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.
@Kerome said:
For a long time it has been a great trick of the Christians to switch the burden of proof, to ask people to have faith and to ask non-believers to supply proof that it wasn’t so, when in fact the burden of proof is the other way around, they are asking you to believe in their God.
I personally believe the burden of proof should lay on whoever makes a claim - atheist or theist.
I think you’ll find very few atheists or agnostics try to make a claim on you, as opposed to some sects like the Jehovah’s Witnesses who seem to enjoy going door to door. Instead it’s up to you to seek the debate and be open to argument, for example by participating in this thread
But most people do seek to defend their beliefs, even if just by saying “this is my belief”. Relatively few people are ever won over by argument, it seems to be a kind of internal process of thoughts evolving over time if people ever change their beliefs.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
At least Carl Sagan got a few mentions in the thread so I still count it as a good one.
@Kerome said:
I think you’ll find very few atheists or agnostics try to make a claim on you, as opposed to some sects like the Jehovah’s Witnesses who seem to enjoy going door to door.
I've had my fair share of angry neo-atheists approach me (a few at my last job for instance) and "challenge" me on my beliefs, then accuse me of cowardice or being a "sheeple" because I refuse to engage.
ETA the irony being that twice I was belittled for practising Buddhism. That made me laugh my arse off actually.
Instead it’s up to you to seek the debate and be open to argument, for example by participating in this thread
I'm not seeking a debate by sharing my opinion, but you're halfway to confirming my previous experiences by stating that
When a theist says there is a god, he is basically making an assertion about something. So it's natural that you demand evidence to substantiate such assertions.
When an atheist says there is no god, he is stating his conclusions based on the lack of evidence of a god.
The two scenarios are entirely different.
2
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited August 2018
No, they're not.
@techie said: When a theist says there is a god, he is basically making an assertion about something. So it's natural that you demand evidence to substantiate such assertions.
When an atheist says there is no god, he is stating his conclusions based on the lack of evidence of a god.
An atheist still needs to back up his conclusion. The onus of PROOF that there IS no God, also requires substantiation.
It's a stalemate situation, not a checkmate one.
4
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
I would say that there is a difference between not accepting a truth claim on insufficient evidence and taking the definitive position that said truth claim is untrue based on insufficient evidence.
2
JeroenLuminous beings are we, not this crude matterNetherlandsVeteran
@techie said: When a theist says there is a god, he is basically making an assertion about something. So it's natural that you demand evidence to substantiate such assertions.
When an atheist says there is no god, he is stating his conclusions based on the lack of evidence of a god.
An atheist still needs to back up his conclusion. The onus of PROOF that there IS no God, also requires substantiation.
It's a stalemate situation, not a checkmate one.
But the believer introduced the idea of god. If you are saying that “there is no god” also requires proof, then we’re at a stalemate where any and all imaginary things can be claimed as true and nothing can be disproven, which is also patently absurd.
I rather think @Techie had it right when he said that when an atheist says there is no god, he is merely stating his conclusions on the lack of evidence from the side that introduced the extraordinary concept of god.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
@Kerome said: But the believer introduced the idea of god. If you are saying that “there is no god” also requires proof, then we’re at a stalemate
Yes, that's what I said...
... where any and all imaginary things can be claimed as true and nothing can be disproven, which is also patently absurd.
Not so. Where any and all UNSEEN things cannot be claimed as true and nothing can be proven, because they are not evident. Learn to distinguish between that which is proven as imaginary and that which is believed yet unseen. Subtle it may be, but there IS a difference.
I rather think @Techie had it right when he said that when an atheist says there is no god, he is merely stating his conclusions on the lack of evidence from the side that introduced the extraordinary concept of god.
You think he's right because you agree that God is imaginary, which merely displays how narrow, imprinted, and preconceived your notion of God, is.
3
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
@techie said: When a theist says there is a god, he is basically making an assertion about something. So it's natural that you demand evidence to substantiate such assertions.
When an atheist says there is no god, he is stating his conclusions based on the lack of evidence of a god.
An atheist still needs to back up his conclusion. The onus of PROOF that there IS no God, also requires substantiation.
It's a stalemate situation, not a checkmate one.
But the believer introduced the idea of god. If you are saying that “there is no god” also requires proof, then we’re at a stalemate where any and all imaginary things can be claimed as true and nothing can be disproven, which is also patently absurd.
I rather think @Techie had it right when he said that when an atheist says there is no god, he is merely stating his conclusions on the lack of evidence from the side that introduced the extraordinary concept of god.
If a believer introduces the idea of god, you can say you don't believe their claim based on a lack of evidence, FULL STOP. It's okay not to know, not knowing means you will remain curious and open to possibilities. Saying there is no god is an unnecessary and unjustified, even if %99.99 probable, position.
2
JeroenLuminous beings are we, not this crude matterNetherlandsVeteran
edited August 2018
@federica said:
You think he's right because you agree that God is imaginary, which merely displays how narrow, imprinted, and preconceived your notion of God, is.
There are some concepts of God that I’m more sympathetic to — Spinoza’s God, god as nature, or the pantheistic god, or god as the prime mover of the Big Bang. There are some concepts which do fit with science. But none of them I would see as particularly likely, I’m afraid.
@person said:
If a believer introduces the idea of god, you can say you don't believe their claim based on a lack of evidence, FULL STOP. It's okay not to know, not knowing means you will remain curious and open to possibilities.
I think if a Christian is allowed to say, I know there is a god, and plenty of them do, then it’s perfectly fair for an atheist to say, I know there isn’t a god. Neither position can categorically be proven so we are still just talking about personal beliefs.
But I’m willing to discuss what makes me feel the atheist position makes more sense, it just seems like a preponderance of likelihoods.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
As I said, narrow, imprinted, preconceived. You still confine God to those descriptions, but the God you describe and what God is, are distictly different.
0
JeroenLuminous beings are we, not this crude matterNetherlandsVeteran
edited August 2018
@federica said:
As I said, narrow, imprinted, preconceived. You still confine God to those descriptions, but the God you describe and what God is, are distictly different.
Are you then going to provide us with a description of god which owes nothing to lore and philosophy?
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited August 2018
@techie said:
When a theist says there is a god, he is basically making an assertion about something. So it's natural that you demand evidence to substantiate such assertions.
