Why I believe in God?

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

11-27-2011, 05:26 AM
MarkBastable

Quote:

Originally Posted by YesNo

The following is closer to Pascal's wager since for Pascal there is a severe penalty in not believing.

If you believe in pink pixies you will get a million dollars on your sixtieth birthday. If you don't believe, a million dollars will be taken away from you on your sixtieth birthday.

How would you scientifically test the pink pixie hypothesis? You just look at the bank accounts of people who turn sixty.

How would you scientifically test whether there might be something like a God that Pascal would believe in? Some evidence comes from near death and shared death experiences. Other evidence comes from the near certainty that the universe had a beginning 13.73, plus or minus 1%, billion years ago.

However, these lines of evidence only give you partial support for Pascal's God who demands belief using heaven and hell to influence your choice. The evidence could imply all kinds of Gods, but not the pink pixies which we can disprove quickly.

I think you're missing both Pascal's point and mine. However, if you prefer, the pink pixies will give you invisible immortality. They really will. So start believing in them immediately.

I don't think that the severe threat makes any difference to the difficulty of sincerely believing something because the logic suggest it's a good idea to.

In fact, we can try that now.

If you don't believe in the pink pixies, they will call you a rude name.

Feel like believing in them yet?

If you don't believe in the pink pixies, they will throw a tennis ball at you.

Any glimmerings of faith?

If you don't believe in the pink pixies, they will destroy a foreign city you've barely heard of.

Ready to welcome the pixies into your heart?

If you don't believe in the pink pixies, you will be cast into the fiery furnace where you will languish in agony for all eternity.

Aha! Has that swung it? Do you now believe in the pixies?

I suspect not, and that's for three reasons.

1) It's necessary to have a pre-existing belief in the pink pixies to take seriously the threat of what they might do to you - so Pascal doesn't apply.

2) In any case, the ability to believe isn't really increased by the escalation of the threat.

3). Even if you knew for a fact that some other agency than the pink pixies was going to fulfil the threat - let's say it's me, in my capacity as the pixies' self-declared representative on Earth - you wouldn't be able to make yourself believe in them, although you might decide it was a good idea to pretend to.
11-27-2011, 05:33 AM
Varenne Rodin

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

Okay, it's my contention that gravity is operated by a colony of small fuschia pixies who live in an eggbox in my attic. If you sincerely believe that too (and incidentally, the pixies will know if you're faking), I'll give you a million dollars on your sixtieth birthday. If you don't believe it - no matter. There's no downside.

So - a million dollars for believing in the pink gravity pixies in my attic - and no downside.

Go on. Believe it. Really believe it. Go on. What's stopping you?

I believe it! It was the fuschia that sold me.
11-27-2011, 06:24 AM
Paulclem

Quote:

Originally Posted by ftil

Why don’t you read your response about Kalachakra Tantra. We might have had an interesting discussion if you took your time to read that book. Please don’t make assumptions that I criticize your integrity. How can I do that if I don’t know you????? I raised a question how could you make assumptions about the author or about the website that posted that book without reading it and checking the references the author provided. Please, don’t make more assumptions. :devil:

I am not trying to get a last word. I just don’t see any reason to continue our discussion. We have the rights to disagree. It is you who have the need to convince that you are right and others are wrong. :brow: I don't have any need to prove to anybody what I know.

Secondly, I am tired of repeating myself. I wrote a few posts where I have explained where we differ in our approach to seeking the knowledge. Finally, I understand that you feel comfortable with accepting common knowledge about Buddhism. But you have to understand that not everybody is like you. There are people who are not followers and who question every belief that hold as truth. It is as simple as that.

You came into this discussion stating I must remember there are three aspects of Buddhism - Hinayana, Mahayana and Tantra. My response was that they are not different in the sense of their basis, but they have a different focus for practice. Tantra grows from practising the Mahayana. It is not seperate in the sense that you become a Tantric Buddhist and not one of the others.

If you want to discuss this I will.

