Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Archbishop of Canterbury not sure about God.
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Or maybe the combination of Science, access to information (e.g. Internet), and all the fighting done in the name of (or "because of") religion. Atheists seem much more an effect than a cause (who would want to be an atheist when they're so discriminated against?). Atheist outreach seems to be to get people out of the closet or unite them (give them community), or catch the people who are already questioning and need answers, more than to try and de-convert people outright. They also fight for separation of church and state, which is actually supposed to be constitutional law here in the States, which I would get behind in any case.
Undoubtedly the hold of religion has become weaker, so it's easier for people to "come out" as atheists.
.
.
But here is somebody annoying to put you wayward Boodhists straight:
That kid really doesn't have many answers about what he believes. :-/ The guy needs a serious practitioner to set him straight about a few things (and the kid could use some guidance too)! Likely the only reason that's a clip is because the kid didn't know; if he knew, the clip would've been discarded. There may have been many Buddhists who gave good answers that the "Christian" couldn't do anything with.
They also fight for separation of church and state, which is actually supposed to be constitutional law here in the States, which I would get behind in any case.
Yes, you guys ( and gals ) really need to sort that one out!
There may have been many Buddhists who gave good answers that the "Christian" couldn't do anything with.
It gets worse! [video]
You're telling me! No one can read our Constitution and come to the conclusion that the Christian religion is somehow built into our government. The only founding document we have that even touches upon religion/spirituality is the Declaration of Independence, which mentions a "Creator" simply in stating that humans have inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It could've been stated that we take ourselves to have those rights, and we'll fight to protect them against anyone who says otherwise.
There's just no religion there, in fact there are safeguards against religion. I still don't understand the delusion some people have that the USA is a "Christian Nation". I'll agree there's plenty of Christians, but it's certainly a secular government in every identifiable way. All the issues with people trying to insert Christianity into government or public education are nuts! It doesn't need to be an "atheist" government, it just has to stay at arm's length from religion. There's no "national" religion or deity, and we're made up of many believers of different religions/faiths (and none).
I wonder if somebody's gotten on his case for advocating "outside-the-box" Buddhism, so he's trying to distance himself from that, and is trying to convince people he's all about "contemporary" or "modern" Western Buddhism. You know, he's gotten so much flack in Buddhist circles for his "new" Buddhism (a review of threads on this forum would be proof enough of the firestorm mere mention of his name can generate) that maybe he's trying to rebrand it a little.
That's not to say they haven't managed to make it look that way, with "In God We Trust" replacing "E. Pluribus Unum" ("Out of Many, One") on our currency. Now that was un-Constitutional and it makes it seem like anyone who doesn't believe in the Abrahamic deity is less American. It's divisive. It also gives people a foot in the door to argue for the "Christian Nation" position (especially politicians and legislators). I'm going to mumble to myself for a bit now, carry on. :grumble: :grumble: :grumble:
Correction: It was the national motto that was changed, which was then reflected more on the money (that it had been before, on some money, wasn't significant).
I wonder if somebody's gotten on his case for advocating "outside-the-box" Buddhism, so he's trying to distance himself from that, and is trying to convince people he's all about "contemporary" or "modern" Western Buddhism.
Possibly, but then secular Buddhism isn't the only "contemporary" or "modern" version of Buddhism around. Take Triratna, for example.
True. And there's Dharmapunx. I'm sure there are others. Well, whether Batchelor likes it or not, he's going to be known as a secular Buddhist, and IMO that's OK, because there's certainly a demand for that from people who can't quite swallow rebirth. Not to mention the whole cosmology, and all that. Honestly, I haven't run into any Western Buddhists in my online wanderings that do buy into the cosmology.
.
This place sure gets busy after midnight, USA time. I take it y'all are on a different side of the planet than us Yanks?
:facepalm: .
Or maybe on a different planet?
.
Wow, I never noticed that E Pluribus Unum had disappeared from the money! It's such a good slogan! Sure beats "In God We Trust". Gotta look that up and see why it happened.
I'm going to mumble to myself for a bit now, carry on. :grumble: :grumble: :grumble:
I think you should do an atheist road-show in the Bible Belt.
.
Ugh. It was largely a Cold War initiative. One of those "it seemed like a good idea at the time" type of things. Now we're stuck with it. Now that the Cold War is over (at least for the moment... :orange: .), I wonder if we could get E Pluribus Unum back. Such a cool motto. So descriptive.