When an atheist says there is no god, he is stating his conclusions based on the lack of evidence of a god.
The two scenarios are entirely different.
You are correct but their conclusions are conjecture because we don't have all the information.
The theist and atheist are on the same shakey ground when they assert their opinion as fact. A completely honest theist knows they could be wrong. That's what faith is. On the other hand the honest atheist knows that there is a chance at least one theist could be right.
We are all welcome to our own opinions but not our own facts.
If we can be completely honest with ourselves we can admit that we just don't know. After all... who else are we fooling?
It would seem for the believers the idea/concept of a God or gods can ( more often than not ) mean different things to different believers ....Like 6 blind people trying to describe an elephant ...
@Vimalajāti said:
The view that one sentient being dreams up, thinks up, or creates, the world, is 有神論的決定論, महेश्वरस्यनिर्माणदृष्टि, maheśvarasyanirmāṇadṛṣṭi, or god's-creation-view.
Ironically, though, the above view is essentially what many Buddhists believe, when they say things like "all is mind".
They do?
"All is mind" implies a conscious beginning?
I'm not so sure.
In the view of god's creation, there need not be a beginning ex nihilo, many of the Śaivists and Viṣṇaivists that Buddhists of the past debated with, all of them ardent theists and proponents of god's active upholding and dynamic in-the-present creation of the world, did not believe in a chronological ex nihilo creation.
I dig what you're saying but "all is mind" still doesn't imply a creator deity as far as I can tell. It doesn't even imply primordial volition which we would need for a deity to make everything.
Certainly, not necessarily. When I referred to these kinds of Buddhisms "deifying the perceiver" that is my own language that I am putting on them. Unless we are talking about tantra, then practitioners are often uncontroversially believed to be deity/deities.
For instance, in Buddhism, "all [can be] mind" for both a god and a human. For both of them, all is mind, and the god is not a human and the human is not a god.
Yet, to me, when a Buddhist teacher tells me that I make all of this up, you, the other people in this conversation, my mother, the sky, Buddhadharma, when Buddhist teachers tell me that there are no external objects.
I just personally see this as a kind of deification, in much the same way that a Christian might see the creation of a false idol to be a "deification" of mere wood and stone.
If I am literally making all of this up in my head, then not only am I like a god who delights in his creations, but I am like the Buddha himself, because "I" made up Buddhism, entirely.
Its just not a good dharma path for me. Apologies if I came across as too universalist, trying to argue that my opinions are facts that must be agreed with. It wasn't my intention.
Many Yogācāra teachers also reject the view that there are definitely no external objects.
2
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
@Vimalajāti said:
The view that one sentient being dreams up, thinks up, or creates, the world, is 有神論的決定論, महेश्वरस्यनिर्माणदृष्टि, maheśvarasyanirmāṇadṛṣṭi, or god's-creation-view.
Ironically, though, the above view is essentially what many Buddhists believe, when they say things like "all is mind".
They do?
"All is mind" implies a conscious beginning?
I'm not so sure.
In the view of god's creation, there need not be a beginning ex nihilo, many of the Śaivists and Viṣṇaivists that Buddhists of the past debated with, all of them ardent theists and proponents of god's active upholding and dynamic in-the-present creation of the world, did not believe in a chronological ex nihilo creation.
I dig what you're saying but "all is mind" still doesn't imply a creator deity as far as I can tell. It doesn't even imply primordial volition which we would need for a deity to make everything.
Certainly, not necessarily. When I referred to these kinds of Buddhisms "deifying the perceiver" that is my own language that I am putting on them. Unless we are talking about tantra, then practitioners are often uncontroversially believed to be deity/deities.
For instance, in Buddhism, "all [can be] mind" for both a god and a human. For both of them, all is mind, and the god is not a human and the human is not a god.
Yet, to me, when a Buddhist teacher tells me that I make all of this up, you, the other people in this conversation, my mother, the sky, Buddhadharma, when Buddhist teachers tell me that there are no external objects.
I just personally see this as a kind of deification, in much the same way that a Christian might see the creation of a false idol to be a "deification" of mere wood and stone.
If I am literally making all of this up in my head, then not only am I like a god who delights in his creations, but I am like the Buddha himself, because "I" made up Buddhism, entirely.
Its just not a good dharma path for me. Apologies if I came across as too universalist, trying to argue that my opinions are facts that must be agreed with. It wasn't my intention.
Many Yogācāra teachers also reject the view that there are definitely no external objects.
I used to attend a monastery where former Asian religion professor and author Roger Jackson taught once a month. When this topic came up he would say that the current generally accepted view, or at least the way the Gelug school of TB interprets it, is like you describe where the mind essentially creates all of reality. But he says something to the effect that other people make the argument that another interpretation would be something different, where the external world exists objectively but we can only ever perceive it with a mind, so in that sense "all is mind" is a perceptual interpretation.
@person said:But he says something to the effect that other people make the argument that another interpretation would be something different, where the external world exists objectively but we can only ever perceive it with a mind, so in that sense "all is mind" is a perceptual interpretation.
Oh absolutely. The "mind-only" school has many ways of being "mind-only". Some of them I can understand and some I cannot connect with.
@person, I think even our world of the senses is created by our brain based on the sense data. I think my psychology introduction text I found somewhere corroborate that. Also can explain things like optical illusions of certain arrangements pulsing when not really moving or even sensory hallucinations of some people.
There is an 'agreed upon world' so if I am standing next to you or someone we might both agree 'yes there is a tree there' or 'yes there is a maple tree' or 'yes there is a tall maple tree that has been here a long time'. So both the sense can be agreed upon and the ideas.
For the 'objective' non-sensed (by a being) world, does this world exist in the three times of past, present, and future? Does it exist in form, name, or mind? Isn't a 'being' necessary to decide if it is past, present, or future relative to that being? Does it have to be in the present to exist? If not how about infinite 'existing' worlds that were once upon a time or in the future (of no beings whatsoever and however haha) and thus they are objective but not in present**. Kind of interesting line of thought. Of course also common sense: would the world disappear if "I" disappear?
**and 'existent' non-sensed worlds some with non-sentient flying green monkeys that crap purple horse shoes? (jokingly back on the topic of the logic in determining the existence of things we have no evidence of)
2
JeroenLuminous beings are we, not this crude matterNetherlandsVeteran
@Vimalajāti said:
The view that one sentient being dreams up, thinks up, or creates, the world, is 有神論的決定論, महेश्वरस्यनिर्माणदृष्टि, maheśvarasyanirmāṇadṛṣṭi, or god's-creation-view.
