knows? Perhaps we don't need our own consciousness. Perhaps it is only an epiphenomenon of our brain functioning in some way. Perhaps the song is only the radio acting weird.

Hmm. Suppose you ran into people who did not believe in electromagnetism and claimed, since they can't see it, they don't need it. If you disagreed, they would point out that they don't believe in it and they can still use their smart phones even better than you can. So, you figure maybe they don't need it. Why wake a pit bull? That reminds me of the saying about pearls and swine. Go back to sleep, puppy.

Although I know western Buddhists don't believe they believe in anything, I wanted to find out what they really, really believed and so I turned to a source popular enough to be a bestseller. On page 37 of Stephen Bachelor's Buddhism Without Beliefs: A Contemporary Guide to Awakening, I found this:


All this has nothing to do, however, with the compatibility (or otherwise) of Buddhism and modern science. It is odd that a practice concerned with anguish and the ending of anguish should be obligated to adopt ancient Indian metaphysical theories and thus accept as an article of faith that consciousness cannot be explained in terms of brain function.
What if consciousness really cannot be explained in terms of brain function? Nagel doesn't think it can. What happens to western Buddhism when it finds out those ancient metaphysical theories were right after all? Probably nothing. They can still use their smart phones.

He also has this on page 42:


Dharma practice is the process of awakening itself: the thoughts, words, and deeds that weave the unfolding fabric of experience into a coherent whole.
But I wonder, after washing off the sentimentality, awakening into what? Some brain function?

I was thinking a better title for Batchelor's book would have been Buddhism Without the Junk I Don't Believe In: A Contemporary Guide to Snoring. Or even shorter: How to Sleep Like a Buddha.


Whilst it is true that Science has yet to give us a satisfactory explanation in either a practical sense, or an evolutionary sense what consciousness is and how it came to be... given that, it is nonsensical to leap to conclusions that we'll never be able to answer those questions, or much worse... that God did it.
There are some researchers who are beginning to think that our consciousness is something equivalent to watching a magic show, and even when the sensory input is very static and unambiguous there are always multiple states of reality. A single reality has multiple appearances. "Where consciousness is concerned, the existence of the appearance is the reality".

[Paulclem]

Needing God is close to needing our own consciousness. But who knows? Perhaps we don't need our own consciousness. Perhaps it is only an epiphenomenon of our brain functioning in some way. Perhaps the song is only the radio acting weird.

Hmm. Suppose you ran into people who did not believe in electromagnetism and claimed, since they can't see it, they don't need it. If you disagreed, they would point out that they don't believe in it and they can still use their smart phones even better than you can. So, you figure maybe they don't need it. Why wake a pit bull? That reminds me of the saying about pearls and swine. Go back to sleep, puppy.

Although I know western Buddhists don't believe they believe in anything, I wanted to find out what they really, really believed and so I turned to a source popular enough to be a bestseller. On page 37 of Stephen Bachelor's Buddhism Without Beliefs: A Contemporary Guide to Awakening, I found this:


All this has nothing to do, however, with the compatibility (or otherwise) of Buddhism and modern science. It is odd that a practice concerned with anguish and the ending of anguish should be obligated to adopt ancient Indian metaphysical theories and thus accept as an article of faith that consciousness cannot be explained in terms of brain function.
What if consciousness really cannot be explained in terms of brain function? Nagel doesn't think it can. What happens to western Buddhism when it finds out those ancient metaphysical theories were right after all? Probably nothing. They can still use their smart phones.

He also has this on page 42:


Dharma practice is the process of awakening itself: the thoughts, words, and deeds that weave the unfolding fabric of experience into a coherent whole.
But I wonder, after washing off the sentimentality, awakening into what? Some brain function?

I was thinking a better title for Batchelor's book would have been Buddhism Without the Junk I Don't Believe In: A Contemporary Guide to Snoring. Or even shorter: How to Sleep Like a Buddha.

Firstly, I think you are under a misconception - one which I noticed earlier in the discussion but wasn't really relevant at the time. You use a term Western Buddhism by which I am assuming you mean to denote the Buddhism practiced by westerners. In actual fact the Buddhism practiced by westerners are the various forms of Buddhism brought by teachers from Buddhist countries. Thus we have the various schools of Tibetan Buddhism manifesting in the Tibetan FPMT and Kagyu schools, Thai, Burmese, Zen and Sri Lankan. Most of them have a prescence in Birmingham and have centres around the country. The same is true of US and European countries.

You seem to be implying that the Buddhism practiced by westerners is somehow inferior. (I'm not sure what a smart phone has to do with it. I find mine extremely useful). In fact it is in the same traditions.

Secondly you take a couple of quotes from a western Buddhist writer and use this to make huge assumptions about the nature of Buddhist belief, attitudes to the mind, the relationship of Buddhists to science and the relationship of Buddhist beliefs to Hinduism. That's quite a concise couple of paragraphs you have there to cover a subject which involves a lifetime of study.

If you want to discuss the mind I'd be happy to do that, but it would be better if you didn't just make inaccurate assumptions.

[YesNo]

Firstly, I think you are under a misconception - one which I noticed earlier in the discussion but wasn't really relevant at the time. You use a term Western Buddhism by which I am assuming you mean to denote the Buddhism practiced by westerners. In actual fact the Buddhism practiced by westerners are the various forms of Buddhism brought by teachers from Buddhist countries. Thus we have the various schools of Tibetan Buddhism manifesting in the Tibetan FPMT and Kagyu schools, Thai, Burmese, Zen and Sri Lankan. Most of them have a prescence in Birmingham and have centres around the country. The same is true of US and European countries.

You seem to be implying that the Buddhism practiced by westerners is somehow inferior. (I'm not sure what a smart phone has to do with it. I find mine extremely useful). In fact it is in the same traditions.

Secondly you take a couple of quotes from a western Buddhist writer and use this to make huge assumptions about the nature of Buddhist belief, attitudes to the mind, the relationship of Buddhists to science and the relationship of Buddhist beliefs to Hinduism. That's quite a concise couple of paragraphs you have there to cover a subject which involves a lifetime of study.

If you want to discuss the mind I'd be happy to do that, but it would be better if you didn't just make inaccurate assumptions.

My view of western Buddhism is confirmed by popular writers like Stephen Batchelor. However, I am sure there are real Buddhists who are also western.

I see western Buddhism as something practiced by two western views that I have rejected long ago. People with these views co-opt Buddhism to give legitimacy to their positions. This makes me suspicious of Buddhism in general when I hear someone who speaks English present it. I need to make sure I am not getting these cultural views sugarcoated with Buddhism.

Here are the two views I am referring to:

1. Tibetan Shangrila Anti-Communism: The quantity of books in a library with "Dalai Lama" in the title makes me suspect those stacks are overfilled with anti-Chinese and anti-communist propaganda. Although I don't like the atheism in Chinese communism, I think the theocracy under Lamaism in Tibet is even worse. I am not in favor of seeing the Dalai Lama regain power in Tibet and I am disgusted by the self-immolation suicides of monks and nuns to try to bring Lamaism back to Tibet as a state religion.

