# Which God?



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 20, 2014)

This question gets posted a lot here on this forum generally in a context such as follows:  " If 
God exists, which one"?

I thought it would be interesting to discuss, that accepting the given ' God exists' ,  what makes one religion more probable of being correct.  For believers it's a chance to look at our beliefs alongside those of others, but I'm more interested in what the AAs have to say.  I'm curious as to which religion they think is the most probable if the given is accepted.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 20, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> This question gets posted a lot here on this forum generally in a context such as follows:  " If
> God exists, which one"?
> 
> I thought it would be interesting to discuss, that accepting the given ' God exists' ,  what makes one religion more probable of being correct.  For believers it's a chance to look at our beliefs alongside those of others, but I'm more interested in what the AAs have to say.  I'm curious as to which religion they think is the most probable if the given is accepted.



I'd personally say it's much more likely that none of you have it right than any of you hitting the mark.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 20, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I'd personally say it's much more likely that none of you have it right than any of you hitting the mark.



I agree.  

I would like him to be generally un-involved.  I would like him to embody the conditions that I observe on Earth.  He would be both good and evil.  I would gravitate towards the Eastern ideas of what god is like, maybe like the Native American versions.

Mostly he would be so god like as to defy my understanding.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 20, 2014)

To me they are all as probable or as improbable as the other.
Only the God would be able to answer that question.
And pleeeease don't start pointing to the Bible as Gods answer. All of them have beliefs and stories behind them.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 20, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> I agree.
> 
> I would like him to be generally un-involved.  I would like him to embody the conditions that I observe on Earth.  He would be both good and evil.  I would gravitate towards the Eastern ideas of what god is like, maybe like the Native American versions.
> 
> Mostly he would be so god like as to defy my understanding.



I would hold that the Creator is a scientist watching an experiment evolve after setting the initial conditions. Maybe the variable this time was time. Maybe last time it was a different value of X for the gravitational constant and nothing happened. There's no way to know.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 20, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I would hold that the Creator is a scientist watching an experiment evolve after setting the initial conditions. Maybe the variable this time was time. Maybe last time it was a different value of X for the gravitational constant and nothing happened. There's no way to know.



What would any of that mean to an infinite/eternal being


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 20, 2014)

I like this game; Agnostics and Atheists discuss god as if you believe in him.


----------



## BubbaFett (Aug 20, 2014)

My vote is for the Flying Spaghetti Monster. 

Praise and be touched by his noodley appendage.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 20, 2014)

A dear friend and neighbor in his 70's was talking to me the other night about some mystical notion.  I think it was about how artists communicate with the spiritual ether (he's an art professor).  I asked him how he thinks that he or anyone else that claims to be able to discern signals from a "great unknown" would know it?

He said "Well, I just believe it."  He went on to talk about the long history of people performing such feats.  Then I brought up bloodletting.  We decided to discontinue the conversation.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 20, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> What would any of that mean to an infinite/eternal being



Dunno. I'll be sure to ask him/her/it when/if we get there, though.


----------



## Israel (Aug 20, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> A dear friend and neighbor in his 70's was talking to me the other night about some mystical notion.  I think it was about how artists communicate with the spiritual ether (he's an art professor).  I asked him how he thinks that he or anyone else that claims to be able to discern signals from a "great unknown" would know it?
> 
> He said "Well, I just believe it."  He went on to talk about the long history of people performing such feats.  Then I brought up bloodletting.  We decided to discontinue the conversation.


LOL, but you do know even blood letting is practiced today, right?
But, fair enough, misapplications of therapies often have disastrous results.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 20, 2014)

BubbaFett said:


> My vote is for the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
> 
> Praise and be touched by his noodley appendage.



I know this is kind of a joke but I would prefer god to be absurd like the flying spaghetti monster.  It would confirm my "worldview".


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 20, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Dunno. I'll be sure to ask him/her/it when/if we get there, though.



Aww.  I thought we were gonna use our imaginations.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 20, 2014)

Israel said:


> LOL, but you do know even blood letting is practiced today, right?
> But, fair enough, misapplications of therapies often have disastrous results.