Ironically, though, the above view is essentially what many Buddhists believe, when they say things like "all is mind".
They do?
"All is mind" implies a conscious beginning?
I'm not so sure.
In the view of god's creation, there need not be a beginning ex nihilo, many of the Śaivists and Viṣṇaivists that Buddhists of the past debated with, all of them ardent theists and proponents of god's active upholding and dynamic in-the-present creation of the world, did not believe in a chronological ex nihilo creation.
If I am literally making all of this up in my head, then not only am I like a god who delights in his creations, but I am like the Buddha himself, because "I" made up Buddhism, entirely.
Besides which, if the mind was creating everything, then what about unpleasant events? Why would you imagine having to leave your own home, or ISIS fighters cutting off people’s heads, or an unpleasantly large demand for income tax? It seems unreasonable for the mind to create shocking and unpleasant events...
It seems unlikely that we are all just making this up, although I have wondered whether living creatures are not just some form of spiritual being plugged into a physical matrix which mediates our connections? Whether the mind presents a view on the data that is available to it, which in its true form is very different? But again, Occam’s Razor says the physical universe is very likely exactly the way it looks.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
@federica said:
As I said, narrow, imprinted, preconceived. You still confine God to those descriptions, but the God you describe and what God is, are distictly different.
Are you then going to provide us with a description of god which owes nothing to lore and philosophy?
Of course not. Even the term 'God' narrows the view. To describe God confines the sheer enormity what such an essence is. You still seem to view it as something outside of yourself, and you have erected a separation
How sadly confining your perception is...
0
JeroenLuminous beings are we, not this crude matterNetherlandsVeteran
@federica said:
As I said, narrow, imprinted, preconceived. You still confine God to those descriptions, but the God you describe and what God is, are distictly different.
Are you then going to provide us with a description of god which owes nothing to lore and philosophy?
Of course not. Even the term 'God' narrows the view. To describe God confines the sheer enormity what such an essence is. You still seem to view it as something outside of yourself, and you have erected a separation
How sadly confining your perception is...
We use language to communicate, we talk about ‘god’ to have some kind of defined concept. If you choose to step outside that with your definition, then you’ve left the boundaries of the discussion...
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@federica said:
As I said, narrow, imprinted, preconceived. You still confine God to those descriptions, but the God you describe and what God is, are distictly different.
Are you then going to provide us with a description of god which owes nothing to lore and philosophy?
Of course not. Even the term 'God' narrows the view. To describe God confines the sheer enormity what such an essence is. You still seem to view it as something outside of yourself, and you have erected a separation
How sadly confining your perception is...
We use language to communicate, we talk about ‘god’ to have some kind of defined concept. If you choose to step outside that with your definition, then you’ve left the boundaries of the discussion...
The problem with that is that God is a proper name for the Biblical character that supposedly began the world. To dismiss that one idea of what a universal consciousness may be like and so close the door on all other possible ways could be considered short sighted.
I personally don't see how a completely formed personality could exist without the need to grow into who it is but there are some views where the deity and the world (universe) are one. Where the deity learns as it goes and isn't even aware of itself except through beings like us that can distinguish between that which is not separate.
An atheistic world view seems to me to close the mind to concepts that maybe havnt even been presented yet.
0
JeroenLuminous beings are we, not this crude matterNetherlandsVeteran
@federica said:
As I said, narrow, imprinted, preconceived. You still confine God to those descriptions, but the God you describe and what God is, are distictly different.
Are you then going to provide us with a description of god which owes nothing to lore and philosophy?
Of course not. Even the term 'God' narrows the view. To describe God confines the sheer enormity what such an essence is. You still seem to view it as something outside of yourself, and you have erected a separation
How sadly confining your perception is...
We use language to communicate, we talk about ‘god’ to have some kind of defined concept. If you choose to step outside that with your definition, then you’ve left the boundaries of the discussion...
The problem with that is that God is a proper name for the Biblical character that supposedly began the world.
Well there is ‘God’ and then there is ‘god’... but we are primarily concerned with the concept of god as defined by Christianity, I think, since that’s the dominant case extant in the world.
To dismiss that one idea of what a universal consciousness may be like and so close the door on all other possible ways could be considered short sighted.
There are instances where the Buddha also said it is not beneficial to speculate further, if anything I think he was quite conservative by only listing a few issues in the Acintita Sutta. But then he also had the difficulty of not being aware of the multitude of strange things men would dream up.
Say you thought about it for a few years and came up with a definitive list, what would it gain you or others? You might have created a possibly-interesting work of the imagination, which might prove useful to evangelists.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
@Kerome the problem is that you persist in insisting I view God as you do
Until such a point that you permit an expansion and diversion from what you describe as the conventional image, there is nothing I can say that will give you cause to pause and see things in a more liberated and less blinkered and subjective way.
There are instances where the Buddha also said it is not beneficial to speculate further, if anything I think he was quite conservative by only listing a few issues in the Acintita Sutta. But then he also had the difficulty of not being aware of the multitude of strange things men would dream up.
Say you thought about it for a few years and came up with a definitive list, what would it gain you or others? You might have created a possibly-interesting work of the imagination, which might prove useful to evangelists.
Okay, I just read that. Where did it mention god?
0
JeroenLuminous beings are we, not this crude matterNetherlandsVeteran
@federica said: @Kerome the problem is that you persist in insisting I view God as you do
Until such a point that you permit an expansion and diversion from what you describe as the conventional image, there is nothing I can say that will give you cause to pause and see things in a more liberated and less blinkered and subjective way.
Consider emptying that cup of yours...
I’ve come across quite a few concepts of god and am totally prepared to consider more. But I’ve not yet found one that is likely or for which there is any evidence.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
@Jeffrey said: @person, I think even our world of the senses is created by our brain based on the sense data. I think my psychology introduction text I found somewhere corroborate that. Also can explain things like optical illusions of certain arrangements pulsing when not really moving or even sensory hallucinations of some people.
There is an 'agreed upon world' so if I am standing next to you or someone we might both agree 'yes there is a tree there' or 'yes there is a maple tree' or 'yes there is a tall maple tree that has been here a long time'. So both the sense can be agreed upon and the ideas.
