[gwnn]

No, actually you mentioned the atheist friends upvoting mikeh a few days ago. And you talked about 'a hoard of atheists' a few days before that. I am not talking about what you did or didn't say about 32519, but about stereotyping atheists. I don't mind myself, but it seems like a double standard if you are offended by mikeh talking about 'the Fluffys' but you don't mind talking about 'the atheists' and how they just upvote each other and behave like a hoard.

[Fluffy]

you should see the difference between the fluffys and the mikes versus believers and the atheists. Specially when the fluffys he mentioned gather in group because of something that I do not even do (reject other gods)

But anyway I never intended to offend you with my wording, I apologice if I did.


Talking about laws of physics, even if we were only in a 3 dimensional universe, there are other spaces to consider. I mean, all the laws we know act when things are close in 3d-space and time. But there are other things such as energy, magnetic charge, etc. So there are other spaces where there could be other physic laws we will hardly ever notice.

[the hog]

 Zelandakh, on 2013-October-23, 05:51, said:

You surprise me greatly, for it was my understanding that gods such as Brahma are fundamentally accepted within the Buddhist universe, albeit as mortal and subject to karma and suffering. Indeed, according to the legends as I (badly) know them it was Brahma who persuaded The Buddha to teach. Similarly, at least within Zen Buddhism, I have heard the idea of a consciousness that is often seen and described as something similar to God in the Christian sense. Finally, the concept of a God is essentially compatible with the idea of reducing suffering. There is no reason why one cannot believe in Judeo-Christian God and still follow the teachings of Buddha. My understanding is that this is not unusual in some circles.

As for The Buddha, my understanding is that he stopped praying to the gods sometime before 30 and went out to find his own path. Not praying to them is not the same as not believing in them. As above, he is said to have had a conversation with one. With regards to a Creator, Buddha's position appears to have been something similar to that of a skeptic today but he regarded the question as irrelevant since it does not help on the path to enlightenment. Anyway, I am certain that you know Buddhism much better than I ever will so I accept that I may be wrong on one or more of these points. That said, your experience of Buddhism may well be different from the experiences of Buddhists in a Western country. Buddhism is by nature a religion tolerant of other beliefs and can easily exist in peaceful coexistence with them.

I suspect you are correct in this point, "your experience of Buddhism may well be different from the experiences of Buddhists in a Western country". Also don't forget that there are various branches of Buddhism. I live in Laos, where Theravada Buddhism is practise, (as it is in Thailand).
From my reading and the discussions I have had with monks, as i said before, the concept of a God was alien. That is not to say that you cannot believe in god if you want to, jut that such a belief is irrelevant to one's life. As I said, seriously, I have never met a Buddhist here that does believe in such a deity; that is not to say that such Buddhists do not exist, but I suspect that they are actually westerners practising Buddhism.

[Vampyr]

 Fluffy, on 2013-October-23, 17:26, said:

So there are other spaces where there could be other physic laws we will hardly ever notice.

Quite. Dark matter and dark energy, for example, might laws very different to the ones we know about.

[the hog]

 Fluffy, on 2013-October-23, 12:29, said:

First, please try to not be offensive, stereotyping me is offensive, and then saying something completely wrong about how I think doesn't make me happy either. Seems like me using the word fact has triggered some hate inside the atheists, I don't understand why, but I regret having used that word. What I refer as wrong is that I don't reject existence of other gods at all, I reject nothing.

You seem to have problems with regression, but I don't have them that much, I think its a matter of perspective.

Instead of an infinite universe think of a small one, something like an intelligent being that is born and raised inside a box somehow, with no outside contact. The universe for it would be the box. That intelligent being would wonder why is he locked on a box?, no because he doesn't know what a box is, he would think that his universe is small, and wonder what is the purpose of his existence.

The reality is that someone outside the box is locking him on the box and could break it anytime, but he doesn't want to. Why? There is really no way the being inside the box can ever know, he lacks perspective.

BTW My definition of god is that: something able to reak the physic laws we know.

While I see the universe as inmense, I think it is really very tiny compared to something else, which could have more dimensions and would make anything I think of it just nonsense. If I was outside the universe perhaps I could see why things are different, and with a 4+ dimensional brain, perhaps find out a way for all to make sense.