I have a friend who treats her arthritis by rubbing crystals on it.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 20, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> Aww.  I thought we were gonna use our imaginations.



But what if we have different imaginings? Whose is the real one?


----------



## Israel (Aug 20, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I'd personally say it's much more likely that none of you have it right than any of you hitting the mark.


That "getting it right" thing is handled here:
"Forgive them Father, they don't know what they do..."
I know that causes some backs to bristle, unless I am the only one. 
Which is never to be dismissed. 

I really may be the only one who never sees all the consequences of anything, as much down the road as I try to look. Maybe everyone else is doing perfect, and I alone am the guy who has seemed to always have the bullet land, the arrow fall precisely in the place that causes me to say "Gee, I sure didn't think that was gunna happen..."
For one such as that, I cannot express the undeniable relief of shelter afforded for one not held to account for not knowing everything, not figuring perfectly, not taking into account a previously absent gust's appearing. Being relieved of the burden of trying to do anything right, also goes a long way to removing the shame of wounding.
Everyone but me knows how perfectly I am not God. But, I have a faithful tutor.
We'll all have ample opportunity to pray, no need to try and bump another into, or out of place.
Yes...bullets and arrows, and even words and deeds, can have an undeniable english set to them at the seeming last moment, and all obvious outcomes...suddenly change wonderfully.
Although I understand the disappointment of not hitting what you are aiming at, I have learned a greater relief in being saved from not hitting what you were not aiming at.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 20, 2014)

Israel said:


> That "getting it right" thing is handled here:
> "Forgive them Father, they don't know what they do..."
> I know that causes some backs to bristle, unless I am the only one.
> Which is never to be dismissed.
> ...



That's why I think it important to acknowledge the shortcomings of religion, and its parentage, in order to truly believe. 

In other words, the believer who says "I know that God, or Jesus, or the Bible..." truly knows less about the history of their religion, and thus the efficacy of it, than those who are skeptical. I would argue that the person who says, "I believe, despite evidence to the contrary, that God, or Jesus, or the Bible..." is practicing their faith, their religion, and their belief properly.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 20, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> I like this game; Agnostics and Atheists discuss god as if you believe in him.



No Sir.  You missed the point entirely.  Almost every thread on this forum is based on all of our understanding of the God of Christianity.  The question "Which God?" correctly assumes there's a difference in how deities are viewed on each belief system and these differences have implications.  The point of the thread was to spark a discussion on some of the entailments of these implications.  

For example.  Hinduism because of karma and reincarnation sees time as cyclical.  Science views it (for the most part) as linear.   What are the implications of that?

Bhuddism could be considered an atheistic belief system.  They don't recognize a God.  What are your thoughts?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 20, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> That's why I think it important to acknowledge the shortcomings of religion, and its parentage, in order to truly believe.



And that's what I want to discuss also and not just those of Christianity.  We have discussed THOSE to the point that it's becoming as boring as the endless doctrinal debates upstairs, but it appears that either no one is interested or they can't think outside of the memes.  Speaking of which, nice Flying Spaghetti Monster.  No not you Stripe.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 20, 2014)

> The question "Which God?" correctly assumes there's a difference in how deities are viewed on each belief system and these differences have implications.


Im not sure "which God" equals a difference in how they are viewed. Its merely an acknowledgement that there are lots of them throughout history. To the A/A Im assuming they are ultimately all viewed the same way. They don't exist or there is no proof they exist.
Beyond that yes they have different stories and/or different attributes. Does that actually have implications? You certainly could compare the differences but after that it would just boil down to which one sounds better or has more or less to offer in your mind.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 20, 2014)

"Which God" assumes there are multiples to choose from.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 21, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> "Which God" assumes there are multiples to choose from.