For the 'objective' non-sensed (by a being) world, does this world exist in the three times of past, present, and future? Does it exist in form, name, or mind? Isn't a 'being' necessary to decide if it is past, present, or future relative to that being? Does it have to be in the present to exist? If not how about infinite 'existing' worlds that were once upon a time or in the future (of no beings whatsoever and however haha) and thus they are objective but not in present**. Kind of interesting line of thought. Of course also common sense: would the world disappear if "I" disappear?
**and 'existent' non-sensed worlds some with non-sentient flying green monkeys that crap purple horse shoes? (jokingly back on the topic of the logic in determining the existence of things we have no evidence of)
I would say that it does take a conscious mind to give definition and meaning to the objective world. But I do think an objective world exists apart from conscious beings.
Take the formation of the solar system and the earth we live on. We can use our understanding of cause and effect in the present to trace back into the past a world that existed prior to the existence of sentient beings in it. Of course we can't really say for sure, it is still possible that the world only came into existence 5 minutes ago with all our memories and physical laws in place.
Projecting out into the future I can imagine a world where non sentient robots eliminate all sentient life and the objective world doesn't simply cease to be, but the robots continue to replicate and proliferate in a meaningless, dead world.
According to an esoteric Sufi tradition, the word Allâh is composed of the article al, and lâh, one of the interpretations of which is “nothing.” Thus the actual word Allâh means “the Nothing.”
Projecting out into the future I can imagine a world where non sentient robots eliminate all sentient life and the objective world doesn't simply cease to be, but the robots continue to replicate and proliferate in a meaningless, dead world.
And would be 'future' relative to me and you and our civilization and could be 'past' relative to a new intelligent life that with archaeology found the remains of the zombie robots. And maybe 'present' either to 'true' sentient robots but to 'me' it is 'unknown' if the robots are sentient or the behavioral zombies that some philosophers talk about.
And as I alluded there could be 100s of other worlds with different physical arrangements or similar but no sentient life so 'not this world (elsewhere)' relative to us or 'not this time (far past or future....elsetime)' relative to us beings.
Another fun idea is a consciousness that isn't I figure adaptive to survival but for some reason the consciousness is going backwards in time.
1
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
@federica said:
As I said, narrow, imprinted, preconceived. You still confine God to those descriptions, but the God you describe and what God is, are distictly different.
Are you then going to provide us with a description of god which owes nothing to lore and philosophy?
Of course not. Even the term 'God' narrows the view. To describe God confines the sheer enormity what such an essence is. You still seem to view it as something outside of yourself, and you have erected a separation
How sadly confining your perception is...
We use language to communicate, we talk about ‘god’ to have some kind of defined concept. If you choose to step outside that with your definition, then you’ve left the boundaries of the discussion...
@federica said: @Kerome the problem is that you persist in insisting I view God as you do
Until such a point that you permit an expansion and diversion from what you describe as the conventional image, there is nothing I can say that will give you cause to pause and see things in a more liberated and less blinkered and subjective way.
Consider emptying that cup of yours...
I’ve come across quite a few concepts of god and am totally prepared to consider more. But I’ve not yet found one that is likely or for which there is any evidence.
I am not suggesting you continue to rely on anything you have already come across; I am suggesting you have failed to look beyond the scope of your hitherto constrictive list of Idols.
God is so, so much more than anything you have ever encountered. Including God.
@federica said:
As I said, narrow, imprinted, preconceived. You still confine God to those descriptions, but the God you describe and what God is, are distictly different.
Are you then going to provide us with a description of god which owes nothing to lore and philosophy?
Of course not. Even the term 'God' narrows the view. To describe God confines the sheer enormity what such an essence is. You still seem to view it as something outside of yourself, and you have erected a separation
How sadly confining your perception is...
We use language to communicate, we talk about ‘god’ to have some kind of defined concept. If you choose to step outside that with your definition, then you’ve left the boundaries of the discussion...
@federica said: @Kerome the problem is that you persist in insisting I view God as you do
Until such a point that you permit an expansion and diversion from what you describe as the conventional image, there is nothing I can say that will give you cause to pause and see things in a more liberated and less blinkered and subjective way.
Consider emptying that cup of yours...
I’ve come across quite a few concepts of god and am totally prepared to consider more. But I’ve not yet found one that is likely or for which there is any evidence.
I am not suggesting you continue to rely on anything you have already come across; I am suggesting you have failed to look beyond the scope of your hitherto constrictive list of Idols.
God is so, so much more than anything you have ever encountered. Including God.
im going to sound crazy.but yeah god or a higher power is awemazing. it's a daoified personal thing. cant convince others of my reality.but the closes term for buddhist is the dharmakaya.energy-karma-matter function.
有物混成，先天地生。寂兮寥兮，獨立不改，周行而不殆，可以為天下母。
There is Being, undefined yet complete, originating before heaven and the world. How still it is, how formless, it is standing alone, and is undergoing no change, reaching everywhere and not endangered, it is regarded as all things' mother.
吾不知其名，字之曰道，強為之名曰大。
I do not know its name, and I give it the designation of the way [things are]. Making an effort to give it a name, I call it "Great."
大曰逝，逝曰遠，遠曰反。故道大，天大，地大，王亦大。域中有四大，而王居其一焉。
The "Great," it passes on, passing on, it becomes remote, and having become remote, it returns. Therefore the way [things are] is the "Great"; heaven is the "Great"; the world is the "Great"; and the sage is also the "Great". In the universe there are four that are this "Great", and the sage is one of them.
人法地，地法天，天法道，道法自然。
Man's dharma is worldly; the world's dharma is heavenly; heaven's dharma is the way [things are], and the dharma of the way [things are] is found in its being what it is.
有物混成，先天地生。寂兮寥兮，獨立不改，周行而不殆，可以為天下母。
There is Being, undefined yet complete, originating before heaven and the world. How still it is, how formless, it is standing alone, and is undergoing no change, reaching everywhere and in no danger, it is regarded as all things' mother.
吾不知其名，字之曰道，強為之名曰大。
I do not know its name, and I give it the designation of the way [things are]. Making an effort to give it a name, I call it "Great."
