Thank you atheists...

[blü 2]

That's quite purposely insulting way to dismiss someone's persona, isn't it.

The question was not intended to insult. It was intended to clarify by speaking frankly. If you have objective facts about god, I'm very interested to hear them, since I know of none. If there are none, why should we not say so?

I only hold onto what I can say from the experience. I only call it God because of tradition of the mystics. It's easily understandable to those who've experienced it, thus I use the term God.

You appear to be saying that god is an experience. Apart from describing the experience, is there anything else that can be said about god?

Emotionally I'd be most comfortable as an atheist like you are, isn't it the easiest?

I'm not technically an atheist, though I'm a non-believer. I think to be an atheist I'd need to know what a real god was, that is, what I'd be professing not to believe in. But I don't. All the information I have about god is about an imaginary being. I have no idea whether that's 'easier' than your position, or why it would matter. My concern is with the question, what's true in reality?

Of course it's also the most natural since you like most people have no experience of God or if my hunch is correct, most people will never experience it. So why would you care about it at all? You shouldn't, at least I think it would be terrible if you "got convinced" and became a theist due to a debate.

No, I haven't had an experience of god (though it's not from want of trying). And while I don't attribute this view to you, it's nonetheless the case that many Christians declare that god is universally and instantly accessible, the 'knock and it shall be opened' idea; and hand in glove with that, the idea that god is actively interested in talking to people. On the occasions I honestly made such attempts, nothing of the kind happened.

As for debate, one of the best ways I know to learn anything is debate, the idea of exposing one's ideas to criticism and so having them explored for errors. There's no better teacher than being wrong.

the more experience someone has, the less they typically like to give human qualities to physical phenomenon or make up pseudoscientific garbage out of some theory. Quantum mechanics being a prime example.

Are you saying that god is comparable to physical phenomena? If not, I'm not clear on your point here.

Who said that it matters if it has presence outside of our minds?

By my thinking, it can't be real if it doesn't exist in reality, doesn't have objective existence. And since I think that 'truth' is conformity with reality, it can't be true in any objective sense either.

Yes, our fundamental difference is that you're assuming a god must have a definite, humanlike persona that is available for casual interaction or casual understanding like somebody next door, but not something completely alien to our minds.

I take it that for something to be real, it must have objective existence. I therefore interpret the saying 'God is real' to mean that god has objective existence, which brings me back to the point that I've never heard a coherent description of a real god, such that if I met a real candidate I could tell whether it was a real god or not.

And (most say) thought, rationality and perhaps benevolence are qualities of god. But I have no idea whether that's true of real gods because I don't know what a real god could be.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Yes, I know that. You've made that very clear. I've been addressing your Buddhist beliefs.

Yes. The problem is assuming there is a connection between how abrahamics see supernatural and how eastern religious do. Ive never been raised in any type of religious atmosphere; so, I had to relate what The Dharma says to my experience and reality before taking it as fact. I notice some believe it more symbolic, others quite literal. Again, its different than abrahamics. You have to ask first.

A lot of supernatural beliefs are justified (meaning, they arent superstitions). The problem is you rather pigin hole all supernatural believes by whatever definition they use into one box; it doesnt work that way. Abrahamics have their nonsupersitious justification for their beliefs as for eastern faiths. You have to understand justification is not specific to it has to be nonsupernatural.

It just means there has to be some sense or proof thats reasonable about our beliefs. Our qualitifications for justification varies. Its not superstitious just youre looking at only one means to justify religious facts than the criteria we use to justifiy it. Abrahamics havr theirs. Eastern religions have theirs. Pagans have theirs and so forth.

What you are doing is making your own justificafion for religions not their own. Thats like arguing the nonesense of abrahamics trying to eat soup with a fork when they use a spoon. But you dont see it because youre stuck on your views.

Subjectivity does not work that way. Your views is just like abrahamics in logic. You judge people by your understandings not theirs. Its not a productive debate. Christians, Muslims/Jews, and pantheists believe differiently about god. Buddhists, Hindus, Pagans believe in deities differently. Thr former gods are objects or people of worship (some pantheist dont worship) and the latter just means supernatural beings. In Buddhism, they arent worshiped so it doesnt make them also gods as in Hinduism. Totally different.