From the human perspective there are, and it would be a choice.  One could reject the God of Christianity for one of the God's of Hinduism.  The God of Islam while held to be the same God of Judaism and Christianity is notably different in his demeanor, enough so that I think only one of them could be correct.  In my opinion this doesn't change the fact there is one true God, but there are choices we humans have the ability to make.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 21, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> Im not sure "which God" equals a difference in how they are viewed. Its merely an acknowledgement that there are lots of them throughout history. To the A/A Im assuming they are ultimately all viewed the same way. They don't exist or there is no proof they exist.
> Beyond that yes they have different stories and/or different attributes. Does that actually have implications? You certainly could compare the differences but after that it would just boil down to which one sounds better or has more or less to offer in your mind.



Fair enough.  What do you think about Bhuddism?


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 21, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Fair enough.  What do you think about Bhuddism?


I really don't know enough about it to give a complete answer to that. On the surface I see some concepts that I find very attractive such as -


> Quotation by Siddhãrtha Gautama (Buddha):
> "Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it.
> Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many.
> Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books.
> ...


The above concept is obviously very different from Christianity and hits on some of the exact things that I disagree with about Christianity.
I also find this very attractive -


> Buddhist teachings can be understood and tested by anyone. Buddhism teaches that the solutions to our problems are within ourselves not outside. The Buddha asked all his followers not to take his word as true, but rather to test the teachings for themselves. ln this way, each person decides for themselves and takes responsibility for their own actions and understanding. This makes Buddhism less of a fixed package of beliefs which is to be accepted in its entirety, and more of a teaching which each person learns and uses in their own way.


Obviously I find them attractive because they line up with the way I already think. And I guess you could actually say I unknowingly already practice some of its teachings.
And of course I don't have to swallow talking donkeys, boat rides with animals, people in the sky, ladders to heaven and all the other stories that my brain tells me are just nonsense. Although Buddhism would also present some of the same sorts of challenges.
But no that doesn't mean I would become a Buddhist. 
I think you can take the positive lessons from any or all religions (if we are calling Buddhism a religion) and use them without buying into that religion completely. (Interestingly, that's also a Buddhist concept.)
Same as I believe Christianity has some positive and valuable lessons yet I reject the Christian religion overall.
If I was FORCED into choosing a religion, and again if we are calling Buddhism a religion, it would probably line up with what I already believe more so than any other religion.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 21, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I'd personally say it's much more likely that none of you have it right than any of you hitting the mark.



That would be my answer as well. Nothing messes up a perfectly good God like man's fancy.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 21, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> "Which God" assumes there are multiples to choose from.



I thought more on your point on the way in this a.m. and I see your point.  Maybe the better question would have been "Which religion?"


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 21, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I thought more on your point on the way in this a.m. and I see your point.  Maybe the better question would have been "Which religion?"



Yes.  I have been hammering this point for years in here, and have gotten absolutely nowhere 

It's not to say everybody is right, and we are all discussing the same thing......what I am saying is that God is God.  Man can be wrong, and worship a crankbait, but, that crankbait was never a candidate to be God.  So, if we believe there is a truth, we can say the "House of the Holy Crankbaiters" are not correct because the crankbait they worship is a man-made thing.  Then, the crankbaiters who believe there is a truth can say the same about us, and we will go 'round in circles.  Ultimately, though, God is still God regardless of what we say about him, and regardless of what we try to make into a god.

I really hope that made sense.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 21, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> Although Buddhism would also present some of the same sorts of challenges.



This is what I'm interested in.  What are the challenges?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 21, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> And that's what I want to discuss also and not just those of Christianity.  We have discussed THOSE to the point that it's becoming as boring as the endless doctrinal debates upstairs, but it appears that either no one is interested or they can't think outside of the memes.  Speaking of which, nice Flying Spaghetti Monster.  No not you Stripe.



No worries. I know I didn't post any monsters. 

I'm game for this discussion. Where to start? 

Might I suggest Saturnalia?