As for the Kalachakra Tantra - was that in a previous discussion? The one on your thread where you are using a site which is full of anti-Dalai Lama sentiments?

Please don’t make assumptions that I criticize your integrity.

You have criticised my integrity - not that I am offended. Every time you mention me making assumptions - you are criticising my integrity.

If you want to argue that Madame Blavatsky knew anything at all about Buddhism and the teaching of Tantra - then go on.

It is you who have the need to convince that you are right and others are wrong.

Some of the things that have been written are incorrect. Are you criticising me for pointing this out? You can check what I say. I'm just about to respond to Mazhur's last post where he has stated something incorrect in previous posts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mazHur

Buddhism believes in self-torture to get rid of sufferings.

Mazhur - this is fundamentally incorrect. A reading of the Buddha's life will establish that he rejected such asceticism for the Middle way. As he was sitting in a starved state he realised that this was not going to answer the question of solving the suffering of life. He then began to take food again and resumed his quest for Enlightenment. What you said is fundamentally against The Buddha's own example.

[QUOTE=mazHur;1092661]

Quote:

If you think I am incorrect please let me know where?? Start with telling the fundamental beliefs of Buddhism which can possibly aid to its better understanding as well as help someone convince about it for a possible 'conversion'.

I still hold on to my idea that Buddhism is a ''passive' kinda religion disfavoring ACTION and laying more stress on mysticism, rituals, esoteric and occult.

I have absolutely no wish to convert anyone. I respect your religion, and wish you well in the practice of it. HH he Dalai Lama said some years ago that people should follow the religion they grow up with unless they have a very strong attachment to another.

I still hold on to my idea that Buddhism is a ''passive' kinda religion disfavoring ACTION and laying more stress on mysticism, rituals, esoteric and occult.

It's true that Buddhism advocates peace, as Ashoka demonstrated. It is not a passive, sit about, doormat, let it happen to you religion though. It basically gives an individual the tools to try to locate the sources of suffering and to change their behaviour or situation in order to improve that. It teaches action, but right action through a correct appraisal of the situation rather than by reacting with destructive or negative emotions like anger. The result of acting unskillfully is to incur negative Karma, which leads to more suffering.
11-27-2011, 08:06 AM
ftil

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paulclem

You have criticised my integrity - not that I am offended. Every time you mention me making assumptions - you are criticising my integrity.

Well, we have a very different understanding what assumptions mean. When I said that you made assumptions I didn’t criticized your integrity but I said that you were wrong about my thoughts. You may try to sit in my head and read my thoughts,........ believing that it is true. :lol:

Quote:

Some of the things that have been written are incorrect. Are you criticising me for pointing this out? You can check what I say. I'm just about to respond to Mazhur's last post where he has stated something incorrect in previous posts.

Well, I have noticed that you also questioned others who wrote about Blavatsky or Kalachakra.
Yes, I criticized that. It sounds that if somebody challenges your belief system, you become defensive and attack. You use the same tactic so that don’t be surprised that I brought this up. To make very clear, I am not talking about myself but about others who studied that subject in depth.

Quote:

As for the Kalachakra Tantra - was that in a previous discussion? The one on your thread where you are using a site which is full of anti-Dalai Lama sentiments?

Well, it was not a site. It was a book that the site you mentioned posted it. This book can be found on a number of websites. May I ask you again how can you make a judgment without reading a book and checking references the author provided? You will find a number of important scholars. Don’t be afraid to challenge your beliefs but if you do, please,..... don’t expect others to be afraid to challenge and question. :p
11-27-2011, 08:18 AM
MarkBastable

Quote:

Originally Posted by ftil

It sounds that if somebody challenges your belief system, you become defensive and attack.