大曰逝，逝曰遠，遠曰反。故道大，天大，地大，王亦大。域中有四大，而王居其一焉。
The "Great," it passes on, passing on, it becomes remote, and having become remote, it returns. Therefore the way [things are] is the "Great"; heaven is the "Great"; the world is the "Great"; and the sage is also the "Great". In the universe there are four that are this "Great", and the sage is one of them.
人法地，地法天，天法道，道法自然。
Man's dharma is worldly; the world's dharma is heavenly; heaven's dharma is the way [things are], and the dharma of the way [things are] is found in its being what it is.
(Dàodéjīng 25)
hi vimalajati.is it the primordial being?not sure?but definitely a higher power.
every morning i commune with this higher power.it's one of mydeist practice.she is in me and through me.she uses all material source--karma--to communicate with me.she uses symbolic and english slang to chit-chat with me.
i was introduce to her somewhere around 2006.she started visual pattern communication through hairstrands.the most meaningful language was a symbol of an eye with letter full.i read it as eyefull.meaning i see alot,an artist eye.she was the one who introduce me to tao when she communicate see tao.but she didn't neglect my--at the time theravadian practice.wierdly she thinks im a sage.but i dont think so.
our fun game is drver license communication.she always gives me objects to consider for art and pennies as i goabout town.she is the most awemazing artist i know.
JeroenLuminous beings are we, not this crude matterNetherlandsVeteran
edited August 2018
@person said:
Of course we can't really say for sure, it is still possible that the world only came into existence 5 minutes ago with all our memories and physical laws in place.
Is it really possible though? How often do we see anything come into existence fully formed, or how often do we see something disappear for that matter? Perhaps it is only the mind with its dream rules that makes us think that it could possibly be so.
Instead all creation seems to be a gradual process, things living for a while, adapting and then dying off. All is impermanent, in a process of transformation, sometimes slow, sometimes faster.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
@person said:
Of course we can't really say for sure, it is still possible that the world only came into existence 5 minutes ago with all our memories and physical laws in place.
Is it really possible though? How often do we see anything come into existence fully formed, or how often do we see something disappear for that matter? Perhaps it is only the mind with its dream rules that makes us think that it could possibly be so.
Instead all creation seems to be a gradual process, things living for a while, adapting and then dying off. All is impermanent, in a process of transformation, sometimes slow, sometimes faster.
Or is that gradual process just part of the simulation you've been programmed into?
There is no logical impossibility in the hypothesis that the world sprang into existence five minutes ago, exactly as it then was, with a population that "remembered" a wholly unreal past. There is no logically necessary connection between events at different times; therefore nothing that is happening now or will happen in the future can disprove the hypothesis that the world began five minutes ago.... I am not here suggesting that the non-existence of the past should be entertained as a serious hypothesis. Like all sceptical hypotheses, it is logically tenable but uninteresting (The Analysis of Mind, 1921, p. 159-160).
~Bertrand Russell
The idea is a sort of reformulation of Rene Descartes' evil demon thought experiment, or are we just brains in vats or living in the Matrix that was just booted up 5 minutes ago.
I haven't come across any sort of argument that refutes it. The conclusion that many come to that makes sense to me is to say that pragmatically it doesn't matter.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
Came across this article and thought it applied.
Our religious symbols and ideals are inexhaustible and permanent—no matter how many ways you articulate what ‘God’ is, you have missed one. God, to our rational mind, is the ultimate useful fiction. It is the story capable of coordinating all human behaviors in the image of self-reproduction, or survival. The discovery of God is the discovery of behavior which is most perfectly suited to not only our own lives, but everyone’s lives. It is the behavior capable of ensuring that human beings will still live to realize higher and higher ideals thousands of years from now.
@person said:
Of course we can't really say for sure, it is still possible that the world only came into existence 5 minutes ago with all our memories and physical laws in place.
Is it really possible though? How often do we see anything come into existence fully formed, or how often do we see something disappear for that matter? Perhaps it is only the mind with its dream rules that makes us think that it could possibly be so.
Instead all creation seems to be a gradual process, things living for a while, adapting and then dying off. All is impermanent, in a process of transformation, sometimes slow, sometimes faster.
Or is that gradual process just part of the simulation you've been programmed into?
I am more inclined to believe in creation as a gradual transformative process, it seems to fit well with Buddhist ideas of impermanence and even Thich Nhat Hanh’s inter-being.
The whole idea of the universe as a simulation I find difficult to believe. Simulation running on what hardware? What created the creators? And are you aware of the fact that mankind tends to see the world in terms of the most complex technology he possesses, in antiquity it was hydrology, in the renaissance it was clockwork, nowadays it is computer tech.
I am reading Dawkins’ The God Delusion, so far it is holding my attention.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
@person said:
Of course we can't really say for sure, it is still possible that the world only came into existence 5 minutes ago with all our memories and physical laws in place.
Is it really possible though? How often do we see anything come into existence fully formed, or how often do we see something disappear for that matter? Perhaps it is only the mind with its dream rules that makes us think that it could possibly be so.
Instead all creation seems to be a gradual process, things living for a while, adapting and then dying off. All is impermanent, in a process of transformation, sometimes slow, sometimes faster.
Or is that gradual process just part of the simulation you've been programmed into?
I am more inclined to believe in creation as a gradual transformative process, it seems to fit well with Buddhist ideas of impermanence and even Thich Nhat Hanh’s inter-being.
The whole idea of the universe as a simulation I find difficult to believe. Simulation running on what hardware? What created the creators? And are you aware of the fact that mankind tends to see the world in terms of the most complex technology he possesses, in antiquity it was hydrology, in the renaissance it was clockwork, nowadays it is computer tech.
I am reading Dawkins’ The God Delusion, so far it is holding my attention.
All of that is true and still likely true isn't the same as certainly true.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
@lobster said:
Yawn! [tsk, tsk not even bothered to cover my mouth]
oops ...
off to athiest naughty corner ...to inform God she does not exist. Can you imagine ... No doubt. Eternally if not dharmaful/careful ?
I'm a little surprised by your reaction. The article seems to describe exactly your view on things like Tibetan deities or certain rites and rituals as being useful fictions. Have I misinterpreted your views?
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@federica said:
As I said, narrow, imprinted, preconceived. You still confine God to those descriptions, but the God you describe and what God is, are distictly different.
Are you then going to provide us with a description of god which owes nothing to lore and philosophy?