----------



## bullethead (Aug 21, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> Yes.  I have been hammering this point for years in here, and have gotten absolutely nowhere
> 
> It's not to say everybody is right, and we are all discussing the same thing......what I am saying is that God is God.  Man can be wrong, and worship a crankbait, but, that crankbait was never a candidate to be God.  So, if we believe there is a truth, we can say the "House of the Holy Crankbaiters" are not correct because the crankbait they worship is a man-made thing.  Then, the crankbaiters who believe there is a truth can say the same about us, and we will go 'round in circles.  Ultimately, though, God is still God regardless of what we say about him, and regardless of what we try to make into a god.
> 
> I really hope that made sense.



It makes perfect sense when everyone involved must say "IF" there is a God...and then use deductive reasoning and logic to try to figure out which one of these "IFs" could be the top God. Separating the crankbait god is fairly easy. Trying to show that One, Any, or All of the tens of thousands of Gods that people have worshiped and still worship today actually exist brings us to the crux of every "God" argument and discussion.
We can and have logically discussed that "IF" there is a God, or Gods, the head honcho would quite possibly be '____', but in every case we have had to use reasoning skills and logic to try to figure out something that has been a figment of individuals imaginations. The best anyone can do is give an argument for their God based on "IF". And then when someone can put enough "IFs" together and link them to things we consider real, a God sounds a little better, but then again when "IFs" are involved a logical case can be made for just about anything because as soon as a piece of the puzzle gets sticky...insert an "IF" so that it changes the conversation to suit...and viola...the point seems valid.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 21, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> Yes.  I have been hammering this point for years in here, and have gotten absolutely nowhere
> 
> It's not to say everybody is right, and we are all discussing the same thing......what I am saying is that God is God.  Man can be wrong, and worship a crankbait, but, that crankbait was never a candidate to be God.  So, if we believe there is a truth, we can say the "House of the Holy Crankbaiters" are not correct because the crankbait they worship is a man-made thing.  Then, the crankbaiters who believe there is a truth can say the same about us, and we will go 'round in circles.  Ultimately, though, God might be God regardless of what we say about him, and regardless of what we try to make into a god.
> 
> I really hope that made sense.



Close. You can't say with any more certainty that he exists than someone on the other side can say he doesn't.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 21, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Close. You can't say with any more certainty that he exists than someone on the other side can say he doesn't.



See Bullet's discussion of "ifs" above your comment.  I can be certain of my beliefs.  I can't prove a darn thing to you.  So, we are stuck with "if" in order to advance the conversation.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 21, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> Yes.  I have been hammering this point for years in here, and have gotten absolutely nowhere
> 
> It's not to say everybody is right, and we are all discussing the same thing......what I am saying is that God is God.  Man can be wrong, and worship a crankbait, but, that crankbait was never a candidate to be God.  So, if we believe there is a truth, we can say the "House of the Holy Crankbaiters" are not correct because the crankbait they worship is a man-made thing.  Then, the crankbaiters who believe there is a truth can say the same about us, and we will go 'round in circles.  Ultimately, though, God is still God regardless of what we say about him, and regardless of what we try to make into a god.
> 
> I really hope that made sense.





> I have been hammering this point for years in here, and have gotten absolutely nowhere


I don't think you can get anywhere with this. Not because of you or your argument but because of who you are talking to.


> So, if we believe there is a truth, we can say the "House of the Holy Crankbaiters" are not correct because the crankbait they worship is a man-made thing.


Most of us believe the truth is the God you are talking about is as man made as the crankbait.
So to us that would mean "God is not God" but "God is exactly how you envision him to be".
You envision him to be the top dog or even the only dog and if he isn't then he isn't God.
That is entirely based on your vision of what God is supposed to be.
So lets remove all of our "visions" for a moment.
Then God is God boils down to "yep he sure is."
IF he exists.
And round and round we go


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 21, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> See Bullet's discussion of "ifs" above your comment.  I can be certain of my beliefs.  I can't prove a darn thing to you.  So, we are stuck with "if" in order to advance the conversation.



Except you said God IS God, not I believe God is God. 

Huge difference.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 21, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> This is what I'm interested in.  What are the challenges?