2. Western Atheism: Rejection of specific Gods is natural, but an overall rejection of the idea of a transcendent Consciousness in general does not make sense to me. It is parallel to a rejection of our own personal consciousness. When I hear western Buddhists reject the "Self" I become suspicious they are just western atheists in disguise.

Regarding the mind, reading Batchelor's text has given me an idea how to tell if Buddhism (or any other religious or spiritual position) is legitimate. I only need to ask this question: Do you believe that mind can be reduced to brain functioning? Here are the three possible answers:

1. Yes. The mind is reducible to brain functioning and materialism.

2. I don't know.

3. No. The mind is not reducible to brain functioning and materialism.

I reject any religious or spiritual position that favors either 1 or 2. In the case of Buddhism, if it cannot accept 3, it is a waste of my time. If suffering is the driving concern for a Buddhist who accepts 1 or 2, it would be better to read a self-help book, or if the suffering is severe, get professional, modern assistance.

[HCabret]

That was said by God after he became a Christian. :D

Jokes aside, I'd say listen to whatever you like, as long as it is consistent with your own inner moral code, and not just because it is in the scriptures.
I didn't say anything about Christianity. Jesus was not the first to espouse the golden rule.

[HCabret]

Aah but a discussion on the necessity of separation between Church and State is a whole other discussion.

Why we need God?

It gives us a higher moral code than our own to answer to.

It resolves the question 'Why are we here?"

It gives meaning and value to life.do theoretical physics fulfill the same role as god: "why are we here?" And why does morality have to come from a god? Is it impossible to be moral if one does not believe in a god?

[Cleanthes]

I only need to ask this question: Do you believe that mind can be reduced to brain functioning? Here are the three possible answers:

1. Yes. The mind is reducible to brain functioning and materialism.

2. I don't know.

3. No. The mind is not reducible to brain functioning and materialism.

I reject any religious or spiritual position that favors either 1 or 2. In the case of Buddhism, if it cannot accept 3, it is a waste of my time. If suffering is the driving concern for a Buddhist who accepts 1 or 2, it would be better to read a self-help book, or if the suffering is severe, get professional, modern assistance.
That's a false trichotomy. There are other alternatives, for example: matter, brain function, consciousness and the universe itself are ultimately reducible to emptiness.

'Buddha-nature is simply the true nature of reality and Being. This true nature is just impermanence, becoming and vast emptiness' or sunyata. According to Eihei Dogen, 'the very impermanency of grass and tree, thicket and forest is the Buddha nature. The very impermanency of men and things, body and mind, is the Buddha nature. Nature and lands, mountains and rivers, are impermanent because they are the Buddha nature. Supreme and complete enlightenment, because it is impermanent, is the Buddha nature'. Karma, Maya, Nirvana, Reality itself are merely a set of ripples on the alaya or storehouse consciousness.

[HCabret]

Well, Jesus wasn't a bad guy. He was a socialist, a pacifist, and an egalitarian.
You can't be a socialist and a pacifist because the collectivist coercion required under socialism is a violence which is antithetical to pacifism. Socialism is inherently violent.

[cacian]

I didn't say anything about Christianity. Jesus was not the first to espouse the golden rule.
the golden rule?

[Paulclem]

My view of western Buddhism is confirmed by popular writers like Stephen Batchelor. However, I am sure there are real Buddhists who are also western.

I see western Buddhism as something practiced by two western views that I have rejected long ago. People with these views co-opt Buddhism to give legitimacy to their positions. This makes me suspicious of Buddhism in general when I hear someone who speaks English present it. I need to make sure I am not getting these cultural views sugarcoated with Buddhism.

Here are the two views I am referring to:

1. Tibetan Shangrila Anti-Communism: The quantity of books in a library with "Dalai Lama" in the title makes me suspect those stacks are overfilled with anti-Chinese and anti-communist propaganda. Although I don't like the atheism in Chinese communism, I think the theocracy under Lamaism in Tibet is even worse. I am not in favor of seeing the Dalai Lama regain power in Tibet and I am disgusted by the self-immolation suicides of monks and nuns to try to bring Lamaism back to Tibet as a state religion.

2. Western Atheism: Rejection of specific Gods is natural, but an overall rejection of the idea of a transcendent Consciousness in general does not make sense to me. It is parallel to a rejection of our own personal consciousness. When I hear western Buddhists reject the "Self" I become suspicious they are just western atheists in disguise.

Regarding the mind, reading Batchelor's text has given me an idea how to tell if Buddhism (or any other religious or spiritual position) is legitimate. I only need to ask this question: Do you believe that mind can be reduced to brain functioning? Here are the three possible answers:

1. Yes. The mind is reducible to brain functioning and materialism.

2. I don't know.

3. No. The mind is not reducible to brain functioning and materialism.

I reject any religious or spiritual position that favors either 1 or 2. In the case of Buddhism, if it cannot accept 3, it is a waste of my time. If suffering is the driving concern for a Buddhist who accepts 1 or 2, it would be better to read a self-help book, or if the suffering is severe, get professional, modern assistance.

1. Tibetan Shangrila Anti-Communism: The quantity of books in a library with "Dalai Lama" in the title makes me suspect those stacks are overfilled with anti-Chinese and anti-communist propaganda. Although I don't like the atheism in Chinese communism, I think the theocracy under Lamaism in Tibet is even worse. I am not in favor of seeing the Dalai Lama regain power in Tibet and I am disgusted by the self-immolation suicides of monks and nuns to try to bring Lamaism back to Tibet as a state religion.


You are clearly not up to date on HH The Dalai Lama's position over the last ten years. When you say with HH The Dalai Lama in the title, are you referring to books written by HH?

Just to be certain I checked a list of his publications:

https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&gws_rd=ssl#q=books+written+by+the+14th+dalai+lama&safe=off

All of the titles refer to Buddhist teachings.

Although I don't like the atheism in Chinese communism, I think the theocracy under Lamaism in Tibet is even worse.

Tibet was a backward medieval country with many problems in the pre-Maoist era, (not communist - Mao was a bloody dictator). For all the problems, there wasn't an engineered famine that killed over a million people as happened under Mao.

I am not in favor of seeing the Dalai Lama regain power in Tibet and I am disgusted by the self-immolation suicides of monks and nuns to try to bring Lamaism back to Tibet as a state religion.



HH The Dalai Lama now negotiates on the basis of co operation with China as it is clear - always was clear- that Tibetans could never throw off Chinese rule. He won the Nobel Peace Prize for refusing to advocate violence in the struggle with China and has tried to halt the immolations that have occurred. Disgust is a strange emotion to feel for those poor people. Isn't pity more appropriate?

2. Western Atheism: Rejection of specific Gods is natural, but an overall rejection of the idea of a transcendent Consciousness in general does not make sense to me. It is parallel to a rejection of our own personal consciousness. When I hear western Buddhists reject the "Self" I become suspicious they are just western atheists in disguise.

I don't understand why someone would pretend to be one thing to cover for being another, especially an atheist. The absence of the self really has nothing to do with atheism. It is about puncturing the idea that there is an I, a core that exists centrally. It is to demonstrate humans as expressions of emptiness.