To be fair, old love, the same could be said of you, or me, or anyone who mounts an argument in order to defend a position. So it's hardly a useful observation about someone you're arguing with. In fact, it smacks a bit of desperation.
11-27-2011, 10:55 AM
mazHur

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paulclem

Mazhur - this is fundamentally incorrect. A reading of the Buddha's life will establish that he rejected such asceticism for the Middle way. As he was sitting in a starved state he realised that this was not going to answer the question of solving the suffering of life. He then began to take food again and resumed his quest for Enlightenment. What you said is fundamentally against The Buddha's own example.

Maybe you are right but I thought Buddha believed in 'self-punishment' to achieve nirvana.

What is Kalachakra??? Literally it means ''Black Circle''
11-27-2011, 11:41 AM
YesNo

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

I think you're missing both Pascal's point and mine. However, if you prefer, the pink pixies will give you invisible immortality. They really will. So start believing in them immediately.

From my view, we all already have "invisible immortality". There is no need to believe in anything to get this. So why bother wagering at all for something we already have?

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

I don't think that the severe threat makes any difference to the difficulty of sincerely believing something because the logic suggest it's a good idea to.

In fact, we can try that now.

If you don't believe in the pink pixies, they will call you a rude name.

Feel like believing in them yet?

Let's test this scientifically. I don't believe in the pink pixies. I am waiting to hear the rude name. Ah, I don't hear one. I can conclude either the pink pixies don't exist or they do not have the ability to call me a rude name.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

If you don't believe in the pink pixies, they will throw a tennis ball at you.

Any glimmerings of faith?

OK, let's test this. I don't believe in pink pixies, but no one is throwing a tennis ball at me. I can dismiss the pink pixies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

If you don't believe in the pink pixies, they will destroy a foreign city you've barely heard of.

Ready to welcome the pixies into your heart?

I think it is safe to assume that there are more people in the world who don't believe in pink pixies than there are cities in the world. Since these cities still exist, the pink pixie threat is not real.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

If you don't believe in the pink pixies, you will be cast into the fiery furnace where you will languish in agony for all eternity.

Aha! Has that swung it? Do you now believe in the pixies?

I don't believe in a fiery furnace where you will languish in agony for all eternity. There might be other hells, however.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

II suspect not, and that's for three reasons.

1) It's necessary to have a pre-existing belief in the pink pixies to take the threat seriously - so Pascal doesn't apply.

2) In any case, the ability to believe isn't really increased by the escalation of the threat.

3). Even if you knew for a fact that some other agency than the pink pixies was going to fulfil the threat - let's say it's me, in my capacity as the pixies' self-declared representative on Earth - you wouldn't be able to make yourself believe in them, although you might decide it was a good idea to pretend to.

There are people who live under oppressive environments where they have to pretend to like what a government is doing just to survive. In this case there is no need to believe in anything. They are fully aware of the dangers they face.
11-27-2011, 11:48 AM
MarkBastable

Quote:

Originally Posted by YesNo

From my view, we all already have "invisible immortality".

I wasn't intending to talk about what each of us individually believed, but to talk about whether Pascal's Wager worked. If you start from the idea that we all have immortality whether we believe in God or not, then Pascal doesn't apply, whether or not it works.

Quote:

Originally Posted by YesNo

OK, let's test this. I don't believe in pink pixies, but no one is throwing a tennis ball at me. I can dismiss the pink pixies.
.

Remember, this is analagous to the punishment that God will visit upon us - which is the flipside of eternal heavenly life. Like God, the pixies won't be throwing the tennis ball - or doing anything else to you, nice or nasty - until after you're dead. That's the basis of Pascal's Wager, and of Bastable's Pixies (Invisible Immortality Version).

Of course, the beauty of Pascal is that he doesn't preclude Bastable's Pixies or anything else, as long as they aren't mutually-contradictory. You can believe in just about everything that might be beneficial. If it were possible to believe things on the strength of seeing that they might do you some good, Pascal would have the maximum spread-bet chance of believing the thing that turned out to matter.
11-27-2011, 12:28 PM
cafolini

If you don't believe in the pink pixies you know of no pisses of pixies well pissed.
11-27-2011, 01:49 PM
Paulclem

Quote:

Originally Posted by ftil

Well, I have noticed that you also questioned others who wrote about Blavatsky or Kalachakra.
Yes, I criticized that. It sounds that if somebody challenges your belief system, you become defensive and attack. You use the same tactic so that don’t be surprised that I brought this up. To make very clear, I am not talking about myself but about others who studied that subject in depth.