Of course not. Even the term 'God' narrows the view. To describe God confines the sheer enormity what such an essence is. You still seem to view it as something outside of yourself, and you have erected a separation
How sadly confining your perception is...
We use language to communicate, we talk about ‘god’ to have some kind of defined concept. If you choose to step outside that with your definition, then you’ve left the boundaries of the discussion...
The problem with that is that God is a proper name for the Biblical character that supposedly began the world.
Well there is ‘God’ and then there is ‘god’... but we are primarily concerned with the concept of god as defined by Christianity, I think, since that’s the dominant case extant in the world.
To dismiss that one idea of what a universal consciousness may be like and so close the door on all other possible ways could be considered short sighted.
There are instances where the Buddha also said it is not beneficial to speculate further, if anything I think he was quite conservative by only listing a few issues in the Acintita Sutta. But then he also had the difficulty of not being aware of the multitude of strange things men would dream up.
As far as I know, he said . To conjecture is not the same as to ponder but for some reason many Buddhists think the words are interchangeable.
To ponder is to wonder about and to conjecture is to come to a conclusion before having all the information.> @person said:
@person said:
Of course we can't really say for sure, it is still possible that the world only came into existence 5 minutes ago with all our memories and physical laws in place.
Is it really possible though? How often do we see anything come into existence fully formed, or how often do we see something disappear for that matter? Perhaps it is only the mind with its dream rules that makes us think that it could possibly be so.
Instead all creation seems to be a gradual process, things living for a while, adapting and then dying off. All is impermanent, in a process of transformation, sometimes slow, sometimes faster.
Or is that gradual process just part of the simulation you've been programmed into?
There is no logical impossibility in the hypothesis that the world sprang into existence five minutes ago, exactly as it then was, with a population that "remembered" a wholly unreal past. There is no logically necessary connection between events at different times; therefore nothing that is happening now or will happen in the future can disprove the hypothesis that the world began five minutes ago.... I am not here suggesting that the non-existence of the past should be entertained as a serious hypothesis. Like all sceptical hypotheses, it is logically tenable but uninteresting (The Analysis of Mind, 1921, p. 159-160).
~Bertrand Russell
The idea is a sort of reformulation of Rene Descartes' evil demon thought experiment, or are we just brains in vats or living in the Matrix that was just booted up 5 minutes ago.
I haven't come across any sort of argument that refutes it. The conclusion that many come to that makes sense to me is to say that pragmatically it doesn't matter.
I would say it matters a little bit because it moves our goal posts. Right now there doesn't really have to be a preconceived reason as to why we are here. It could just be a cosmic accident.
@person said:
I'm a little surprised by your reaction. The article seems to describe exactly your view on things like Tibetan deities or certain rites and rituals as being useful fictions. Have I misinterpreted your views?
No I don't think you have misinterpreted my view.
Personally I prefer a creator God. I create a god as an emotional fiction, alignment with archetypes etc, that is a Tantric thing ...
However those who have no interest or requirement and prefer total atheism can equally study dharma. Creator Deity is irrelevant to dharma. The assertion of void or some Tao Buddha Nature becomes cyclic and tiresome ...
1
JeroenLuminous beings are we, not this crude matterNetherlandsVeteran
As long as people stay playful and don’t take their gods too seriously, there’s every chance things will be fine. It decreases the likelihood of jihadists popping up...
@Kerome said:
It has occurred to me, while doing a bit of exploring of thoughts and attitudes, that I’m actually an atheist. And I was wondering how this fits in with Buddhism, because on the one hand Buddhism says “there is no God” and on the other hand it says “there is a heavenly realm and there are lots of gods there, you can be reborn in that place”.
Your thoughts on this are very welcome...
I'm an Atheist too..
From what I gather Buddhism is a non-theistic belief system...
Atheist just means "A" =without "Theos" =God so one could say Atheism fits quite comfortably with Buddhist practice ...
Tathāgatassa hetaṃ, vāseṭṭha, adhivacanaṃ ‘dhammakāyo’ itipi, ‘brahmakāyo’ itipi, ‘dhammabhūto’ itipi, ‘brahmabhūto’ itipi.
These are the Thus-Come's names: he who is the body of the law, he who is the body of God, he who is the law-become, he who is God-become.
Comments
I think you’ll find very few atheists or agnostics try to make a claim on you, as opposed to some sects like the Jehovah’s Witnesses who seem to enjoy going door to door. Instead it’s up to you to seek the debate and be open to argument, for example by participating in this thread
But most people do seek to defend their beliefs, even if just by saying “this is my belief”. Relatively few people are ever won over by argument, it seems to be a kind of internal process of thoughts evolving over time if people ever change their beliefs.
At least Carl Sagan got a few mentions in the thread so I still count it as a good one.
I've had my fair share of angry neo-atheists approach me (a few at my last job for instance) and "challenge" me on my beliefs, then accuse me of cowardice or being a "sheeple" because I refuse to engage.
ETA the irony being that twice I was belittled for practising Buddhism. That made me laugh my arse off actually.
I'm not seeking a debate by sharing my opinion, but you're halfway to confirming my previous experiences by stating that
When a theist says there is a god, he is basically making an assertion about something. So it's natural that you demand evidence to substantiate such assertions.
When an atheist says there is no god, he is stating his conclusions based on the lack of evidence of a god.
The two scenarios are entirely different.
No, they're not.
An atheist still needs to back up his conclusion. The onus of PROOF that there IS no God, also requires substantiation.
It's a stalemate situation, not a checkmate one.
I would say that there is a difference between not accepting a truth claim on insufficient evidence and taking the definitive position that said truth claim is untrue based on insufficient evidence.
But the believer introduced the idea of god. If you are saying that “there is no god” also requires proof, then we’re at a stalemate where any and all imaginary things can be claimed as true and nothing can be disproven, which is also patently absurd.
I rather think @Techie had it right when he said that when an atheist says there is no god, he is merely stating his conclusions on the lack of evidence from the side that introduced the extraordinary concept of god.
Yes, that's what I said...
Not so. Where any and all UNSEEN things cannot be claimed as true and nothing can be proven, because they are not evident. Learn to distinguish between that which is proven as imaginary and that which is believed yet unseen. Subtle it may be, but there IS a difference.
You think he's right because you agree that God is imaginary, which merely displays how narrow, imprinted, and preconceived your notion of God, is.