Regarding the mind, reading Batchelor's text has given me an idea how to tell if Buddhism (or any other religious or spiritual position) is legitimate. I only need to ask this question: Do you believe that mind can be reduced to brain functioning? Here are the three possible answers:

1. Yes. The mind is reducible to brain functioning and materialism.

2. I don't know.

3. No. The mind is not reducible to brain functioning and materialism.

I reject any religious or spiritual position that favors either 1 or 2. In the case of Buddhism, if it cannot accept 3, it is a waste of my time. If suffering is the driving concern for a Buddhist who accepts 1 or 2, it would be better to read a self-help book, or if the suffering is severe, get professional, modern assistance


Stephen Batchelor is a well respected writer and commentator on Buddhism. He isn't the final word on Buddhism or Western Buddhism though.

If I were you I should go with your thoughts on the mind if it works for you. What you want to believe or test is up to you.

[Pumpkin337]

the golden rule?

Love your neighbour as yourself - at least that is the one I assume was being referred to.

[HCabret]

Love your neighbour as yourself - at least that is the one I assume was being referred to.bump.

[YesNo]

You are clearly not up to date on HH The Dalai Lama's position over the last ten years. When you say with HH The Dalai Lama in the title, are you referring to books written by HH?

No, I am referring to the use of the Dalai Lama for anti-communist, political purposes.



Tibet was a backward medieval country with many problems in the pre-Maoist era, (not communist - Mao was a bloody dictator). For all the problems, there wasn't an engineered famine that killed over a million people as happened under Mao.

I agree. You're right. Mao is worse. I don't think Lamaism would be as bad as Mao nor "worse" as I previously stated.



HH The Dalai Lama now negotiates on the basis of co operation with China as it is clear - always was clear- that Tibetans could never throw off Chinese rule. He won the Nobel Peace Prize for refusing to advocate violence in the struggle with China and has tried to halt the immolations that have occurred. Disgust is a strange emotion to feel for those poor people. Isn't pity more appropriate?

What disgusts me with those immolations is I don't know who's pulling the strings behind them. If the Dalai Lama is opposed to them, why are they still occurring? Is he really opposed to them or is that just his front to the west? Who is setting these people up to immolate themselves?

It is like some, probably a small, but notorious number of Catholic priests and altar boys. What disgusts me are not the altar boys, but the priests. As I see it, the monks and nuns who have immolated themselves are the victims, like those altar boys. Who's giving them the idea that this is an appropriate thing for them to do? Those are the one's, the ones who are still alive, that I'm disgusted with.



I don't understand why someone would pretend to be one thing to cover for being another, especially an atheist. The absence of the self really has nothing to do with atheism. It is about puncturing the idea that there is an I, a core that exists centrally. It is to demonstrate humans as expressions of emptiness.

That's the question that I'm asking. What is the "absence of self" referring to? Is it an attempt to legitimate a materialistic philosophy of mind by meditating on the insignificance of one's personal consciousness? If there is anything worth meditating on it is the insignificance of material reality. Not personal consciousness.

This brings us back to the question of the tread. Why do we need God? The best way to rationalize a view that we do not need God, is to dismiss our own personal consciousness. This is what I see western Buddhists trying to do: convince themselves that the materialist philosophy of mind is correct by treating themselves, their minds and consciousness, as "expressions of emptiness".



Stephen Batchelor is a well respected writer and commentator on Buddhism. He isn't the final word on Buddhism or Western Buddhism though.

The fact that he is well respected is why I'm quoting him.

I don't consider him to be a Buddhist. He is a western atheist co-opting Buddhism. Why? Because he drops Buddhist tradition or even what the Buddha actually accepted such as rebirth and karma when it doesn't suit his own western, atheistic belief system. One could do the same thing with Jesus or Krishna. It just takes appropriate rationalization (aka "testing for oneself" and "meditation") to build such a belief system.



If I were you I should go with your thoughts on the mind if it works for you. What you want to believe or test is up to you.

I already have an answer. The mind cannot be reduced to brain functioning and materialism. I am not deluded about the fact that this is a "belief" that I have.

However, you're the Buddhist. I'm not. What do you think?

[Lokasenna]

I didn't say anything about Christianity. Jesus was not the first to espouse the golden rule.

Ceratinly not. If nothing else, he's quoting Leviticus 19:17-18.

Interestingly enough, the meaning of the original hebrew is under some debate - particularly the word reyacha, usually translated as 'neighbour' and thus the crux of the whole sentiment. In the context of the Torah, at least, there is some scholarly consensus that it in fact means 'fellow jew'.

So, love thy neighbour... unless he's not one of us, in which case stuff the bastard.

[HCabret]

Ceratinly not. If nothing else, he's quoting Leviticus 19:17-18.

Interestingly enough, the meaning of the original hebrew is under some debate - particularly the word reyacha, usually translated as 'neighbour' and thus the crux of the whole sentiment. In the context of the Torah, at least, there is some scholarly consensus that it in fact means 'fellow jew'.

So, love thy neighbour... unless he's not one of us, in which case stuff the bastard.
Who said I was talking about the Hebrews? All, may I say, Jewish beer rocks my socks!

The golden rule was not was originally formulated in Canaan during the Bronze Age. I'll never understand why the followers of Abrahamic religions always seem to think they were the first at everything.

[Pumpkin337]

Who said I was talking about the Hebrews? All, may I say, Jewish beer rocks my socks!

The golden rule was not was originally formulated in Canaan during the Bronze Age. I'll never understand why the followers of Abrahamic religions always seem to think they were the first at everything.

Without having any idea about who or when I would say it is one of those eternal and universal truths and a fairly profound one. It goes right to the heart of one's concept of self. You can't give what you don't have (love) and you do give what you do have (whether love or self loathing or any degree in between). Love your neighbour as yourself points directly to the path of healing. First love yourself - although not in an unhealthy self-absorbed narcissistic way but that place where you know who are, accept who you are and basically like (love) who you are. From that place of self-acceptance comes acceptance (and love) towards others. So yes, love others as you love yourself, but sort yourself out first otherwise you will be giving them all the negative head space you have about yourself.

[cacian]

Love your neighbour as yourself - at least that is the one I assume was being referred to.

ah there is a lot of love in religion
there is a lot of man too. religion is masculine.
god is masculine
Jesus is masculine
the priest is masculine
the apostles masculine
the bible masculine
love
is it masculine??

[mona amon]

I didn't say anything about Christianity. Jesus was not the first to espouse the golden rule.

That's true! Every major religion seems to preach the same good things. Pity so many followers tend to interpret their religions in perverse ways.

I also feel Jesus was the one who really took this 'rule' to the next level, emphasizing its place as the greatest commandment, equating it to the love of God. Too many Christians seem to have missed the boat on this one.

[HCabret]

That's true! Every major religion seems to preach the same good things. Pity so many followers tend to interpret their religions in perverse ways.

I also feel Jesus was the one who really took this 'rule' to the next level, emphasizing its place as the greatest commandment, equating it to the love of God. Too many Christians seem to have missed the boat on this one.yeah, clearly they did. Christians make sport out of ignoring the dictates of god.