Well, it was not a site. It was a book that the site you mentioned posted it. This book can be found on a number of websites. May I ask you again how can you make a judgment without reading a book and checking references the author provided? You will find a number of important scholars. Don’t be afraid to challenge your beliefs but if you do, please,..... don’t expect others to be afraid to challenge and question. :p

The question about the Kalachakra - from what I recall - I'll go and have another look at the thread in a bit - the book on the site you mentioned has a very skewed interpretation of the meaning of Tantric Buddhism. Reading further on, I noticed denigrating references to HH The Dalai Lama. I assume you had looked at this site in good faith, but were perhaps unaware of the agenda behind it. I have read enough of the pages to understand that it does have an agenda. The reason I picked up on this - as I was browsing a link you provided - were some very basic mistakes in the explanation of some aspects of Tibetan Buddhism. It was when I looked further that it became clear that this is a site full of misconceptions and misinterpretation which is intended to show Tibetan Buddhism in general, HH The Dalai lama and Tantra in particular, in a negative light. I was merely pointing out to you that this is the case, and anyone reading it should be aware of it.

Although Tibetan Buddhism, and Buddhism in general, is usually well regarded, there are agencies that seek to denigrate it. The obvious one is the Chinese Govt, who maintain that HH is a splittist wanting to separate Tibet from China again. China is very sensitive to criticism, and past policy regarding Tibet by Mao resulted in an orchestrated famine that killed over a million Tibetans. HH has stated that he is willing to work with the Chinese, and won't be seeking independance - it is politically impossible given China's resources.

May I ask you again how can you make a judgment without reading a book and checking references the author provided?

The judgement is from what it says in the text of the site. My reading of it was clear. I feel the site is written in an intentionally misleading way, and so I don't feel reading the references - which may include texts that have valid information or not - is particularly relevant. If you like, I'll go back and have a look at the things that stand out as either intentionally misleading, a negative interpretation or just plain wrong.

Yes, I criticized that. It sounds that if somebody challenges your belief system, you become defensive and attack.

Attack - challenge - correct - question. I prefer the last three labels, but I will continue to do so when something is so obviously incorrect. There are already a lot of misconceptions regarding Buddhism.

Don’t be afraid to challenge your beliefs but if you do, please,..... don’t expect others to be afraid to challenge and question.

In the cases on here I've never had belief challenged. The concepts about Buddhism I challenge are well known in terms of being rock solid Buddhist concepts. The thing I challenged Mazhur about - that Buddhism is about finding Enlightenment through suffering is completely the opposite of the Buddha's message. I don't see anything wrong in challenging a wrongly stated fundamental question.

You know I will respond if you take issue with anything, but if I am wrong, or find I am wrong, I will admit it freely. Tell me where I have been wrong and I'll hold up my hands if you're right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mazHur

Maybe you are right but I thought Buddha believed in 'self-punishment' to achieve nirvana.

He went through an ascetic stage, but rejected this as a valid way to gain freedom from birth, ageing, sickness and death. There are statues of the Buddha as virtually a skeleton, but the message was probably intended to refute Hindu asceticism as a way to truth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mazHur

Maybe you are right but I thought Buddha believed in 'self-punishment' to achieve nirvana.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mazHur

What is Kalachakra??? Literally it means ''Black Circle''

I've heard it referred to as The Wheel of Time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalachakra
11-27-2011, 03:27 PM
cafolini

There were only a few years when Buddha suffered indigestion with lotus pizza.
11-27-2011, 04:23 PM
mazHur

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paulclem

I've heard it referred to as The Wheel of Time.

