Atheists & Agnostics: If there is a God...

[Storm]

bump for new members

 

[Willamena]

If there is a God, what do you think it's probably like? What idea do you find most likely, based on your understanding of reality as it is? Why?

I think the most likely 'God' is an image or idea of God. I think that we need necessarily to give a form to the formless, a name to the nameless, a thing to the thingless, and call that 'God'.

 

[Storm]

Hardly an answer in the spirit of the question.

 

[Willamena]

Hardly an answer in the spirit of the question.

What would be an answer in the spirit of the question?

 

[Storm]

See the rest of the thread, you'll notice I haven't argued any of the ideas put forth. The existence of ideas of God is unquestionable, but that wasn't the question.

 

[Willamena]

The question was, "If there is a God, what do you think it's probably like?"

Can God not exist as an idea?

 

[Storm]

Can and obviously does, which makes the topic rather dull. You're answering an entirely different question.

 

[Willamena]

How is it dull? And I answered the question posed.

I believe strongly in the concept of God, to the extend of calling myself a theist.

 

[Storm]

Who contests the fact that ideas of God exist? And no, you didn't. Saying you did doesn't change that.

Furthermore, if you consider yourself a theist, why did you reply at all? The thread is quite plainly addressed to atheists and agnostics.

 

[Willamena]

Hey, okay... if you're not willing to engage the facsinating concept that God can exist ONLY as concept and still be God, then I'll drop it. We can all fail to learn something today (go us!).

I am also atheist and agnostic, so I fell I could respond to such threads. But if that bothers you, I'll withdraw.

 

[Storm]

Hey, okay... if you're not willing to engage the facsinating concept that God can exist ONLY as concept and still be God, then I'll drop it. We can all fail to learn something today (go us!).

Fascination, like beauty is in the eye of the beholder. There's no reason to be so condescending.

I am also atheist and agnostic, so I fell I could respond to such threads. But if that bothers you, I'll withdraw.

I was confused, not bothered. That didn't help.

 

[Somkid]

I'll try to explain this as simple as I can but it can get a bit long winded.

As a Buddhist I am non-theistic. Buddhism is unique among the religions of the world because it does not have any place for God. Most Asian religions (with the exception of Hinduism) are essentially non-theistic, in that God does not occupy the central place that is accorded to him in monotheistic religious traditions.

Buddhism goes beyond most of these other religions in that it is positively anti-theistic because the very notion of God conflicts with some principles which are fundamental to the Buddhist view of the world and the role of humans in it.

Buddhism is not atheistic in the sense that modern secularism, rationalism, humanism, etc. could be regarded to be atheistic, although it has much in common with them and I tend to side with them in debate.

Buddhism is not concerned with refuting the notion of God as some atheistic writers have done most of us simply don't care and find the notion of God irrelevant.

Buddhism is principally concerned with developing a method of escape from the worldly ills in general by following the 8 fold path and having a full understanding of the 4 Noble Truths, this involves undertaking a method of mental discipline and a code of conduct, which is sufficient to satisfy the most demanding of spiritual requirements.

Very few of the Buddha's discourses deal directly with the question of God. He was more interested in expounding a way to personal salvation, and to improving the quality of humankind in this world.

The argument which the Buddha most frequently uses is what is now called the "argument from evil" which in the Buddhist sense could be stated as the argument from dukkha (suffering or un-satisfactoriness). This states that the empirical fact of the existence of dukkha cannot be reconciled with the existence of an omnipotent and omniscient being who is also all good. The following verses from the Bhûridatta Jataka bring this out clearly:

* If the creator of the world entire
They call God, of every being be the Lord
Why does he order such misfortune
And not create concord?

If the creator of the world entire
They call God, of every being be the Lord
Why prevail deceit, lies and ignorance
And he such inequity and injustice create?

If the creator of the world entire
They call God, of every being be the Lord
Then an evil master is he, (O Aritta)
Knowing what's right did let wrong prevail!

(*The above was translated by Dr. V.A. Gunasekara)

 

[Storm]

Another reply with no answer.

 

[Willamena]

Fascination, like beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

No objection, there.


Edit: Guess you just have to have a reason to be fascinated.

 

[rojse]

If there is a God, what do you think it's probably like? What idea do you find most likely, based on your understanding of reality as it is? Why?

Please, no joke answers like the FSM.

ACK, I forgot polytheism for the poll! Is there any way to fix that?

Should he exist, I would say that he is both a sadist and a bully, so I would go with a maltheistic perspective on this.

 

[Storm]

Should he exist, I would say that he is both a sadist and a bully, so I would go with a maltheistic perspective on this.

Interesting. Why do you find this to be more probable than an uninvolved deity, or a more monistic approach like pantheism?

 

[rojse]

When I last believed in god, I was a panentheist, and so I voted, but pantheism is tempting, too, and I think Jay's "wholly unimaginable" probably trumps them all. Theism, maltheism, polytheism, and deism all seem to me as if they assume a personal god or gods, and personal gods are usually a little too anthropomorphic to seem believable.

Should we make the initial assumption that God exists, the personal testimony of many of the people on this forum that God personally cares about their welfare would be a compelling argument for a personally-involved God.

 

[rojse]

Interesting. Why do you find this to be more probable than an uninvolved deity, or a more monistic approach like pantheism?

With all of the disasters in the world, I cannot reconcile that with a deity that cares about us, unless he wants a lot of people to meet up with Him again quite early.

I have a couple of reasons why a God, should He exist, be personally involved. Firstly, most of the religions I am aware of (not that many, when I come to think of it) place people as an extremely important part of the religious experience. Many religions also claim that God created us, even. If he created us, I see it as a possibility that God would want to be involved with us.

Secondly, should I accept the existence of God as real, then I need to accept the testimonies of those that claim to have experienced him, like the blind man accepting the existence of colour. Most of those say that God is personally involved, because he decided to contact them, so I should be willing to accept their majority consensus, there.

Thirdly, we are the only group intelligent enough on this planet to come up with the idea of worship, and doing odd things such things as lugging around massive blocks of stone to build monuments such as idols and temples in praise of a deity. Surely that has to be worth some frubals from God, even should he not agree with this?

 

[Storm]

Cool, thanks for sharing.

Surely that has to be worth some frubals from God, even should he not agree with this?

HA! God may not frubal you, but I will!

 

[rojse]

Cool, thanks for sharing.

HA! God may not frubal you, but I will!

Mana from the heavens...:bow:

I will even give you a smiley face, and I don't give them out often.