[HCabret]

Without having any idea about who or when I would say it is one of those eternal and universal truths and a fairly profound one. It goes right to the heart of one's concept of self. You can't give what you don't have (love) and you do give what you do have (whether love or self loathing or any degree in between). Love your neighbour as yourself points directly to the path of healing. First love yourself - although not in an unhealthy self-absorbed narcissistic way but that place where you know who are, accept who you are and basically like (love) who you are. From that place of self-acceptance comes acceptance (and love) towards others. So yes, love others as you love yourself, but sort yourself out first otherwise you will be giving them all the negative head space you have about yourself.
People care way too much about other people. People are obsessed with how much money, fame and property other people have. People care too much about whether someone has a gun or not, or whether someone has blonde hair or not, or if someone else is gay or straight.

Jesus was an individualist, who wanted people to take care of themselves and afford others the right to do the same. If you don't love yourself (who you are with permanently), then there's no way you love someone else.

[Pumpkin337]

at the risk of sounding mildly facetious I do care about guns ... peace was never won by a gun.

[Frostball]

The golden rule has been used throughout human history, and has been independently discovered by many cultures. It's certainly a great start to morality, but it could actually use some improvement.

Treating somebody else like you want to be treated seems to presuppose that they want to be treated in a similar manner as yourself. A masochist, for example, will not want to cause pain on others simply because they enjoy certain sensations of pain themselves. A person blaring metal music shouldn't assume that since he wouldn't mind the blaring music, that others wouldn't mind.

There are two versions of the golden rule that I think are superior. They are two different kinds of inversions. The golden rule is in the positive, that is, it speaks about what you should do to a person. You can flip it around to the negative to be that you should not do to somebody what you would not have done to you. This one is at least an interesting different way to look at it, and if you paired the golden rule with its inverse, the two together are better than just one.

But the best way of putting it in my opinion is that you should do unto others how they would have done to them. Basically to find out how they want to be treated, by asking them, and treat them that way.

I'm not knocking the golden rule, it's a great, time tested and time honored maxim that is a great start.

[HCabret]

at the risk of sounding mildly facetious I do care about guns ... peace was never won by a gun.
I was not pointing at you, but there are plenty of people who believe the right to own a gun is more precious than the right to life.

[Pumpkin337]

The golden rule has been used throughout human history, and has been independently discovered by many cultures. It's certainly a great start to morality, but it could actually use some improvement.

Treating somebody else like you want to be treated seems to presuppose that they want to be treated in a similar manner as yourself. A masochist, for example, will not want to cause pain on others simply because they enjoy certain sensations of pain themselves. A person blaring metal music shouldn't assume that since he wouldn't mind the blaring music, that others wouldn't mind.

There are two versions of the golden rule that I think are superior. They are two different kinds of inversions. The golden rule is in the positive, that is, it speaks about what you should do to a person. You can flip it around to the negative to be that you should not do to somebody what you would not have done to you. This one is at least an interesting different way to look at it, and if you paired the golden rule with its inverse, the two together are better than just one.

But the best way of putting it in my opinion is that you should do unto others how they would have done to them. Basically to find out how they want to be treated, by asking them, and treat them that way.

I'm not knocking the golden rule, it's a great, time tested and time honored maxim that is a great start.

I think you are conflating two similar but not identical ideas. 'Do unto others ... ' is not the same as 'Love others as ...'

'Do unto others ...' is a concept of empathy whereby you understand that other people also have the right to be treated decently ... basically as you like to be treated. (BTW this is the so-called "Golden Rule' not 'love others')

'Love others as ... ' is, as I said above, a concept that deals first and foremost with who you are, your self-image, and capacity to accept yourself, love yourself and receive love and then give it out. On deeper analysis it points to why people who are emotionally or psychologically damaged give out the abuse they suffered. So while they may want to be treated in a certain way, they can't do it to others, no matter how much they might want to.

So these concepts are not interchangeable or even that similar. One deals with purely external empathetic actions, while the other deals with the internal state.

[Frostball]

I think you are conflating two similar but not identical ideas. 'Do unto others ... ' is not the same as 'Love others as ...'

'Do unto others ...' is a concept of empathy whereby you understand that other people also have the right to be treated decently ... basically as you like to be treated. (BTW this is the so-called "Golden Rule' not 'love others')

'Love others as ... ' is, as I said above, a concept that deals first and foremost with who you are, your self-image, and capacity to accept yourself, love yourself and receive love and then give it out. On deeper analysis it points to why people who are emotionally or psychologically damaged give out the abuse they suffered. So while they may want to be treated in a certain way, they can't do it to others, no matter how much they might want to.

So these concepts are not interchangeable or even that similar. One deals with purely external empathetic actions, while the other deals with the internal state.

I wasn't saying anything about love at all. I was talking about the golden rule, which as you stated, has nothing to do with love. Just musing, that's all, not in relation to anything you were saying.

[caddy_caddy]

That was my whole point: did the god not create Satan?

My understanding is that the god created everything - the stars, the universe, the air we breathe, light even, and the angels, one of whom became Satan.




That is worthy of etching onto stone tablets.
Hi ,
I told u before . You only know part of the story . No one can understand a book by reading some pages.
Yeh , Allah created Satan.
Satan was an Angel; his name is Eblees. Satan is the name that means devil and has to do with evil. He got that name after creating Adam .
When Allah created Adam in his image , all angles knelled in front of him except for Eblees. Angles kneel in front of no one. Kneeling in front of Adam means that Adam comes directly after Allah in hierarchy . When Eblees dint kneel like others , Allah asked him " Eblees , what's wrong with you. Why didn't you kneel ? Eblees replied: you created him from burned soil and you created me from fire. I'm better than him. "
Eblees 's attitude was merely rational . He is indeed right : fire is better than soil. He looks at Adam from a materialistic and scientific perspective only .
Other angels had knelled when Allah put from His soul and light in Adam before He even asked them to do so.
Because of his mere rationality + pride , Eblees directly jumped to the conclusion that Alaah is unfair and unjust . And he judged Him of being so without investigating Allah's reasons. And he challenged Him that he will seduce Adam's ancestors. Allah said you can do so except for the good believers. And He cursed him and banished him from heaven . Eblees has become Satan . The angle transformed into devil.
Allah 's words to Eblees shows that He relies on us to fight him . He allows him to seduce us to test our belief. Allah wouldn't do that if doesn't know that we are strong enough to do it , if we really wanna do it . And then Allah gave us the freedom to choose : to believe or disbelieve, to fight Satan or not to fight.
The dialogue between Allah and Eblees is amazing. It shows that Eblees's love for Allah was fake. Because if you love someone you trust him . And when you think he does something wrong to you , you try to investigate the truth . You ask yourself , why he did so to me ,or you ask him why you did so to me ?This is when you truly love someone. But Eblees didn't ask Allah why you did so . Allah was willing to explain and He first asked Eblees abt his attitude. Allah tried to investigate the truth and didn't judge Eblees directly and Eblees didn't even try . Only those who hate you judge you very quickly.

[cacian]

Yeh , Allah created Satan.
no he did not.
why would he do that?
this reminds me of star wars
sky walker aka eblees turns evil kneevil.
if god/allah wanted to create satan he would have created those who would defeat him too.
I does not make sense otherwise.
if god knows everything so he should have known this bit too where one becomes evil.