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

No, Kala (in my language) means black, chakra means wheel or circle, together they mean Black Wheel or perhaps metaphorically black 'magic' or esoteric , occult or misfortune.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cafolini

There were only a few years when Buddha suffered indigestion with lotus pizza.

I am so sorry...
I love Buddha!
11-27-2011, 04:31 PM
ftil

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

To be fair, old love, the same could be said of you, or me, or anyone who mounts an argument in order to defend a position. So it's hardly a useful observation about someone you're arguing with. In fact, it smacks a bit of desperation.

Do you think so? You don’t know me….but make assumptions that it is an act of desperation. LOL!
I am not afraid to challenge my belief system. One of the reasons that I am not afraid is the fact that flexible belief system is a sign of psychological health. Don’t you think that it is very freeing?
I don’t have any need to defend my belief system. I guess you didn’t read my posts, otherwise you would know that I don’t have answers but I have questions and I keep my mind open while I search for truth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paulclem

The question about the Kalachakra - from what I recall - I'll go and have another look at the thread in a bit - the book on the site you mentioned has a very skewed interpretation of the meaning of Tantric Buddhism. Reading further on, I noticed denigrating references to HH The Dalai Lama. I assume you had looked at this site in good faith, but were perhaps unaware of the agenda behind it. I have read enough of the pages to understand that it does have an agenda. The reason I picked up on this - as I was browsing a link you provided - were some very basic mistakes in the explanation of some aspects of Tibetan Buddhism. It was when I looked further that it became clear that this is a site full of misconceptions and misinterpretation which is intended to show Tibetan Buddhism in general, HH The Dalai lama and Tantra in particular, in a negative light. I was merely pointing out to you that this is the case, and anyone reading it should be aware of it.

To make a final comment, I can say that I don’t have any need to defend any religious figure whether it is Dalai Lama or Pope. Dalai Lama’s followers may believe that he is holly. I don’t. I don’t believe that Pope is holly either. If you see it that it was an agenda, so be it. I don’t have any interest to convince otherwise. But I have a lot in common with the author. I have always found fascinating that when we look for truth we arrive to the same conclusions that take us deeper.

Secondly, by not being afraid to challenge belief system, I meant not to be challenged by others but to challenge ourselves. To bottom line is that people may think whatever they want. But it is not my business what others think. They are free to choose their beliefs. But I don’t like when the truth is not being told. And I clearly see it regarding tantra and Blavatsky. Since you deny connections Blavatsky with Buddhism which is very important, we have to end here. This was a reason I said that I didn’t want to continue our discussion. :wink5:
11-27-2011, 04:40 PM
mazHur

Okay folks enough, let's now talk ''why I believe in God''!!
11-27-2011, 05:05 PM
MarkBastable

Quote:

Originally Posted by ftil

You don’t know me….but make assumptions that it is an act of desperation.

Well, I know you as well as you know Paul - about whom you seem able to say 'It sounds that if somebody challenges your belief system, you become defensive and attack.'

You may say that you are not making a judgement of him, but of what he has written here. Hence 'It sounds that..." I'd say the same of you, hence 'It smacks of..."
11-27-2011, 05:18 PM
Darcy88

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

Okay, it's my contention that gravity is operated by a colony of small fuschia pixies who live in an eggbox in my attic. If you sincerely believe that too (and incidentally, the pixies will know if you're faking), I'll give you a million dollars on your sixtieth birthday. If you don't believe it - no matter. There's no downside.

So - a million dollars for believing in the pink gravity pixies in my attic - and no downside.

Go on. Believe it. Really believe it. Go on. What's stopping you?

I suspected you would say something to that effect. And, really, I don't think there's a good defense to made against your objection. Once you violate the laws of plausibility and empiricism you are kind of left with a belief system in which anything goes.
11-27-2011, 05:23 PM
Paulclem

Quote:

Originally Posted by ftil

To make a final comment, I can say that I don’t have any need to defend any religious figure whether it is Dalai Lama or Pope. Dalai Lama’s followers may believe that he is holly. I don’t. I don’t believe that Pope is holly either. If you see it that it was an agenda, so be it. I don’t have any interest to convince otherwise. But I have a lot in common with the author. I have always found fascinating that when we look for truth we arrive to the same conclusions that take us deeper.