In 1956, the nation was at a particularly tense time in the Cold War, and the United States wanted to distinguish itself from the Soviet Union, which promoted state atheism. As a result, the 84th Congress passed a joint resolution "declaring IN GOD WE TRUST the national motto of the United States." The law was signed by President Eisenhower on July 30, 1956, and the motto was progressively added to paper money over a period from 1957 to 1966. (Public Law 84-851) The United States Code at 36 U.S.C. § 302, now states: "'In God we trust' is the national motto."
Apparently E Pluribus Unum was never made official. Congress never voted on it.
Atheism's boring. I consider it a starting point; putting away childish things. It can be an ending point too, for those who fall away from faith, but if that's where you stop you're going to remain in Samsara! Buddhism is much more fun!
@Dakini Yeah it's messed up with the nation can be talked into when fear is running amok.
I wonder if we could get E Pluribus Unum back. Such a cool motto. So descriptive.
Vastly better than "In God we trust".
Fear? No, it was to identify the US as being the opposite of "godless Communism". Nobody expected godless Communism would go * poof * and disappear into thin air. :hair: .
@Dakini Yeah, fear. You don't see fear behind that? They were fearful of Communism, fearful of Atheism, fearful of displeasing God and fearful of the annihilation of nuclear weapons. They wanted God's protection; they turned to God, they "trusted" God and declared themselves against those Atheist Communist bastards... the entire Cold War era was fear-driven. Fear fear fear, all the way through. If not for fear, there'd have been no cause to change our entire nation's motto just because of what another nation was doing.
"Reds under the beds" was a common phrase back then? McCarthy witch hunts? General paranoia?
No way! They wanted God's protection? Who's "they"? I can't imagine. You're saying they needed it like a talisman to ward away the evil spirits.
But...whatever.
@Dakini Remember who writes history.
I'm just going to let it go at that, but there's a lot of misinformation to be had. The talisman thing is closer to the truth than Christians would like to believe. "In God We Trust" and "One Nation Under God" were both Cold War / Communism era changes.
That act of Congress in 1956 only put the motto on paper money. It had already been on coins since much earlier.
Since 1938, all United States coins bear the inscription. Later, the motto was found missing from the new design of the double-eagle gold coin and the eagle gold coin shortly after they appeared in 1907. In response to a general demand, Congress ordered it restored, and the Act of May 18, 1908, made it mandatory on all coins upon which it had previously appeared. IN GOD WE TRUST was not mandatory on the one-cent coin and five-cent coin. It could be placed on them by the Secretary or the Mint Director with the Secretary's approval.
The motto has been in continuous use on the one-cent coin since 1909, and on the ten-cent coin since 1916. It also has appeared on all gold coins and silver dollar coins, half-dollar coins, and quarter-dollar coins struck since July 1, 1908.
I think Wiki mentioned the 1956 legislation was passed during the McCarthy era. But the phrase was already on most coins from around 1908.
I missed out on those hide-under-the-desk school air raid drills. I was oblivious to the whole thing going on back then. I was in private school, and those schools didn't participate in the general hysteria. We had to say the Pledge of Allegiance every morning, though, with the "one nation, under God" part. Wasn't that added in the 1950's, too?
You guys are keeping me up way too late. It's been fun. Gotta go beddie-bye. Where's the snooze emoticon when you need it?
:wave: . G'night. It's been fun.
.
Yes, yes it was. Nothing more divisive than splitting "One Nation Indivisible" up by inserting a religion's deity. :screwy:
Those are the exact kind of church/state separation violations that Humanist, Atheist, and even religious organizations bring up and sue over.
Yes, yes it was. Nothing more divisive than dividing up "One Nation Indivisible" by inserting a religion's deity.
Yeah, that's what I was thinking. They took "E Pluribus Unum" off the coins during the Civil War. You'd think they'd want to keep it during such a divisive time. It doesn't make any sense. And I remember "One nation, indivisible", now. Good one. They shouldn't mess with success. Those are great phrases, and very appropriate for a U S of A. I think we should roll back all the God stuff, and reinstate those historic words.
Or maybe the gov't isn't into preserving the Union anymore? Maybe it doesn't care? California can secede?
@Dakini A roll-back would be great, then these legal battles would be done and we could move on. Also looking forward to the Supreme Court's ruling on same-sex marriage. Enough going on in the world without all this drama!
So silly to have laws against that.