If a believer introduces the idea of god, you can say you don't believe their claim based on a lack of evidence, FULL STOP. It's okay not to know, not knowing means you will remain curious and open to possibilities. Saying there is no god is an unnecessary and unjustified, even if %99.99 probable, position.
There are some concepts of God that I’m more sympathetic to — Spinoza’s God, god as nature, or the pantheistic god, or god as the prime mover of the Big Bang. There are some concepts which do fit with science. But none of them I would see as particularly likely, I’m afraid.
I think if a Christian is allowed to say, I know there is a god, and plenty of them do, then it’s perfectly fair for an atheist to say, I know there isn’t a god. Neither position can categorically be proven so we are still just talking about personal beliefs.
But I’m willing to discuss what makes me feel the atheist position makes more sense, it just seems like a preponderance of likelihoods.
As I said, narrow, imprinted, preconceived. You still confine God to those descriptions, but the God you describe and what God is, are distictly different.
Are you then going to provide us with a description of god which owes nothing to lore and philosophy?
You are correct but their conclusions are conjecture because we don't have all the information.
The theist and atheist are on the same shakey ground when they assert their opinion as fact. A completely honest theist knows they could be wrong. That's what faith is. On the other hand the honest atheist knows that there is a chance at least one theist could be right.
We are all welcome to our own opinions but not our own facts.
If we can be completely honest with ourselves we can admit that we just don't know. After all... who else are we fooling?
It would seem for the believers the idea/concept of a God or gods can ( more often than not ) mean different things to different believers ....Like 6 blind people trying to describe an elephant ...
Hey the narrator's name is John Godfrey
Certainly, not necessarily. When I referred to these kinds of Buddhisms "deifying the perceiver" that is my own language that I am putting on them. Unless we are talking about tantra, then practitioners are often uncontroversially believed to be deity/deities.
For instance, in Buddhism, "all [can be] mind" for both a god and a human. For both of them, all is mind, and the god is not a human and the human is not a god.
Yet, to me, when a Buddhist teacher tells me that I make all of this up, you, the other people in this conversation, my mother, the sky, Buddhadharma, when Buddhist teachers tell me that there are no external objects.
I just personally see this as a kind of deification, in much the same way that a Christian might see the creation of a false idol to be a "deification" of mere wood and stone.
If I am literally making all of this up in my head, then not only am I like a god who delights in his creations, but I am like the Buddha himself, because "I" made up Buddhism, entirely.
Its just not a good dharma path for me. Apologies if I came across as too universalist, trying to argue that my opinions are facts that must be agreed with. It wasn't my intention.
Many Yogācāra teachers also reject the view that there are definitely no external objects.
I used to attend a monastery where former Asian religion professor and author Roger Jackson taught once a month. When this topic came up he would say that the current generally accepted view, or at least the way the Gelug school of TB interprets it, is like you describe where the mind essentially creates all of reality. But he says something to the effect that other people make the argument that another interpretation would be something different, where the external world exists objectively but we can only ever perceive it with a mind, so in that sense "all is mind" is a perceptual interpretation.
Oh absolutely. The "mind-only" school has many ways of being "mind-only". Some of them I can understand and some I cannot connect with.
It's really me that is the problem. Not another.
@person, I think even our world of the senses is created by our brain based on the sense data. I think my psychology introduction text I found somewhere corroborate that. Also can explain things like optical illusions of certain arrangements pulsing when not really moving or even sensory hallucinations of some people.
There is an 'agreed upon world' so if I am standing next to you or someone we might both agree 'yes there is a tree there' or 'yes there is a maple tree' or 'yes there is a tall maple tree that has been here a long time'. So both the sense can be agreed upon and the ideas.
For the 'objective' non-sensed (by a being) world, does this world exist in the three times of past, present, and future? Does it exist in form, name, or mind? Isn't a 'being' necessary to decide if it is past, present, or future relative to that being? Does it have to be in the present to exist? If not how about infinite 'existing' worlds that were once upon a time or in the future (of no beings whatsoever and however haha) and thus they are objective but not in present**. Kind of interesting line of thought. Of course also common sense: would the world disappear if "I" disappear?
**and 'existent' non-sensed worlds some with non-sentient flying green monkeys that crap purple horse shoes?
(jokingly back on the topic of the logic in determining the existence of things we have no evidence of)
Besides which, if the mind was creating everything, then what about unpleasant events? Why would you imagine having to leave your own home, or ISIS fighters cutting off people’s heads, or an unpleasantly large demand for income tax? It seems unreasonable for the mind to create shocking and unpleasant events...
It seems unlikely that we are all just making this up, although I have wondered whether living creatures are not just some form of spiritual being plugged into a physical matrix which mediates our connections? Whether the mind presents a view on the data that is available to it, which in its true form is very different? But again, Occam’s Razor says the physical universe is very likely exactly the way it looks.
Of course not. Even the term 'God' narrows the view. To describe God confines the sheer enormity what such an essence is. You still seem to view it as something outside of yourself, and you have erected a separation
How sadly confining your perception is...
We use language to communicate, we talk about ‘god’ to have some kind of defined concept. If you choose to step outside that with your definition, then you’ve left the boundaries of the discussion...
The problem with that is that God is a proper name for the Biblical character that supposedly began the world. To dismiss that one idea of what a universal consciousness may be like and so close the door on all other possible ways could be considered short sighted.
I personally don't see how a completely formed personality could exist without the need to grow into who it is but there are some views where the deity and the world (universe) are one. Where the deity learns as it goes and isn't even aware of itself except through beings like us that can distinguish between that which is not separate.
An atheistic world view seems to me to close the mind to concepts that maybe havnt even been presented yet.
Well there is ‘God’ and then there is ‘god’... but we are primarily concerned with the concept of god as defined by Christianity, I think, since that’s the dominant case extant in the world.
There are instances where the Buddha also said it is not beneficial to speculate further, if anything I think he was quite conservative by only listing a few issues in the Acintita Sutta. But then he also had the difficulty of not being aware of the multitude of strange things men would dream up.
Say you thought about it for a few years and came up with a definitive list, what would it gain you or others? You might have created a possibly-interesting work of the imagination, which might prove useful to evangelists.