[caddy_caddy]

Excuse me ,
Have you read the whole post ?
Since the dawn of history , and basically life is nothing but a war between good and evil .
Try to examine the scene :
Eblees look at the matter . Other angels look at the light that surrounds that matter . Although Adam is one and the same.
Evil in this sense is nothing but the absence of Allah's light , the absence of higher values that govern any matter .
And this my own choice , as it was the angels' choice to see what they want to see. And this is actually a reflection of what we really are.

[cacian]

Excuse me ,
Have you read the whole post ?
Since the dawn of history , and basically life is nothing but a war between good and evil .

caddy I have read the whole post.
the point of this is not what is written it is what is possibly feasible.
just because a scripture says so does not necessarily makes it true.
it is obvious to me that anyone with any sense and power would not create something that will turn against them.
logic prevails.
one must engage all senses and brain to analyse and think what one is given to them read.
I don't believe that for a minute someone like god would invent satan to have him as a pain to deal with later on in time.
what would be the point of such creation?

[HCabret]

no he did not.
why would he do that?
this reminds me of star wars
sky walker aka eblees turns evil kneevil.
if god/allah wanted to create satan he would have created those who would defeat him too.
I does not make sense otherwise.
if god knows everything so he should have known this bit too where one becomes evil.god created the angels. Didn't he?

[cacian]

god created the angels. Didn't he?


why did he?

[caddy_caddy]

caddy I have read the whole post.
the point of this is not what is written it is what is possibly feasible.
just because a scripture says so does not necessarily makes it true.
it is obvious to me that anyone with any sense and power would not create something that will turn against them.
logic prevails.
one must engage all senses and brain to analyse and think what one is given to them read.
I don't believe that for a minute someone like god would invent satan to have him as a pain to deal with later on in time.
what would be the point of such creation?

That is exactly what Eblees said to Allah :smile5:smile5:: I will seduce them as you seduced me .:smile5::smile5:
Satan is just a tool to test our love and belief . You should have asked me why didn't Allah killed Eblees or sent him to hell directly and allowed him to survive ?

[cacian]

That is exactly what Eblees said to Allah :smile5:smile5:: I will seduce them as you seduced me .:smile5::smile5:
Satan is just a tool to test our love and belief . You should have asked me why didn't Allah killed Eblees or sent him to hell directly and allowed him to survive ?

I did not ask because I don't believe in his creation whatsoever.

why did not he according to you?

[HCabret]

why did he?

I don't know why. Isn't that the plot of Paradise Lost? We'll never know though now because wolf larsen's vandalized it.

Am I wrong or did god not create lucifer and the rest of the fallen angels?

[Cleanthes]

Sjon rewrote that scene as the prelude to his novel, From the Mouth of the Whale:

Yes, there you lay in His hand, with your knees tucked under your chin, breathing so fast and so feebly that you quivered like the pectoral fin of a minnow. Our Father rested His fingertip against your spine and tilted His hand carefully so that you uncurled and rolled over onto your back. I stepped forward to take a better look at you. You scratched your nose with your curled fist, sneezed, o so sweetly, and fixed on me those egotistical eyes -mouth agape. And I saw that this mouth would never be satisfied, that its teeth would never stop grinding, that its tongue would never tire of being bathed in the life-blood of other creatures. Then your lips moved. You tried to say your first word, and that word was, 'I'. But the Father interrupted you and addressed me in an affable but commanding tone.
'Lucifer, behold Man! You must bow down before him like the other angels, your brothers...'
I looked at you a second time and in that instant you released a stream of slimy green feces. Quick as lightning, you shoved your hand under your buttocks, fetched a fistful of whatever you found there, and raised it to your mouth.
As all the world knows, I did not bow my knee to this new pet of my Father's, and for that I was cast out of Heaven along with all who wished to follow me.

[108 fountains]

I don't know why. Isn't that the plot of Paradise Lost? We'll never know though now because wolf larsen's vandalized it.

OMG! Wolf has already vandalized Paradise Lost? I better start on Dante's Divine Comedy before Wolf gets to it!

[mortalterror]

I really don't see what god has to do with consciousness. If your opinion is that you can't see how consciousness can possibly exist without god, that is an argument from ignorance, straight up. Even if you don't think consciousness can be explained by evolution and the brain, that still leaves "I don't know" as the best answer not "god did it". You can't just say that just because you don't understand something that means god must have done it. Again, it's an argument from ignorance.

I was reading The Razor's Edge by W. Somerset Maugham the other day and something a character said reminded me of things Yes No has said. The character was a westerner who had traveled in India and converted to the belief in Brahmanism. One of the things he said was that the ground substance of the universe wasn't matter, as materialistic atheists suppose, it was consciousness. I wonder if Yes No means something like that.

[108 fountains]

OMG! Wolf has already vandalized Paradise Lost? I better start on Dante's Divine Comedy before Wolf gets to it!

-- reading it, I mean.

[HCabret]

OMG! Wolf has already vandalized Paradise Lost? I better start on Dante's Divine Comedy before Wolf gets to it!i guess. Haha. It's kinda like colorizing old black and white movies, you just shouldn't do it.

[HCabret]

-- reading it, I mean.

LOL. Wolf refuses to read anything not written by himself, as everything else is a tool of the elite ruling class which oppresses bad writers like himself. Cacien was probably reading a wolf Larsen original instead of the elitist Milton version.

[mortalterror]

If there is anything worth meditating on it is the insignificance of material reality.

While I'm not tight with materialistic philosophy, I wouldn't go entirely the other way. Regarding the physical world as inferior to the spiritual seems like just as big a leap in the other direction. It leads to all kinds of awful behavior, mortifying the flesh, neglecting one's self, one's family, one's work. I prefer to think of a human being as both flesh and spirit, and consciousness as a mix of mind/body dualism, both interacting with each other synergistically. I feel like we are given bodies for a purpose, that life is a gift, the same as the soul, and it should be respected and used to profit oneself and others. I think the ascetic monastic life is a mistake and the best way to worship God is to live a good life, treating our bodies and minds like a temple, the way that the ancient Greeks suggested. When we consider the soul, the afterlife, or consciousness to be all that is good, it short changes this life in a similar manner as materialism does.

[cacian]

I don't know why. Isn't that the plot of Paradise Lost? We'll never know though now because wolf larsen's vandalized it.

Am I wrong or did god not create lucifer and the rest of the fallen angels?

did he?
if I was going to rule I would better off on my own
by the sound of it god is not clever.
the scriptures say god created all sorts.
why?
I have no idea.
he must have felt alone.
Larsen is funny :)

[HCabret]

did he?
if I was going to rule I would better off on my own
by the sound of it god is not clever.
the scriptures say god created all sorts.
why?
I have no idea.
he must have felt alone.
Larsen is funny :)God is human.
Wolf Larsen has an amazing sing voice.

[Paulclem]

No, I am referring to the use of the Dalai Lama for anti-communist, political purposes.



I agree. You're right. Mao is worse. I don't think Lamaism would be as bad as Mao nor "worse" as I previously stated.



What disgusts me with those immolations is I don't know who's pulling the strings behind them. If the Dalai Lama is opposed to them, why are they still occurring? Is he really opposed to them or is that just his front to the west? Who is setting these people up to immolate themselves?