Pantheism believes in god
They define god equal to all; the universe
Deities are supernatural beings; they are not the pantheist god
There are no deities in pantheism
By this context deities and gods are completely different

Unless you can prove god is a deity in paganism, according to your definition of pantheism, Im not buying it.

Some deities can be gods like in christianity. Others are not, like in some Paganisms, and in Buddhism. The differences are in context. God, as above too, has no strict definition. Jesus christ isnt a deity yet, trinitarians say he is god.

There are differences

Find the correct justificafions for their truth, you will be correct. Try to prove they are eating soup with a fork, youll be arguing for days. Subjectivity doesnt work that way.

Also, you gotta do some research. Ive read the suttas on my own so far. I practice at a temple. I received formal precepts at the temple. I do read the suttas often. Online id a good source such as suttacentral and accesstoinsight. Britanica, wiki, etc are not.

Get to know people before arguing against them so you be on the same foundation of understanding regardless if you disagree or not.

 

[Jumi]

The question was not intended to insult. It was intended to clarify by speaking frankly. If you have objective facts about god, I'm very interested to hear them, since I know of none. If there are none, why should we not say so?

But that wasn't what you said and neither was it implied in your post. It's also quite curious how you are demanding some "objective facts" since it implies you haven't given any thought to my posts.

You appear to be saying that god is an experience. Apart from describing the experience, is there anything else that can be said about god?

Describing an experience would definitely not be useful to you or me. I think you will agree.

I'm not technically an atheist, though I'm a non-believer. I think to be an atheist I'd need to know what a real god was, that is, what I'd be professing not to believe in. But I don't. All the information I have about god is about an imaginary being. I have no idea whether that's 'easier' than your position, or why it would matter. My concern is with the question, what's true in reality?

I'm not one to question the validity of your information and neither is it in my interest. But if that's it then why not just admit you're an atheist. You have no gods, isn't it that simple unless you have some emotional reason not to identify yourself as one?

Your concerns seem to be that things have to be well defined and you don't want there to be uncertainty, at least you seem to see it as weakness.

No, I haven't had an experience of god (though it's not from want of trying). And while I don't attribute this view to you, it's nonetheless the case that many Christians declare that god is universally and instantly accessible, the 'knock and it shall be opened' idea; and hand in glove with that, the idea that god is actively interested in talking to people. On the occasions I honestly made such attempts, nothing of the kind happened.

Their declarations are theirs and mine are mine and I find theirs just as annoying and pointless as you do, perhaps even more so since I still carry the perspective of someone who was an atheist for decades and now is someone from the mystical side of theism where "belief" is just as useless as it is for you.

I know you haven't experienced god and you most likely won't. Effort with methods like just wishing for it, praying or some hocus pocus in this is most likely an exercise in futility, just like trying to wish for a rock to move.

As for debate, one of the best ways I know to learn anything is debate, the idea of exposing one's ideas to criticism and so having them explored for errors. There's no better teacher than being wrong.

Debating is useful, most of all, for learning to debate. It can fix some rather simple errors in our minds, but is there any better way to learn than doing and experimenting?

Are you saying that god is comparable to physical phenomena? If not, I'm not clear on your point here.

I'm saying that people who aren't experts in things are more likely to talk bs about them, while people who have more experience are typically more cautious than give definitions which might contradict what they know.

By my thinking, it can't be real if it doesn't exist in reality, doesn't have objective existence. And since I think that 'truth' is conformity with reality, it can't be true in any objective sense either.

I can say that it is something that must exist objectively outside of "biological creatures", but what it is, I'm much more cautious to say. It could be something that is unique to humans or even other biological creatures that are capable of the experience. We know that there are only quite few humans comparatively who have had the experience and most often they've been persecuted for it as heretics by the various religions or countries like the Soviet Union.

I take it that for something to be real, it must have objective existence. I therefore interpret the saying 'God is real' to mean that god has objective existence, which brings me back to the point that I've never heard a coherent description of a real god, such that if I met a real candidate I could tell whether it was a real god or not.