Well there is the whole "rebirth" thing and the various planes of existence that you are "reborn" into depending on your karma accumulated in all your past lives.
That's a big one and I don't see a whole lot of difference in believing that and believing in heaven and he11.
The details are different but all of them require a measure of faith.
Which goes back to my point of taking the positive lessons from various religions without buying into the whole story.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 21, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> No Sir.  You missed the point entirely.  Almost every thread on this forum is based on all of our understanding of the God of Christianity.  The question "Which God?" correctly assumes there's a difference in how deities are viewed on each belief system and these differences have implications.  The point of the thread was to spark a discussion on some of the entailments of these implications.
> 
> For example.  Hinduism because of karma and reincarnation sees time as cyclical.  Science views it (for the most part) as linear.   What are the implications of that?
> 
> Bhuddism could be considered an atheistic belief system.  They don't recognize a God.  What are your thoughts?



Post 3 and 12 directly answer the question.  As has been demonstrated by some following posts, people will shape the god they choose to believe in to suit their ideas about what god should be like.

I have always felt that the notion of reincarnation meshes well with the observation that matter and energy are infinite and simply change forms.  I like how the Native Americans also believe, to some extent, that things get recycled.  Also the notion of Nirvana plays into the idea that all things go back into the "oneness" which I've always thought of as a representation of all the matter/energy in the Universe.

I've seen the linear description of reincarnation described as a series of loopdy loops proceeding forward through time.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 21, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Except you said God IS God, not I believe God is God.
> 
> Huge difference.





Who is god if he's not God?  Even if only a concept, the point remains.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 21, 2014)

Is there a god?
Are there multiple gods?
Is there a hierarchy among gods?
There are a lot of concepts with lots of points to be made.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 21, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> Who is god if he's not God?  Even if only a concept, the point remains.



I get your point and, if we presuppose the existence of a God, then what he/she/it really is has little impact on, and receives no impact from us based on, what we think of it. However, the same could be said about pink elephants or bigfeet, in the absence of evidence of existence. 

My point is that you can suppose anything you wish about something that can't be proven to exist outside of your own head or your own heart. It's quite another to suppose that same thing about something staring you in the face. 

On the one hand you would have, "I think, or feel that X about Y..."

On the other hand you would have, "I know about X in relation to Y because I've seen it." 

The difference of "is" and "my feelings on it are".


----------



## bullethead (Aug 21, 2014)

Pascals Wager



    If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is....

    ..."God is, or He is not." But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up. What will you wager? According to reason, you can do neither the one thing nor the other; according to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions.

    Do not, then, reprove for error those who have made a choice; for you know nothing about it. "No, but I blame them for having made, not this choice, but a choice; for again both he who chooses heads and he who chooses tails are equally at fault, they are both in the wrong. The true course is not to wager at all."

    Yes; but you must wager. It is not optional. You are embarked. Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose. This is one point settled. But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is.

    "That is very fine. Yes, I must wager; but I may perhaps wager too much." Let us see. Since there is an equal risk of gain and of loss, if you had only to gain two lives, instead of one, you might still wager. But if there were three lives to gain, you would have to play (since you are under the necessity of playing), and you would be imprudent, when you are forced to play, not to chance your life to gain three at a game where there is an equal risk of loss and gain. But there is an eternity of life and happiness. And this being so, if there were an infinity of chances, of which one only would be for you, you would still be right in wagering one to win two, and you would act stupidly, being obliged to play, by refusing to stake one life against three at a game in which out of an infinity of chances there is one for you, if there were an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain. But there is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 21, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> Yes.  I have been hammering this point for years in here, and have gotten absolutely nowhere
> 
> It's not to say everybody is right, and we are all discussing the same thing......what I am saying is that God is God.  Man can be wrong, and worship a crankbait, but, that crankbait was never a candidate to be God.  So, if we believe there is a truth, we can say the "House of the Holy Crankbaiters" are not correct because the crankbait they worship is a man-made thing.  Then, the crankbaiters who believe there is a truth can say the same about us, and we will go 'round in circles.  Ultimately, though, God is still God regardless of what we say about him, and regardless of what we try to make into a god.
> 
> I really hope that made sense.