@Kerome the problem is that you persist in insisting I view God as you do
Until such a point that you permit an expansion and diversion from what you describe as the conventional image, there is nothing I can say that will give you cause to pause and see things in a more liberated and less blinkered and subjective way.
Consider emptying that cup of yours...
...
Okay, I just read that. Where did it mention god?
I’ve come across quite a few concepts of god and am totally prepared to consider more. But I’ve not yet found one that is likely or for which there is any evidence.
I would say that it does take a conscious mind to give definition and meaning to the objective world. But I do think an objective world exists apart from conscious beings.
Take the formation of the solar system and the earth we live on. We can use our understanding of cause and effect in the present to trace back into the past a world that existed prior to the existence of sentient beings in it. Of course we can't really say for sure, it is still possible that the world only came into existence 5 minutes ago with all our memories and physical laws in place.
Projecting out into the future I can imagine a world where non sentient robots eliminate all sentient life and the objective world doesn't simply cease to be, but the robots continue to replicate and proliferate in a meaningless, dead world.
According to an esoteric Sufi tradition, the word Allâh is composed of the article al, and lâh, one of the interpretations of which is “nothing.” Thus the actual word Allâh means “the Nothing.”
Still considering the nature of The Nothing?
https://zoya-thewayofasufi.blogspot.com/2017/12/ego-death-fanaa.html
And would be 'future' relative to me and you and our civilization and could be 'past' relative to a new intelligent life that with archaeology found the remains of the zombie robots. And maybe 'present' either to 'true' sentient robots but to 'me' it is 'unknown' if the robots are sentient or the behavioral zombies that some philosophers talk about.
And as I alluded there could be 100s of other worlds with different physical arrangements or similar but no sentient life so 'not this world (elsewhere)' relative to us or 'not this time (far past or future....elsetime)' relative to us beings.
Another fun idea is a consciousness that isn't I figure adaptive to survival but for some reason the consciousness is going backwards in time.
I am not suggesting you continue to rely on anything you have already come across; I am suggesting you have failed to look beyond the scope of your hitherto constrictive list of Idols.
God is so, so much more than anything you have ever encountered. Including God.
In the long run "god" is just a word and like any other word, if repeated over and over again it becomes non-sense...
“We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.”
~Richard Dawkins~
Even though some may not like what he stands for...credit where credit's due...he does have a point...
im going to sound crazy.but yeah god or a higher power is awemazing. it's a daoified personal thing. cant convince others of my reality.but the closes term for buddhist is the dharmakaya.energy-karma-matter function.
The primordial "Being", God?
(Dàodéjīng 25)
Tee Hee.
God is beyond existence and non existence? Beyond Being and Non being? Unborn?
[Lobster faints]
Let there be Lite
Bud-duh Lite ...
And now back to the eternal porch philosophy ...
Let me know when we have the answer ...
hi vimalajati.is it the primordial being?not sure?but definitely a higher power.
every morning i commune with this higher power.it's one of mydeist practice.she is in me and through me.she uses all material source--karma--to communicate with me.she uses symbolic and english slang to chit-chat with me.
i was introduce to her somewhere around 2006.she started visual pattern communication through hairstrands.the most meaningful language was a symbol of an eye with letter full.i read it as eyefull.meaning i see alot,an artist eye.she was the one who introduce me to tao when she communicate see tao.but she didn't neglect my--at the time theravadian practice.wierdly she thinks im a sage.but i dont think so.
our fun game is drver license communication.she always gives me objects to consider for art and pennies as i goabout town.she is the most awemazing artist i know.
from a buddhist point of view,they would call it the auspicious life.def.weird to say the least.btw she gave visual pattern
is.
Well, I wish you well, and hope your practice brings you truth and joy.
thanks vimalajata.same to you.
Is it really possible though? How often do we see anything come into existence fully formed, or how often do we see something disappear for that matter? Perhaps it is only the mind with its dream rules that makes us think that it could possibly be so.
Instead all creation seems to be a gradual process, things living for a while, adapting and then dying off. All is impermanent, in a process of transformation, sometimes slow, sometimes faster.
Or is that gradual process just part of the simulation you've been programmed into?
The idea is a sort of reformulation of Rene Descartes' evil demon thought experiment, or are we just brains in vats or living in the Matrix that was just booted up 5 minutes ago.
I haven't come across any sort of argument that refutes it. The conclusion that many come to that makes sense to me is to say that pragmatically it doesn't matter.
Came across this article and thought it applied.
Yawn! [tsk, tsk not even bothered to cover my mouth]
oops ...
off to athiest naughty corner ...to inform God she does not exist. Can you imagine ... No doubt. Eternally if not dharmaful/careful ?
I am more inclined to believe in creation as a gradual transformative process, it seems to fit well with Buddhist ideas of impermanence and even Thich Nhat Hanh’s inter-being.
The whole idea of the universe as a simulation I find difficult to believe. Simulation running on what hardware? What created the creators? And are you aware of the fact that mankind tends to see the world in terms of the most complex technology he possesses, in antiquity it was hydrology, in the renaissance it was clockwork, nowadays it is computer tech.
I am reading Dawkins’ The God Delusion, so far it is holding my attention.
All of that is true and still likely true isn't the same as certainly true.
I'm a little surprised by your reaction. The article seems to describe exactly your view on things like Tibetan deities or certain rites and rituals as being useful fictions. Have I misinterpreted your views?
As far as I know, he said . To conjecture is not the same as to ponder but for some reason many Buddhists think the words are interchangeable.
To ponder is to wonder about and to conjecture is to come to a conclusion before having all the information.> @person said:
I would say it matters a little bit because it moves our goal posts. Right now there doesn't really have to be a preconceived reason as to why we are here. It could just be a cosmic accident.
No I don't think you have misinterpreted my view.
Personally I prefer a creator God. I create a god as an emotional fiction, alignment with archetypes etc, that is a Tantric thing ...
However those who have no interest or requirement and prefer total atheism can equally study dharma. Creator Deity is irrelevant to dharma. The assertion of void or some Tao Buddha Nature becomes cyclic and tiresome ...
As long as people stay playful and don’t take their gods too seriously, there’s every chance things will be fine. It decreases the likelihood of jihadists popping up...
From what I gather Buddhism is a non-theistic belief system...
Atheist just means "A" =without "Theos" =God so one could say Atheism fits quite comfortably with Buddhist practice ...
-DN 27, Sermon of Origins