It is like some, probably a small, but notorious number of Catholic priests and altar boys. What disgusts me are not the altar boys, but the priests. As I see it, the monks and nuns who have immolated themselves are the victims, like those altar boys. Who's giving them the idea that this is an appropriate thing for them to do? Those are the one's, the ones who are still alive, that I'm disgusted with.



That's the question that I'm asking. What is the "absence of self" referring to? Is it an attempt to legitimate a materialistic philosophy of mind by meditating on the insignificance of one's personal consciousness? If there is anything worth meditating on it is the insignificance of material reality. Not personal consciousness.

This brings us back to the question of the tread. Why do we need God? The best way to rationalize a view that we do not need God, is to dismiss our own personal consciousness. This is what I see western Buddhists trying to do: convince themselves that the materialist philosophy of mind is correct by treating themselves, their minds and consciousness, as "expressions of emptiness".



The fact that he is well respected is why I'm quoting him.

I don't consider him to be a Buddhist. He is a western atheist co-opting Buddhism. Why? Because he drops Buddhist tradition or even what the Buddha actually accepted such as rebirth and karma when it doesn't suit his own western, atheistic belief system. One could do the same thing with Jesus or Krishna. It just takes appropriate rationalization (aka "testing for oneself" and "meditation") to build such a belief system.



I already have an answer. The mind cannot be reduced to brain functioning and materialism. I am not deluded about the fact that this is a "belief" that I have.

However, you're the Buddhist. I'm not. What do you think?

I can't comment on HH's use in politics as I'm not aware of this.

I don't think, as you seem to be implying, that there is an organisation behind the immolation. There is a tradition amongst young people in Asia of using this as a means of protest. In India there was a spate of young people protesting a few years ago. It's very sad.

The point about non-self is not to establish a materialistic philosophy of the mind. It is to establish the emptiness of self and body. The body brain and self are regarded as having no inherent existence according to Mahayana teachings. That's the point of the meditation. To establish that the I, to which every living being clings, fights for and defends and which is the root cause of suffering, is actually not inherently real. The implications of this are massive. There are two truths in the teachings - conventional and ultimate reality. We cling to conventional reality and are unaware of it's emptiness - which is not the same as saying it doesn't exist.

The above is merely a brief reference.

[Pumpkin337]

God is human.
Wolf Larsen has an amazing sing voice.

I think you are confusing two different people who both use a pseudonym taken from a Jack London book. One is male, and writes the most turgid scatological prose. The other is female and sings.

[HCabret]

I think you are confusing two different people who both use a pseudonym taken from a Jack London book. One is male, and writes the most turgid scatological prose. The other is female and sings.i wasn't talking about the one who frequents this site, if that's what you mean.

[Paulclem]

While I'm not tight with materialistic philosophy, I wouldn't go entirely the other way. Regarding the physical world as inferior to the spiritual seems like just as big a leap in the other direction. It leads to all kinds of awful behavior, mortifying the flesh, neglecting one's self, one's family, one's work. I prefer to think of a human being as both flesh and spirit, and consciousness as a mix of mind/body dualism, both interacting with each other synergistically. I feel like we are given bodies for a purpose, that life is a gift, the same as the soul, and it should be respected and used to profit oneself and others. I think the ascetic monastic life is a mistake and the best way to worship God is to live a good life, treating our bodies and minds like a temple, the way that the ancient Greeks suggested. When we consider the soul, the afterlife, or consciousness to be all that is good, it short changes this life in a similar manner as materialism does.

From the Buddhist perspective, Yesno is advocating an extreme view. The Buddhist practice of meditation is based upon the suffering of the body, the causes of this and the solutions found in the path - The Four Noble Truths no less. Without a human body, it is not possible to escape suffering and that is why there are meditations upon The Precious Human Life.

The Buddha advocated The Middle Way, and so extremities are not useful including self mortification. This is not fixed though. What might be extreme for one person may not be for an advanced practitioner. This allows graduated development. I know a Buddhist Teacher - not a monk - who has completed a 3 year solitary retreat. It would be unsuitable for most people at this time.

Whilst there are important differences in what Mortal says - we would disagree on things like God, soul and spirit- the gist is similar.

[mal4mac]

Responses to mortalterror:

Why is mortifying the flesh awful? It simply means subduing the bodies desires by self-denial or discipline. Example: going on a diet. Is dieting bad?

I guess neglecting anything is bad, but to care for your family or work properly may, in some cases, mean not getting involved in these social constructs at all! Like the Buddhist hermit.

How do you know we are given bodies for a purpose? We might just be the random products of evolution. Given Darwin, Dawkins et.al. that looks the most likely thing to me.

How can you say the ascetic monastic life is a mistake for everyone? Many seem happy with it.

Responses to Paul Clem

Without a human body there is no suffering! The only suffering I've encountered has been in my body. The Buddhist ideas about being reborn on God/hungry-ghost realms where humans can't reduce their suffering seem as fantastical as any Greek or Christian myth and just as likely to be true, i.e., not likely at all!

The Buddha recommended *some* mortification of the flesh - his monks don't marry, don't have sex, or eat when they feel like it. Also meditators are recommended to ignore the suffering when the lotus position starts becoming difficult to maintain (or is that Thai monks having a larf at the expense of stiff Westerners :)...)

[caddy_caddy]

I did not ask because I don't believe in his creation whatsoever.

why did not he according to you?
Because Allah has the greatest scientific mind . Although He knows the true nature of each human being , He must reveal it to his fellow men . It's like the Litmus that tests Acid , Base , and neutral liquids. Satan doesn't change my nature, he just proves it so that human eyes can see it . When we all stand in front of Allah in the Judgment day holding the scriptures of our own deeds between our hands , no one could object on Allah's Judgment . No one could say you are unjust or think He is unjust. It's all revealed , shown ,and recorded. We Need to know the truth and investigate it, not Him. We need to understand the basis for His decision . No one can ever feel satisfied until he knows the truth .

[Paulclem]

Responses to Paul Clem

Without a human body there is no suffering! The only suffering I've encountered has been in my body. The Buddhist ideas about being reborn on God/hungry-ghost realms where humans can't reduce their suffering seem as fantastical as any Greek or Christian myth and just as likely to be true, i.e., not likely at all!

The Buddha recommended *some* mortification of the flesh - his monks don't marry, don't have sex, or eat when they feel like it. Also meditators are recommended to ignore the suffering when the lotus position starts becoming difficult to maintain (or is that Thai monks having a larf at the expense of stiff Westerners :)...)

That's why being born a human is beneficial according to the teachings. It is enough to motivate the seeker.

Bodily or gross suffering is not really what's mainly referred to, though there is enough of it about. The human mind has intelligence and awareness enough - given the right conditions - to reflect upon their existential suffering and wish to end it whereas animals are not able to do this.

I reckon the Thai monks were larfing. Meditating does take effort - that's all part of it, as is boredom.

As for other realms - that's to discover. They do describe mental states generally quite well. We all know of a celebrity or two who live a charmed life full of luck and luxury until one day they fall from grace or die, as the gods are alleged to do.