It did and I agree.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 21, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> No worries. I know I didn't post any monsters.
> 
> I'm game for this discussion. Where to start?
> 
> Might I suggest Saturnalia?



Sure


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 21, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Sure



Do you know much about it? Have you researched it?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 21, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Close. You can't say with any more certainty that he exists than someone on the other side can say he doesn't.



I stated in the OP that for the sake of the conversation 'God exists' is a given where it applies ( it doesn't in Bhuddism).   If it offends anyone to take this as a given, even in an abstract form, this thread is going to very quickly devolve into another "yes he does" , "no he doesn't".  so I respectfully ask that you refrain from posting.

Again not point to you Stripe, but your reply provided the perfect segue.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 21, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I stated in the OP that for the sake of the conversation 'God exists' is a given where it applies ( it doesn't in Bhuddism).   If it offends anyone to take this as a given, even in an abstract form, this thread is going to very quickly devolve into another "yes he does" , "no he doesn't".  so I respectfully ask that you refrain from posting.
> 
> Again not point to you Stripe, but your reply provided the perfect segue.



Fair point, my apologies. 

You do have to see the parallel to the questions, though. 

So if we abandon the question of "is God real" then the question is how to prove which God is real. It's the same thing, just hashed to be about denominations rather than existence.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 21, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> Well there is the whole "rebirth" thing and the various planes of existence that you are "reborn" into depending on your karma accumulated in all your past lives.



I may be wrong, but I'm pretty certain Bhuddism rejects karma(at least in the sense that it's a reflection of your past deeds) and reincarnation.  Those are Hindu teachings.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 21, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Fair point, my apologies.
> 
> You do have to see the parallel to the questions, though.
> 
> So if we abandon the question of "is God real" then the question is how to prove which God is real. It's the same thing, just hashed to be about denominations rather than existence.



Actually I was hoping for more along the lines of looking at the different beliefs systems and the pros and cons of each.  Sorta like what Walt is doing with Bhuddism.  Even among the Big 3 there are vast differences.  

I like Bhuddism.  If I was an Atheist I would be a Bhuddist, because I think they have the most thorough explanation of 'life' that's possible if God didn't exist.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 21, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Do you know much about it? Have you researched it?



Never heard of it.  Had to google it, but if you want to discuss it, I'm game.  I'm just bored with the "he exist", "no he doesn't".

The pros and cons of paganism?  Yep I'm game.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 21, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Actually I was hoping for more along the lines of looking at the different beliefs systems and the pros and cons of each.  Sorta like what Walt is doing with Bhuddism.  Even among the Big 3 there are vast differences.
> 
> I like Bhuddism.  If I was an Atheist I would be a Bhuddist, because I think they have the most thorough explanation of 'life' that's possible if God didn't exist.



The pros and cons are all the same. They give people a shred of hope and explanation for what goes on in the world around them, a mechanism for trying to interact and understand the randomness that occurs, and that's all good. 

The cons are that there's no way to know if any of it is real since they all have a veil between themselves and a deity. 

Buddhism is a codified philosophy. It's the same thing as what I call "the stream" just with more subscribers. It has no deity so it has no place in discussions about "which God" is the right one, IMO. The premise of God existing precludes its participation.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 21, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Never heard of it.  Had to google it, but if you want to discuss it, I'm game.  I'm just bored with the "he exist", "no he doesn't".
> 
> The pros and cons of paganism?  Yep I'm game.



Do you perceive there to be a different set of pros/cons to paganism than Christianity? 

Moreover, what different pros/cons exist for their Gods versus Christianity's God?

I posit that they are identical in all aspects.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 21, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I may be wrong, but I'm pretty certain Bhuddism rejects karma(at least in the sense that it's a reflection of your past deeds) and reincarnation.  Those are Hindu teachings.