I once heard the survivor of a nazi concentration camp tell how in the camp he had seen a young Orthodox Jewish man summon God to make himself visible and put an end to his people's ordeal on the spot.
A couple of minutes after putting his request, and in view that no God appeared, he said out loud: "God doesn't exist."
How believers can account for God's silence in extreme circumstances as this has always stumped me, so I find the Archbishop's doubt very legitimate.
I am surprised that, in view of his position, he dared in all honesty express his doubt.
That's no different from the school of thought of many Buddhists though. I've heard a monk on more than one occasion, during a meditation class, say "Ask the Buddha and he will help you!"
Much also depends on what our concept of God is. If someone believes he's a Magic Man who lives in the sky, who helps some and ignores others on a seemingly random basis, then they might be in trouble when the poo hits the fan and he doesn't appear.
But seriously, how many Buddhists could walk into a gas chamber, with their wife and children, and feel all 'zen' about it? And if the answer was 'very few' (which I suspect would be close to the truth), does that invalidate Buddhism?
Well, most people I know have a rather anthropomorphic view of God, as a being who loves you, protects you, and answers to your every prayer.
That's no different from the school of thought of many Buddhists though. I've heard a monk on more than one occasion, during a meditation class, say "Ask the Buddha and he will help you!"
This is interesting. Because that's not at all what the Buddha taught. I know that many Asian Buddhists have this belief that the Buddha will answer prayers, but this is why Western Buddhists lean more toward the "secular" end of the spectrum, even if they believe in rebirth. Even technically non-secular Buddhists in the West are "secular" by comparison to most Asian Buddhists.
This is funny, from "The Onion", about where is God:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/reclusive-deity-hasnt-written-a-new-book-in-2000-y,36936/
"Archbishop of Canterbury not sure about God"
Is anyone.
Apparently some people are sure.
Smug. Just something I've been thinking about as I have been reading through this thread over the past few days. Plenty of it to go around, and I include myself.
I don't think people being sure of God is the problem. I think it's a combination of being unable to prove it, and that others are sure about different gods (and likewise unable to prove it). All of this surety is disturbing, and it leads to conflict. We have to meet on another level, one where we can admit to being unsure and possibly being wrong... but what religions teach people to do that about their own articles of faith?
People in general seem averse to "I don't know", and that's prior to being told they must believe or will face dire consequences.
Smugness is relative. This guy is really smug:
I do!
@SpinyNorman What I mean is it wouldn't be a problem on its own. It wouldn't be a problem if it were actually true and proven. It's only a problem because others believe differently and no one can prove anything. Everyone then clings to their beliefs and fights over them. That's the world we live in; a very childish world, hopefully growing up (and quickly).
That's why I think atheism or better yet "Cartesian doubt", an experiment in "putting down" all traditional/religious beliefs and then seeing what's knowable, is the first step toward wisdom. At least admitting that we could be wrong is the first step toward peace. Some religions have this idea embedded in them to wipe out or convert all dissenters; not the solution I'd choose. We need to raise our humanity to another level.
People who are too sure about the existence of God come up with all sorts of preposterous arguments to explain God's failure to appear on the stage.
If God exists and loves us so much, why does suffering exist? Why do guiltless children die every day? Why do people get killed in wars?
If it is us men creating all this mess (as my Christian friends will say), what do we need a God for if he can't stop all this from happening?
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" — 'the Epicurean paradox'.
Yes - war, famine, genocide, cancer, etc. It suggests that either God doesn't care or that God is powerless to intervene - and in either case, what use is he/she?
Then why call him God?" — 'the Epicurean paradox'.
Yes, it's all a bit of a pickle.
.
Only if you believe!
I'm getting tired of ripping on Christians though, it's too easy and there's no one to present arguments against any of this. I'm going to give it a rest.
The image above about "the real truth" is my primary bit of fun.
That cartoon says it all.
Now, will one of you PROVE rebirth. Karma. Or even that Buddha actually said all the things in all the Buddhist scriptures?
Wake me when you do.
I've turned into Sleeping Beauty waiting for an argument to prove me the existence of God.
Just wonder if the prince will still want to kiss me by the time an argument appears, I'll be so wrinkled -if ever.
So let's say it's all nonsense - fine. The difference is that a Buddhist doesn't have to believe in rebirth to practice. Belief in God is pretty central for most Christians.
Anyway, returning to the OP I think it was quite brave of the Archbishop to make these comments, they can't have made him very popular with the traditionalists in the Church of England.