Secondly, by not being afraid to challenge belief system, I meant not to be challenged by others but to challenge ourselves. To bottom line is that people may think whatever they want. But it is not my business what others think. They are free to choose their beliefs. But I don’t like when the truth is not being told. And I clearly see it regarding tantra and Blavatsky. Since you deny connections Blavatsky with Buddhism which is very important, we have to end here. This was a reason I said that I didn’t want to continue our discussion. :wink5:

It's true I do defend HH, but not , I hope, unfairly. I've made some postings on the book/site you were referring to. I'm trying to show why it is biased and full of inacurracies and assumptions. I'm not personally having a go at you when I do this, but sincerely trying to demonstrate that the site is badly flawed. Don't rely on it, or rather check up on what it says.

I still maintain that Blavatsky has no knowledge of Tibetan Buddhism, and you haven't provided any connection either. You don't say why you think it is important even. I could discuss that with you if you could tell me what it is that Blavatsky wrote that has any importance at all concerning Tantra. We can leave it at that impasse though if you wish.

Secondly, by not being afraid to challenge belief system, I meant not to be challenged by others but to challenge ourselves.

Interestingly, The Buddha says that each should find out the truth of the path for themselves. This is a very important point in choosing a teacher and investigating Buddhist beliefs. I don't isagree with this sentiment in principle, and Buddhism is about challenging and changing yourself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mazHur

No, Kala (in my language) means black, chakra means wheel or circle, together they mean Black Wheel or perhaps metaphorically black 'magic' or esoteric , occult or misfortune.

I can see that, but this particular reference is to the Wheel of Time.
11-27-2011, 05:27 PM
cafolini

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darcy88

I suspected you would say something to that effect. And, really, I don't think there's a good defense to made against your objection. Once you violate the laws of plausibility and empiricism you are kind of left with a belief system in which anything goes.

But Darcy, anything does go that goes. Otherwise it couldn't happen.
11-27-2011, 05:49 PM
ftil

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paulclem

It's true I do defend HH, but not , I hope, unfairly. I've made some postings on the book/site you were referring to. I'm trying to show why it is biased and full of inacurracies and assumptions. I'm not personally having a go at you when I do this, but sincerely trying to demonstrate that the site is badly flawed. Don't rely on it, or rather check up on what it says.

I still maintain that Blavatsky has no knowledge of Tibetan Buddhism, and you haven't provided any connection either. You don't say why you think it is important even. I could discuss that with you if you could tell me what it is that Blavatsky wrote that has any importance at all concerning Tantra. We can leave it at that impasse though if you wish.

Secondly, by not being afraid to challenge belief system, I meant not to be challenged by others but to challenge ourselves.

Interestingly, The Buddha says that each should find out the truth of the path for themselves. This is a very important point in choosing a teacher and investigating Buddhist beliefs. I don't isagree with this sentiment in principle, and Buddhism is about challenging and changing yourself.

You have the rights to believe whatever you want, including defending Dalai Lama. I don’t do it any more. Years ago, I defended Pope. LOL! Life is beautiful as I can outgrow beliefs that thwart my understanding of reality.

You are free to keep your beliefs about Blavatsky. You want me to explain the connections …….How can I do it since it took me more than a decade to pick up the pieces and make connections. I wish it were that simple as I would not need years of study, not mentioning money I have wasted. To explain what I mean, I can say that if somebody told me what I know today, I would have to believe it but I wouldn’t see it. More likely I would refuse to believe it. How human consciousness works is quite fascinating, yet it can be pain in the neck if we are committed to seeking the truth. Too many lies and deceptions. Unless we understand how our consciousness works, we have to BELIEve. :D I don’t invest my energy into believing but I keep my mind open.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page