Nope. They believe your past deeds/thoughts/actions dictate what the next level or plane you are reborn into is. The levels or planes are different and they even have sort of a form of heaven or he11. But you don't stay on these levels, depending on your deeds/actions/thoughts etc in that level, you die and are then reborn again into another plane or level. You can go backward or forward. The ultimate goal is to get to Nirvana, which is not a place but a state of mind, and at that point you stop being reborn.
Oh and as you are moving through these levels you don't necessarily remain "you". You might be reborn into an animal (or any number of things) then be reborn again back into a "human". Buddhism doesn't make the separation between animals and humans. So much so that the dog sitting over there could actually be your (anyones) mother who has been reborn as an animal on the plane she is at now. While that may seem like a negative or a punishment to us, its not to them. And in her next life she may be that little kid over there in the poopy diaper. Or on a plane where she has no type of form and is basically a "spirit". And on and on.


> The law of Karma is at the center of determining a person’s next life after death. Karma is the law of deeds and consequences, where every action has a dire consequence either in the present life or afterlife. Death is believed to be a way of rejecting evil, ignorance and bad habits to adopt goodness and truth.


http://buddhistbeliefs.org/buddhist-afterlife-beliefs/
Also, I may be butchering the details as Im learning more as I go here so definitely don't take my word for it and check it out for yourself.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 22, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Do you perceive there to be a different set of pros/cons to paganism than Christianity?
> 
> Moreover, what different pros/cons exist for their Gods versus Christianity's God?
> 
> I posit that they are identical in all aspects.



Yes I do perceive a difference.  Here's why.  All pagan beliefs find their grounds for worship within the natural realm, and I think because of this, if there is any belief system science can, without a shadow of a doubt,  disprove; it it those of the pagans.  All pagan beliefs rely on the natural and not the supernatural.   There isn't any "thing" in the pagan belief system that science can't give us a very clear explanation of.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 22, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> Nope. They believe your past deeds/thoughts/actions dictate what the next level or plane you are reborn into is. The levels or planes are different and they even have sort of a form of heaven or he11. But you don't stay on these levels, depending on your deeds/actions/thoughts etc in that level, you die and are then reborn again into another plane or level. You can go backward or forward. The ultimate goal is to get to Nirvana, which is not a place but a state of mind, and at that point you stop being reborn.
> Oh and as you are moving through these levels you don't necessarily remain "you". You might be reborn into an animal (or any number of things) then be reborn again back into a "human". Buddhism doesn't make the separation between animals and humans. So much so that the dog sitting over there could actually be your (anyones) mother who has been reborn as an animal on the plane she is at now. While that may seem like a negative or a punishment to us, its not to them. And in her next life she may be that little kid over there in the poopy diaper. Or on a plane where she has no type of form and is basically a "spirit". And on and on.
> 
> http://buddhistbeliefs.org/buddhist-afterlife-beliefs/
> Also, I may be butchering the details as Im learning more as I go here so definitely don't take my word for it and check it out for yourself.



Oh.  OK.  Well I definitely had that wrong.  Thanks.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 22, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I like Bhuddism.  If I was an Atheist I would be a Bhuddist, because I think they have the most thorough explanation of 'life' that's possible if God didn't exist.



Actually, you couldn't. You can cherry pick their beliefs and call your self a Buddhist. An atheist doesn't need any supernatural belief system. 
I can agree that "Thou shalt not kill" is a good thing but, that doesn't make me a Christian.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 22, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Yes I do perceive a difference.  Here's why.  All pagan beliefs find their grounds for worship within the natural realm, and I think because of this, if there is any belief system science can, without a shadow of a doubt,  disprove; it it those of the pagans.  All pagan beliefs rely on the natural and not the supernatural.   There isn't any "thing" in the pagan belief system that science can't give us a very clear explanation of.



True, but belief isn't based on fact. If it were there'd be precisely 0 faithful. There is a point with every belief system that is populated with a deity that you have to make a leap about their existence. 

Now here's the thing about the rites of the religion. 

What's the difference in me praying for remission of my cancer and sacrificing a goat in pursuit of the same, assuming that I'm going to be spontaneously cured either way? Can you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the pagan god didn't save me, and that God did? Or that I wouldn't have been cured if I just waited patiently and quietly? 

