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.
The Deist Buddhist …Are you one of these ?
Shoshin
No one in particularNowhere Special Veteran
If you’re Buddhist and ‘believe' in a creator god who set the ball rolling but does not intervene in worldly affairs then it's quite possible you are a Deist Buddhist (But I could be wrong) Deism
Personally, if my mind could stretch far enough for a need to 'believe' in a creator god (sans tangible "convincing" proof) then it would settle on the deist's wind up clockwork version of evolution...
Are you a Deist (clockwork) Buddhist ? (This is not a wind up 
)
0
Comments
I lean toward being a deist Buddhist, but secularism is mixed in there, too.
@vinlyn it's possible that there are many closeted Deists in the Buddhists closets
Well, here's the thing. Unlike a couple of people here on the site, I know I don't have all the answers to whether or not there's a God, if there is how does "he" actually conduct himself, how did the universe and evolution begin. So I'm somewhat flexible. But there's very little that I'm willing to discount based on what we do know.
There's a lot of silly stuff in all religions, but we do NOT KNOW what the truth is. WE only have our POVs.
The truth is 42...I thought everybody knew this
( it's the answer to life, the universe, and everything)
Deism is theism-lite. Claiming that God set the ball rolling is really one of those "God of the gaps" arguments, it takes advantage of the fact that science hasn't yet understood how the universe came into being. Modern cosmology is heading towards the idea that there has always been something, which removes the need for a first cause anyway. Though actually the first cause argument for God is full of holes, because cause-and-effect is a feature of space-time and we don't know whether space-time even existed prior to the big bang.
But who knows, maybe God did set the whole thing going, maybe God then got bored and dropped out of "universe management" and became a tree-hugging hippy, anything is possible.
Deism is one of many speculations. It's not the default speculation by any means. The more physicists penetrate the underpinnings of the cosmos, the less likely it appears there ever was an intelligent god or super-evolved alien that somehow kick-started the cosmos.
Richard Dawkins wrote "The Blind Watchmaker", a book that specifically addresses the unlikelihood of God's hand in the evolution of species, anyway (forget how life started in the first place). There are too many incongruities with a grand 'plan' set forth by a superintelligent being, too many things that show that a grand plan for speciation was implicit in the beginnings of it.
For the longest time I think "deist" described my perceptions of life and everything else. That it all could have in some way or another been instigated by a great Being is, in the very least, an excellent story. But so far as can be told, there doesn't appear to have been any NEED for such a Being.
Now panentheism . . . I've also heard that called Theism-lite. Or animism-lite. That the stuff of the universe itself has some kind of 'intention' . . . as far as speculations go, I like that one the best. I want a good reason to even entertain the notion of the universe having some kind of intention, it must make sense of some pretty basic things.
But it doesn't occupy my day or cause me to make certain decisions about anything, because all it is is speculation, really. Bedtime stories for grown ups
Yes, though it worries me how seriously some people take them.
Links? references?
Who here, has actually made that claim?
I personally don't recall ANYONE making those claims, so if this some presumption on your part, it's a it of a cheek, don't you think? Or is it just that other peoples' views don't accord with yours? because in a way, your comment says as much about your position on the matter, as your perception of theirs does.
This is a veiled criticism (not to call it an attack) and is both provocative and unwarranted.
Not so....we have one Truth that is indisputable, and which no other Religions seems to touch on with such proven veracity.
...Actually, to be precise, we have Four....
As for the rest, as stated before, it's not worth thinking about because it just leads to frustration, confusion and tying the mind in knots....
I don't care either way....
I'm actually surprised at your theme. @Shoshin.
Just more idle twaddle, in my own personal opinion.
if we're allowed to state those without too much criticism....
I do think the universe tends towards awakening though.
I would imagine that if a universal consciousness had first thoughts they would be more along the lines of "WTF" than "I AM".
But do Cod worshippers remove the scales from their eyes?
And do they end up in a good plaice?....
( cue more fish puns )
haddock know how you canned hake up such puns, they're octopussly a sign of a distwrassed mind...
I don't believe in God or a master creator. Perhaps such a being exists, I couldn't possibly know. But it seems unlikely to me. My investigation thus far has lead me to "no" so that is what I go with, but I remain open to other possibilities. I do, however, completely reject the typical Christian ideal of who/what God is and what his role is in the universe and our lives.
It's interesting to ponder the origins of the universe, and even the origins of life on earth and of humans. But I guess I don't care. The people most engaged in this debate seem to want to prove, or disprove, either their side (God exists and we are right and you are all wrong and going to hell!) or the other side (God doesn't exist, na-na-na-na-booboo! You were wrong and now your belief system is entirely a farce!). I don't see the point in trying to prove either of those points of view. They are all too busy trying to prove to someone else that what they believe is correct. They are both examples of groups of people who want to inflict their beliefs on others. For me, whether God created the universe and everything in it doesn't matter. Because to know so wouldn't change my beliefs. Nor would to know there was no creator involved. So, just really don't care.
Ahura Mazda? Tengri? Ra?
I am NOT one of them
@Shoshin
Like a detective novel.. I just look at who wins with the idea of a God when I think about tracking down who was probably responsible for creating him.
Oh look, there he is again, reflected on the screen of my computer monitor.
or maybe God wonders if he/her/it has a God too.
Does he/her/it wonder if it's real or imagined too?.
Does this just lead to an endless, ever widening circle of wonderers.
or going from the macro to the micro.....