If you found a rock and couldn't analyze it's chemical composition with your equipment and you lost it before you could get it to more sophisticated equipment and perhaps more skilled analyst, would you say the rock doesn't have objective existence? You don't have photos of it and the dimensions are just what your tactile and visual memories tell you.

And (most say) thought, rationality and perhaps benevolence are qualities of god. But I have no idea whether that's true of real gods because I don't know what a real god could be.

I don't know if most would say if these are qualities of a god. I'd say they are like saying that atoms have the quality of being individualists. If it's a question of defining god then yes, it's a problem. How could you (or anyone else without the gnosis) know who has anything truly worth saying about the matter? You wouldn't and no, it didn't make sense to me either. It took quite a bit effort to take on the "label" of monotheism because of the distaste for the more prevalent definitions outside of the mystic ones. You could say I've taken the label with reluctance.

 

[blü 2]

But that wasn't what you said and neither was it implied in your post. It's also quite curious how you are demanding some "objective facts" since it implies you haven't given any thought to my posts.

I thought I'd said that 'objective facts' were the significant difference in our views.

I read your replies with interest, and I appreciated the way you directly addressed my questions.

It's not correct that I understand your point of view, but I probably understand it as well as I'm going to.

So (unless you have any questions to me) perhaps this is the time to wish you well with your continued explorations and to thank you for the conversation.

 

[ecco]

I said I don't believe in superstition. All the beliefs in Buddhism are not irrational. I also said supernatural (not superstition) in Buddhism is not specific to The Dharma. Some do have what westerners call supernatural and others do not. It is not a western religion.

The link you posted to me refers to gods and dragons. I am aware we are discussing Buddhism and not Hinduism and not "western religions". However, words like superstitious and supernatural are universal. They are not limited to one part of the world or one type of religion. You believe in the supernatural. Belief in the supernatural is irrational and based on superstition.

You are comparing the christian view of the supernatural to buddhism (to The Dharma)
You cannot do that.

Yes, logically I can. Belief in the supernatural is belief in the supernatural, superstition is superstition, gods are gods, dragons are dragons. You may not like the comparisons, but that doesn't have any bearing.

Here is a better link about The Buddha being asked to teach by Brahma. I noticed its debated. I'd get the other link, the actual story, if you want to read it.

Here is a verse about Brahma in Buddhism

A better link, the other link, a better verse. Really? You want me to chase more?

Now you are just doing the same thing that some Christian and Muslim fundamentalists do. You make repeated posts pointing to "writings" that you expect me to read. Frankly, I would thought that by now you would have given it your best shot. I've chased your posted links. I've read your own words and the words in your posted links. I even went further and read articles linked in the linked articles. That's how I came across pages about Buddhist gods and planes of existence. That's how I came to an understanding of what Buddhism means by "rebirth".

So, I've done the research, beyond just your own posted links.

Essentially, there is no difference between Buddhism, Christianity and Islam. All believe in the supernatural - in one or more deities/gods/Gods. All promise a better earthly life for its believers. All hold out the promise of something beyond this worldly existence.

I'm not christian-minded; you're not arguing against a christian. You have toa sk me what I believe not argue over your already given assumptions.

I know you are not Christian minded, you've made that quite clear.
I'm not arguing, I'm having a discussion, responding to your comments and sometimes disagreeing. If you want to have discussions with people who do not disagree with your views there is a Buddhism DIR in this forum.

I never said I believed in superstitious things. That's all on you. I don't think you would meet any Buddhist that would call his or her belief superstitious. It's all based on reality. It is not a christianity like religion.

You never said you believed in superstitious things but the things you said you believed in show that you are indeed superstitious. Believing in gods, deities, dragons, planes of existence and multiple rebirths is not based on reality. It is based on superstition and the hope of something better in the great beyond.

Rebirth:
It just means once you get rid of attachments, you no longer go through multiple lives, but you actually die.

And then your rebirth brings you into a different plane of existence.

Problem is,
1. You cannot assume what I believe; you have to ask

You told me, with your writings and links, what you believe.

I know you were comparing abrahamics with eastern faiths. You cannot do that. Not even with Hinduism. You cant. The definitions are totally different.