In every belief system that relies on a deity there is a moment where the believer has to make a leap from what can be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt to that which they feel. Some make the jump better than others, some make the jump to other places than you. There's no right or wrong in it, given the absence of evidence. 

As to which one is better? That's a deeply personal matter.


----------



## NCHillbilly (Aug 28, 2014)

I think that if God exists, then He/She/It is by its very nature indefinable by us. I would tend to think of God more as an all-pervading energy, the unknown essence of life, instead of a robe-clad personage with a long beard, or a woman with ten arms, or a dude with a dog's head.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 28, 2014)

NCHillbilly said:


> What if God is an all-pervading energy instead of a personage?



Isn't that kind-a what the Budhists think?  Or is that Hindus?

......what if God is both?


----------



## bullethead (Aug 28, 2014)

NCHillbilly said:


> I think that if God exists, then He/She/It is by its very nature indefinable by us. What if God is an all-pervading energy instead of a personage?



Two thumbs up from me!


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 28, 2014)

NCHillbilly said:


> I think that if God exists, then He/She/It is by its very nature indefinable by us. I would tend to think of God more as an all-pervading energy, the unknown essence of life, instead of a robe-clad personage with a long beard, or a woman with ten arms, or a dude with a dog's head.





JB0704 said:


> Isn't that kind-a what the Budhists think?  Or is that Hindus?
> 
> ......what if God is both?




When you think of a "personage", what is it like?

For myself, I think that if there is some kind of "consciousness" involved that it would be very different than us, which is why I put consciousness in parentheses.  

Doesn't the notion that "it" would ingrain a "sense of itself" in us seem painfully human especially when you consider all the ways that people have come up with to describe that sense?


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 28, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> For myself, I think that if there is some kind of "consciousness" involved that it would be very different than us, which is why I put consciousness in parentheses.



Why would it be so different?



ambush80 said:


> Doesn't the notion that "it" would ingrain a "sense of itself" in us seem painfully human especially when you consider all the ways that people have come up with to describe that sense?



What do you mean by a sense of itself?  Are you discussing "created in his image?"


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 28, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> Why would it be so different?



I'm trying to imagine what it would be like to exist on multiple dimensions.  Then I realize how limited my ability to imagine what that even means is.  It makes me think how ridiculous it is to think that such a being would want me to dunk myself in water or burn dried goat poo or ring a gong or pray.

All that stuff has the terrible stink of man made all over it.




JB0704 said:


> What do you mean by a sense of itself?  Are you discussing "created in his image?"



No.  Just the seemingly universal impulse that homonids have of imagining something like themselves but more betterer looking down on them and making it lightning or drought.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 28, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> I'm trying to imagine what it would be like to exist on multiple dimensions.  Then I realize how limited my ability to imagine what that even means is.  It makes me think how ridiculous it is to think that such a being would want me to dunk myself in water or burn dried goat poo or ring a gong or pray.
> 
> All that stuff has the terrible stink of man made all over it.
> 
> ...


I'm with you. It would be an amazing coincidence. 
Think of 99% of the super hero's in comics and tv and books etc. Amazingly all human like. Even the ones that are not human are given human like personalities.
Because we identify with other human like things.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 28, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> I'm with you. It would be an amazing coincidence.
> Think of 99% of the super hero's in comics and tv and books etc. Amazingly all human like. Even the ones that are not human are given human like personalities.
> Because we identify with other human like things.



Similarly why we restrict the search for life, or had in the past, to planets like our own.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 28, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Similarly why we restrict the search for life, or had in the past, to planets like our own.


 

Well,  I've found rabbits in brier patches before.  When I look for them I start in brier patches.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 28, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> Well,  I've found rabbits in brier patches before.  When I look for them I start in brier patches.



Which is fine if you know you're hunting rabbits. You may need to look for squid. Those aren't as common in brier patches.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 28, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Which is fine if you know you're hunting rabbits. You may need to look for squid. Those aren't as common in brier patches.



I'll probably look in water.  I think people have been looking for other possible non-carbon life forms for a while as well.


----------