[YesNo]

While I'm not tight with materialistic philosophy, I wouldn't go entirely the other way. Regarding the physical world as inferior to the spiritual seems like just as big a leap in the other direction. It leads to all kinds of awful behavior, mortifying the flesh, neglecting one's self, one's family, one's work. I prefer to think of a human being as both flesh and spirit, and consciousness as a mix of mind/body dualism, both interacting with each other synergistically. I feel like we are given bodies for a purpose, that life is a gift, the same as the soul, and it should be respected and used to profit oneself and others. I think the ascetic monastic life is a mistake and the best way to worship God is to live a good life, treating our bodies and minds like a temple, the way that the ancient Greeks suggested. When we consider the soul, the afterlife, or consciousness to be all that is good, it short changes this life in a similar manner as materialism does.

I assume the universe is good. Asceticism doesn't make a lot of sense to me either, especially when it is based on thinking that the universe is not good.

The question about materialism is whether there is some fundamental substance underlying matter or not. I don't think there is based on quantum mechanics and the evidence that "consciousness causes collapse". As I see it the fundamental stuff of reality is consciousness, not matter. While atheists don't believe in a transcendental Consciousness, I don't believe in a Material Substance. Both are kinds of an extreme view.

I also find it hard to believe what I just wrote which is why I enjoy discussing it. I'm trying to convince myself.

I've been reading Berkeley's A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge to try to make sense out of his idealism. Here's his proof for the existence of God: http://faculty.bsc.edu/bmyers/BerkeleyGod.htm

[caddy_caddy]

Guys , you 're really amazing . Unfortunately , I can't follow up with you and understand those scientific evidence in your discussions . I really love science and believe in it and curious to understand but my IQ doesn't help :blush5:
But this leads me to ask you : if someone were like me , can't understand physics , Quantum theory , philosophy and all these complicated issues , how can he come to know God ? What abt those who can't read at all, don't read , never went to schools ?

If we wanna include these evidence in the curriculum at schools , at any age the student can understand it ?
I think you are all above 20 ? Your journey to know God and to investigate this question has begun somehow late ?

God isn't for the elite only ? Isn't it ?

[Iain Sparrow]

Guys , you 're really amazing . Unfortunately , I can't follow up with you and understand those scientific evidence in your discussions . I really love science and believe in it and curious to understand but my IQ doesn't help :blush5:
But this leads me to ask you : if someone were like me , can't understand physics , Quantum theory , philosophy and all these complicated issues , how can he come to know God ? What abt those who can't read at all, don't read , never went to schools ?

If we wanna include these evidence in the curriculum at schools , at any age the student can understand it ?
I think you are all above 20 ? Your journey to know God and to investigate this question has begun somehow late ?

God isn't for the elite only ? Isn't it ?

It's the science that dispels God.
It doesn't prove there isn't a God or a Supernatural realm, only that those things are more or less unlikely.
And don't worry yourself too much about not fully understanding concepts like Quantum Theory... the scientists who make it their life's goal to explain Quantum Physics, aren't anywhere close to doing it.

God isn't for the elite, he is for those who remain ignorant.

[YesNo]

Guys , you 're really amazing . Unfortunately , I can't follow up with you and understand those scientific evidence in your discussions . I really love science and believe in it and curious to understand but my IQ doesn't help :blush5:
But this leads me to ask you : if someone were like me , can't understand physics , Quantum theory , philosophy and all these complicated issues , how can he come to know God ? What abt those who can't read at all, don't read , never went to schools ?

If we wanna include these evidence in the curriculum at schools , at any age the student can understand it ?
I think you are all above 20 ? Your journey to know God and to investigate this question has begun somehow late ?

God isn't for the elite only ? Isn't it ?

One doesn't need quantum physics to know God. The intuitions about God that even a child understands are correct. How do I justify that claim? I use science. Why use science? Because atheists think they are justified by science in denying that claim. They aren't. It is one of their delusions.

People come to know God in the various ways they always have in living their lives for thousands of years.

[Paulclem]

It's the science that dispels God.
It doesn't prove there isn't a God or a Supernatural realm, only that those things are more or less unlikely.
And don't worry yourself too much about not fully understanding concepts like Quantum Theory... the scientists who make it their life's goal to explain Quantum Physics, aren't anywhere close to doing it.

God isn't for the elite, he is for those who remain ignorant.

Science has dispelled some of the religious proclamations such as the world being the centre of the universe, that God created the earth in 7 days etc. It doesn't follow that God doesn't exist. The fact is science cannot say one way or another, and so it becomes a matter of faith and worldview. Perhaps that will change, but at the moment science struggles with an explanation of consciousness let alone a proposed divine prescence.

[HCabret]

Atheism doesn't require any proof that gods do not exist.just because you havent seen something, doesnt mean it doesnt exist. A person living on the far side of the moon believing that the earth does not exist simply because that person have never seen it.

[Frostball]

just because you havent seen something, doesnt mean it doesnt exist. A person living on the far side of the moon believing that the earth does not exist simply because that person have never seen it.

The point is that you shouldn't believe in something unless you have a reason to. This isn't just about seeing, but evidence in any form, be it scientific, visual, auditory, or whatever. The person on the far side of the moon would have no reason to suppose an earth exists unless she had some evidence of it. If she assumed the earth did exist anyway, she might be right, but she got to the correct answer for bad reasons, and is basically just lucky that her belief happens to coincide with reality. She would be rationally justified in not believing the claim that an earth exists unless one of her fellow moon friends produced some evidence.

[Frostball]

I also find it hard to believe what I just wrote which is why I enjoy discussing it. I'm trying to convince myself.
http://faculty.bsc.edu/bmyers/BerkeleyGod.htm

I don't understand at all the concept of trying to convince yourself of something. It makes no sense to me. Your beliefs are something you can't control, and the only thing one should be trying to do with their beliefs is to make them be in accordance with reality.

[HCabret]

The point is that you shouldn't believe in something unless you have a reason to. This isn't just about seeing, but evidence in any form, be it scientific, visual, auditory, or whatever. The person on the far side of the moon would have no reason to suppose an earth exists unless she had some evidence of it. If she assumed the earth did exist anyway, she might be right, but she got to the correct answer for bad reasons, and is basically just lucky that her belief happens to coincide with reality. She would be rationally justified in not believing the claim that an earth exists unless one of her fellow moon friends produced some evidence.so i would need scientifically verifiable data, which proves that god does not exist. Are you familiar with shrodinger's cat? Until you open the box and actually observe what is inside, all possibilities are true. Saying there is no moon, is the same as saying there is a moon, in my hypothetical. In other words: neither possibility is impossible.

[HCabret]

I don't understand at all the concept of trying to convince yourself of something. It makes no sense to me. Your beliefs are something you can't control, and the only thing one should be trying to do with their beliefs is to make them be in accordance with reality.reality is a very weird place though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave–particle_duality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

[Frostball]

so i would need scientifically verifiable data, which proves that god does not exist. Are you familiar with shrodinger's cat? Until you open the box and actually observe what is inside, all possibilities are true. Saying there is no moon, is the same as saying there is a moon, in my hypothetical. In other words: neither possibility is impossible.