Definitions of English words do not change. They have the same meaning regardless of what religion or culture they are describing. We call a dog a dog no matter where in the world he is.

You're trying to put Buddhism (and Hinduism) all in one pot just because there is the supernatural in it. Then call them irrational superstitions. You have to understand the religions not belittle their culture and traditions. That's silly.

Applying words like superstitious and supernatural to religious beliefs is just stating facts based on common English language word usage. If you feel that's belittling, then you might want to reevaluate your beliefs.

3. Edit. Also, I said The Buddha is a theist. He does believe god, gods, and goddesses exist. He feels its not necessary for enlightenment. Therefore, one doesnt need to believe in gods/goddesses to follow Buddhism. They do need to believe in rebirth.

But we're not discussing some unknown "one", we're discussing your beliefs.

 

[Jumi]

It's not correct that I understand your point of view, but I probably understand it as well as I'm going to.

That's fine, I felt like answering the questions, I got something out of it and if you got something out of it then all is good.

So (unless you have any questions to me) perhaps this is the time to wish you well with your continued explorations and to thank you for the conversation.

There isn't at the moment, but maybe we'll bump into each other in other discussions.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

But we're not discussing some unknown "one", we're discussing your beliefs.

I'll get to the rest in a bit.

What exactly are my beliefs?

Saying Im a Buddhist doesnt mean I believe in all things. A Nichiren Buddhist believes in a lot of Mahayana things but disregards therevada. Kadampa kind of put everything aside and have their own supernatural (not superstitious-irrational) beliefs. A lot of it. (Tibetan Buddhism has a boat load of supernatural beliefs. I cant say they are superstitious, though. I havent gone to the temple in awhile)

You may see these beliefs as irrational, they are not. But you gotta read my full posts. I know you cant address every point but those you dont address answers your questions and points. Just because you disagree doesnt make it illogical. Telling someone they are eating soup with a fork wont change the facts they are eating with a spoon.

Youre doing just as christians do, basically; you cant look outside your own worldview. If you cant look at it from multiple views and accept peoples justification for beliefs and rational that makes it not superstitious, you can disagree till the cows come home but without openness, its just repeatitive.

You also talk like a atheist talking to a christian or some sort. I wonder why antichristian atheist dont challenge Paganisms and Hinduism. Its always christianity.

Yet, you never asked me what I believe. For example, just because someone is a christian doesnt make them a trinitarian. Stuff like that. Youre generalizing.

That, and I gave you those links for more information rather than wiki. Its for your information.

Like I repeat:

The Buddha is a theist.

The Dharma has Indian cosmology.

It has supernatural elements. The core is not supernatural. It isnt irrational; thereby, not superstitious.

Not all supernatural things are irrational beliefs.

Its not christianity.

No. You cannot compare eastern and western religions.

Hinduist gods are totally different in definition than abrahamic; that, at least I know from Hindus in other threads I conversed in. Indian religions are not at all eureopean ones. Totally different.

You can compare all you want, but you keep looking at both through the same lens. You cant do that. You have to judge rational based on their criteria not your own. If it doesnt make sense, you question their logic within their own belief system. Which means you have to have a good well rounded knowledge of it. Like, I cant debate with Muslims and Pagans because I dont know their religions. Saying they are superstitious is illogical unless I know their beliefs more than copy and pasting from internet resources.

Unless you are open, its pointless. Youd be running in circles.

Edit: Like an atheist trying to prove the christian god doesnt exist when he doesnt to begin with. That, I find illogical.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The link you posted to me refers to gods and dragons

Yes. Im giving you information. Accesstoinsight has things directly from The Dharma. Other websites sum it up but I wouldnt trust them all. Especially wiki.

I am aware we are discussing Buddhism and not Hinduism and not "western religions". However, words like superstitious and supernatural are universal. They are not limited to one part of the world or one type of religion. You believe in the supernatural. Belief in the supernatural is irrational and based on superstition.