Are there cells within my body, saying that there is a higher consciousness that intrinsically makes them all one and this God's name is Howard?
Does each cell look like a universe to it's composite bits who also struggle with where their God came from?
I wish anyone with a more credible idea of God, all the comfort they can stand.
I am seldom as unaware as when I am comfortable.
There's a lot of great stories out there.
I like some stories better than others, like most people.
@nevermind liked to remind us that they don't have to be true, they just have to be meaningful.
I guess I took some offence to the notion that my favourite stories might not be true.
But he was right. I'm sorry I didn't agree with him when I had the chance.
No
I've tried to make it work but a deity that started the ball rolling implies a bigger ball and so on and so forth.
A ball starting itself rolling implies it was already building the potential to roll. Or that it was already rolling but didn't know it.
If a Deist can think it makes sense that the universe itself has always been and is in a process of becoming ever more aware then I could possibly fit the label. Unless I actually have to "believe" instead of weighing sense, pound for pound.
I have yet to find a label that fits perfectly with my perspective. Even when I thought I had coined the term "omnitheist" or "omnitheism" I found others that thought they came up with it. We formed a forum and tried to agree on a definition. Had a logo and everything.
We never did settle our differences and the word is still up for grabs as far as I know.
Meh... I still use it when it suits me.
It's not like I bother having any faith in these things and would be an omnitheistic leaning agnostic, non-sectarian Buddhist.
Try saying that three times fast.
@ourself I just checked out a couple of youtube clips on "Omnitheism" it's an interesting philosophy...
Omnitheism is the belief that any and all gods exist on some level. Omnism is that all beliefs systems are equal.
Oh I see...thanks for the clarification
Are those who sit around and chant "Om" called Omists ? ( Could I have just coined a new term ??? )
No, and no.
Possibly. But I don't lose sleep over it anymore.
I think I might convert to Ignosticism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism
Not a Deist.
Not a terrific speller either. (Theng eu spulchuck!)
Maybe you will maybe you won't
There is no deist god-head figure in buddhism @shoshin... .. .
In which post did he say there was?
err...... this one @vinlyn; or at least she alluded to it; otherwise this thread has no substance - otherwise what is being discussed? Or am I so missing the point completely?
I look at it differently, @Anataman. I don't think he's saying that. What I think he is asking about is whether or not there are people in the forum (and I am one) who have combined aspects of 2 separate belief systems.
At best he is suggesting a venn diagram type of situation.
I get that, but what is the point of such a discussion? It's a bit like asking are you brown-skinned and blue-eyed and have a child who is white with hazel eyes... yet ask whether pink-skinned green-eyed people have something remarkable to offer - It doesn't take you anywhere, other than a cognitive space...I don't get it!
It's beginning to sound like I'm Guanyin, "She said" "He said" (It is "she" btw @vinlyn
)
It's simple ...read into it what you will, in fact you're both right...I was just asking a question...
@anataman is right in saying there is no god-head creator figure described in Buddhism
and
@vinlyn gave the right answer in saying he leans toward being a deist Buddhist
you should be a moderator @shoshin
What's the pay like ?
No pay, but many moderators gain the privilege of being a nag.
Well maybe if you treated me more like a thoroughbred, @vinlyn, that would happen less.
I said "many", not all.
on this site... @vinlyn, the many and the one are indistinguishable; aren't you @federica? Aunt fed... another questionable pun...
I have never in my born days seen the term 'Nag' applied to a male, let alone a male Moderator.
I doubt very much you would refer to either Linc or Jason as 'Nags'.
I don't know how many other forums you frequent, and how many of those are overseen by female Moderators.
The vast majority of forums I have been on in the past or concurrently -- in fact all but one that I can think of (besides this one) -- have been moderated by men. Being a "nag" is just someone who "nags". I just looked up "nag" on 10 different sites and not one mentioned the term as being related to sex.
I want to be a Nagarjurna or a Naga.
Nagarjuna, wot a gal! Taught by dragons!
http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/archives/approaching_buddhism/teachers/lineage_masters/biography_nagarjuna.html
The only thing I learned from a dragon is, if you sit on your gold it will lead to ... fire ...
... and now back to the hoarse race ...
Unfortunately, all the ones I found, gave examples of the word 'nag' in sentences beginning with, or containing the word 'she'. Not a single one used a masculine term, when referring to a nagging person.
Prepared fully to stand corrected, of course.
If it's important to you for women to wear the mantle of "nags", then that is your reality, not mine.
I have experienced as many male nags in my life as female nags. Most of my bosses have been good to great people. Two have been nags -- 1 male principal, 1 female assistant superintendent. I had one uncle who consistently nagged his wife, and one aunt who consistently nagged her husband. I worked with teachers who were nags, and the percentage of male to female pretty much followed the percentage of male to female teachers in the building. Nagging is a human attribute that many people in all cultures have. But that's my experience. Clearly, yours is different.
A nagging conversation about nagging. Oh dear!
Can both of you please take your 'nagging' issues elsewhere thankyou
Maybe we need a nagging thread....
Nope. We're both very happy here. Quit nagging
(It's quite common though by no means any form of fixed rule, that when a thread goes wildly off topic, that the original issue has either run its course, or interest has waned. In deep, philosophical threads, where intense and convoluted discussion happens, a thread is usually done with when either people have forgotten the original point entirely, and responses are unrecognisable so far removed from it as to be a completely separate issue, or members are just repeating a discursive cycle.)
Hope that helps.