Never did in my example did I say anything about there being "no earth". I said the person on the other side of the moon would be rationally justified in disbelieving a claim that there is an earth. She isn't saying "there is no earth" she is simply saying "I don't believe there is an earth." A person isn't denying the possibility of something just because they don't believe it.

I'm sure you don't believe in every magical creature you've ever heard of, but you aren't saying these creatures are impossible are you? Has there ever been "scientifically verifiable data" that concluded that faeries don't exist? There never could be such a thing. Still, I don't believe they do exist.

[Frostball]

reality is a very weird place though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave–particle_duality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

Yes, reality does run quite contrary to our intuitions. That doesn't mean you should believe things without evidence.

[HCabret]

Yes, reality does run quite contrary to our intuitions. That doesn't mean you should believe things without evidence.
People should believe in whatever they want to believe. And science is not something you either do or do not believe, it is the way it is regardless whether I or anyone believe in it or not. Evolution exists regardless of anyone's opinion on it. I don't believe in gravity, it's just there regardless.

[YesNo]

I don't understand at all the concept of trying to convince yourself of something. It makes no sense to me. Your beliefs are something you can't control, and the only thing one should be trying to do with their beliefs is to make them be in accordance with reality.

I think I agree with HCabret's comments.

What I am trying to convince myself of is that there is no Material Substance underlying and causing the reality we experience. I capitalize this to highlight it. I do believe the world is out there and more or less follows the patterns physicists have modeled it following. What I don't believe exists is an underlying unconscious substance that causes it to exist. That means physics is not "causally closed", that is, physics is not independent of consciousness.

I've cited this before, but the science that I am relying on is summarized, perhaps too quickly, in this youtube video by InspiringPhilosophy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4C5pq7W5yRM

My question is whether I am seeing this right or not? I don't know. I still need to convince myself. But if this is right, then the existence of God has been settled by quantum physics. If there is no unconscious Material Substance that causes the world around us, then there must be a Conscious reality that creates what we experience. Therefore, God exists. All of the interpretations of quantum physics, as I see it, are attempts to avoid or ignore this conclusion about consciousness.

It is possible there is some sort of monism or dualism or panpsychism involved that includes consciousness in some way such as what Thomas Nagel suggests. So to be better convinced I need to consider those possibilities.

[HCabret]

God needs us
Like that we needs god
My god is for me
Try to think of god before doing a unkind thing…
Is that a command or simply advice?

[totoro]

I think we need God because we need something or someone to blame for everything that goes wrong with the world, I also think we need God because it makes an interesting story/stories. I mean, why do people pray? Because they think someone with all mighty power is listening to solve the world's problems. And, like someone else said, it makes for an interesting take on how everything was made.

[YesNo]

I have been reading George Berkeley recently. In his view we need God because otherwise nothing would be present to our experience since to be is to be perceived. It is not our perceptions that make the world real, so there must be some other more powerful mind that manifests it.

Thinking about relativity and quantum physics has made me think that there is no underlying material substance which Berkeley argued for 300 years ago.

[Carousel]

Well I think that most of us take it that the earth wasn’t created 5000 years ago. I don’t see there’s a problem with the belief in a supreme deity as to if one exists or not. Where the problem lies is in believing rigidly in the creation theory and the views of the world we live in that applied to those who lived 2000 years ago. To do that you have to dismiss all the knowledge the progress and advances that man has made over 20 centuries.

The bible, which is the result of a committee decision on what was included and what was not from a variety of religious texts made around 350AD. The mistake they made was uniting two separate religions into one book. The Old Testament, based on the Jewish religion and the New Testament which is the Christian religion. The effect being that the bible now gives two quite different versions of the god figure and this provides easy meat for those who ridicule Christian beliefs.

[YesNo]

Even Newton believed the universe was created around 4000 BCE. However, Newton, and the Genesis story, got one very critical thing right: The universe had a beginning. It is not eternal.

Science has discredited both sides of the theist-atheist divide. One the one had, the universe is older than people like Newton expected it could be. On the other hand, it is not eternal. To get away from a mechanistic mindset, I like to think of it having been "born" about 13.7 billion years ago.

[Carousel]

Newton lived over 350 yrs ago so he viewed the universe as to the understanding of the cosmos that was relevant in those times. He and his contemporaries would have had no idea of the advances in understanding made over three hundred years after his death in 1726.

Pure science has no agenda to deliberately discredit religion; in fact religious beliefs play no part in the pursuit for knowledge. When all the baggage of civilisation we carry is stripped away we are left with what we share with all the many other forms of life on the planet and for the purpose of life itself as we live our lives to procreate our species and nothing more. In that respect we are mere carriers of life, so perhaps we should devote our minds to the study of life itself because at present we know nothing of its ultimate purpose or if indeed there is one.

[henk tuten]

God is part of the dual western reality, like Allah is part of the dual Middle East reality.
Both based on Hellenic Dualism
And essentially different from the 'nature is god' far east tradition.

Confusing is that the Han part of China got communist, which is also western dualism

Western Dualism (belief in god, in intelligence) is in deep crisis.

[Melanie]

is it because one feels lonely lost and aimless?
one does no longer understand what life is for or about one is focused thoughts and locus vehemently on God.
or is it because
God is the ultimate for our sins and weaknesses?
we need to pass the blame onto a God when we have finished blaming ourselves.
Why do we need God? When my 4 children were ages 1,2,4,and 6, their father died of a heart attack on the tennis court. He was only 46 and I was 36. My children and I felt suddenly lost until I reminded them, and myself, that we still have our heavenly Father and must lean on him for everything. He is faithful and just and will never leave us, as he promises.

We need God because God is our faithful Father; he created us; we are his children. Just like the ultimate awesome parent, if we seek him first in all things he provides for us in his perfect timing and according to his will and what we really need and when we need it, he loves us unconditionally even when no one else does, (even loves the unbelievers and the worst of sinners but he doesn't love the sin of course). He forgives us when he knows we're sorry, disciplines us, comforts us through his Holy Spirit, wants respect and obedience, and a close relationship with us.

He guides us and teaches us how to love others and love ourselves and love him. He teaches patience, self-control, gentleness, kindness, and faithfulness. He blesses us with joy, goodness, and a peace that passes all understanding Philippians 4:7. He answers our prayers (he may say yes, no, or later according to what is best for us and when). We need God because he's preparing a place for us for eternity. Every page of the Bible will tell you something of why we need God.

[YesNo]

I am sorry to hear of your loss, Melanie, although this may have been long ago.

[Melanie]

Thank you, YesNo. Yes it's been a long time and we all pulled through…so far so good.

[Munshie]

YesNo

"We need God (or Gods or Goddesses) as much as we need to breath and be aware, but all that means is that no matter how much we try to get rid of our need for them, they keep coming back."

There are tens of millions of atheists living and breathing without any need for a deity. According to your views as soon as one became an atheist, the person would/should drop dead.

[HCabret]

YesNo

"We need God (or Gods or Goddesses) as much as we need to breath and be aware, but all that means is that no matter how much we try to get rid of our need for them, they keep coming back."

There are tens of millions of atheists living and breathing without any need for a deity. According to your views as soon as one became an atheist, the person would/should drop dead.There are actually many more atheists than that. There are 300 million Buddhists alone.

Not everyone views life as being possible without dieties.