Some supernatural beliefs are irrational only because it doesnt make sense within its own belief system (aka, meaning a contradiction)

Some supernatural beliefs are rational within their own belief system. Take human sacrifice and jesus being god. That just means people get rid of their bad deeds and nature to develop one like christ example. Take the Eucharist and sacraments. The Eucharist just means a sacrificial meal to which all people come together, consume, and change their world view to a spiritual view together. They do so by verbally making a confirmation to change. Acceptence to be with like people with same goal. Make a physical gesture of that change of heart. Talk with people who can guide them through the process. These arent superstitions.

You MUST look pass the language. Its throwing you off.

Yes, logically I can. Belief in the supernatural is belief in the supernatural, superstition is superstition, gods are gods, dragons are dragons. You may not like the comparisons, but that doesn't have any bearing.

No. You cant. Ask a Hindu and Christian to define god. Got to go beyond all that. Hindus seem to do that better than atheists and christians though.

I dont make comparison because Im culturally sensitive.

Baring on who? You have to read my posts. Subjectivity doesnt work that way.

A better link, the other link, a better verse. Really? You want me to chase more?

Its for more information. Not all information is refuting your point.

Now you are just doing the same thing that some Christian and Muslim fundamentalists do. You make repeated posts pointing to "writings" that you expect me to read. Frankly, I would thought that by now you would have given it your best shot. I've chased your posted links. I've read your own words and the words in your posted links. I even went further and read articles linked in the linked articles. That's how I came across pages about Buddhist gods and planes of existence. That's how I came to an understanding of what Buddhism means by "rebirth".

I post them because you started posting dictionary definitions. If you want a good discussion, you have to at least read some of the actual beliefs first. The nice thing about accesstoinsight is it helps make sense of what The Buddha says. But there are over a thousand suttas.

If you are interested in any debate, you have to prepare yourself by understanding both side sides insofar to support you point by also poking holes in the other persons logic.

Christians just want you to read their scriptures and Poof! You believe in god. Life does not work that way. You have to be at least educated in the topic of debate beyond online posting.

So, I've done the research, beyond just your own posted links.

Essentially, there is no difference between Buddhism, Christianity and Islam. All believe in the supernatural - in one or more deities/gods/Gods. All promise a better earthly life for its believers. All hold out the promise of something beyond this worldly existence

Research would show you otherwise. Read the bible, quran, and suttas and you will see a huge difference in Context. Huge.

I know you are not Christian minded, you've made that quite clear.
I'm not arguing, I'm having a discussion, responding to your comments and sometimes disagreeing. If you want to have discussions with people who do not disagree with your views there is a Buddhism DIR in this forum.

You have to at least know something about what you are discussing first before even looking to the internet. Stuff I find on the internet, I already knew. Just, instead of finding my books and stuff, I just look it up directly online.

You never said you believed in superstitious things but the things you said you believed in show that you are indeed superstitious. Believing in gods, deities, dragons, planes of existence and multiple rebirths is not based on reality. It is based on superstition and the hope of something better in the great beyond.

Got to ask.

Im an atheist.

And then your rebirth brings you into a different plane of existence.

Thats what The Dharma says. (Dharma to Buddhist is not like The Bible not to christians) I know no buddhist who read over thousands of pages of The Dharma and believe all of it is literal. If you read a sutta (and understand it, ha) The Buddha talks totaly in a analogy on purpose.

Not at all like some christians who take it all literal.

You told me, with your writings and links, what you believe.

Im an atheist. You assume Im a theist. No. You have to ask.

Definitions of English words do not change. They have the same meaning regardless of what religion or culture they are describing. We call a dog a dog no matter where in the world he is.

Words like god have to be defined in the context of that said religion (pantheist vs trinitarian christian vs. Jewish vs Pagan for instance)

These religions are rational within their own belief systems.

Some do have supernatural, others do not. Then, like god, they differ in context too.

But we're not discussing some unknown "one", we're discussing your beliefs.

You dont know my beliefs. We seem to be discussing Buddhism in general.


Edited for spelling.

 

[`mud]

Amazing !
Everything on Earth comes from some kind of stuff.
Whether it be Dharma, Buddha, Brahma, God or other,
Stuff is here, enjoy it, when you're gone, you're gone.
See you in Nirvana or Brahman or Heaven or hell,
I'll probably won't be there, soooo...bye for forever.
~
unless there's a miracle....