In mathematical terms... sorry I don't knwo the english terms for this, there are rules where An+1 = f(An), which is true for every element except the first one which must be given for granted, well I think there is a first element where everything makes sense.

So Fluffy, to quote: "Who made the watchmaker?"

[mikeh]

 Fluffy, on 2013-October-23, 17:26, said:

you should see the difference between the fluffys and the mikes versus believers and the atheists. Specially when the fluffys he mentioned gather in group because of something that I do not even do (reject other gods)

So what do you actually believe?

See post 499: 'god came to heart and changed the world 2000 years ago'

That has to be the Christian god, right?

The god that has made it abundantly clear that thou shalt have no other god? That one?

The one who created, literally, everything? That one?

Yet you deny that you reject any other gods?

I can understand why you may find choosing any one god as 'the answer' is confusing even tho all monotheistic religions require that you choose only one as 'it'.

The reality is that not one religion makes a plausible case for its choice being the right one, so of course someone may have doubts. If so, maybe you are far closer to atheism than you think That's all atheism is: doubt. Atheism isn't 'knowing the answers', no matter how 'certain' I and others may appear to be. My certainty is about process not outcome, if that makes any sense.

[Zelandakh]

It is possible to believe that a God exists without accepting all of the teachings of any particular religion associated with that God, Mike. If Fluffy says that he believes in a Judeo-Christian God without rejecting other gods, I see no reason to criticise that position because other believers take a different viewpoint. I do not believe in everything that is written by non-believers either (yes I know you see that as different because there is not an organised religion of non-believers).

[Elianna]

 mikeh, on 2013-October-23, 18:42, said:

The god that has made it abundantly clear that thou shalt have no other god? That one?

Not that I disagree with your other points, but that particular quote doesn't necessarily mean that you can't admit that there may be other gods, you just can't "have" (i.e. worship) another god in front of that one. So you don't need to necessarily deny that other gods exist if you follow that rule, you just have to assert that your god supersedes others.

Then again, one could ask why you're so sure that your god supersedes others, but that's a slightly different point than existence.

[gwnn]

 Fluffy, on 2013-October-23, 17:26, said:

you should see the difference between the fluffys and the mikes versus believers and the atheists. Specially when the fluffys he mentioned gather in group because of something that I do not even do (reject other gods)

But anyway I never intended to offend you with my wording, I apologice if I did.

There is no clear difference because you were talking about the atheists on this forum, not atheists in general. Of course the stereotypes themselves are different but I am just talking about the act of making a stereotype. I already said that it doesn't offend me, there is no need to apologise for your wording. Your double standard itself slightly annoys me though so admitting the double standard and/or stopping it would be helpful.

[Fluffy]

I find it more likely that all gods are the same one, but both options are possible.

[gwnn]

 Elianna, on 2013-October-23, 19:18, said:

Not that I disagree with your other points, but that particular quote doesn't necessarily mean that you can't admit that there may be other gods, you just can't "have" (i.e. worship) another god in front of that one. So you don't need to necessarily deny that other gods exist if you follow that rule, you just have to assert that your god supersedes others.

Then again, one could ask why you're so sure that your god supersedes others, but that's a slightly different point than existence.

Kinda funny (and immature I know) video I remembered

[Vampyr]

One of the most serious problems with religion is that parents teach it to their children as THE TRUTH. Not "this is what I believe, these are the reasons why, you may choose to believe the same when you are older and have thought about the issue, or you may not". If you look at a large family group, is it really so likely that they all considered the matter of religion carefully and came to the exact same conclusion, even to the extent of choosing the same holy book out of all the options available?

My nine-year-old niece believes in God; her seven-year-old brother does not. They go to UU church, so they know that the choice is theirs and that they may change their minds as well. UU religious education teaches children about various world religions, so that if they do wish to adopt a religious belief system, they can choose the one that seems best to resonate with them.

[mike777]

 Vampyr, on 2013-October-24, 23:26, said:

One of the most serious problems with religion is that parents teach it to their children as THE TRUTH. Not "this is what I believe, these are the reasons why, you may choose to believe the same when you are older and have thought about the issue, or you may not". If you look at a large family group, is it really so likely that they all considered the matter of religion carefully and came to the exact same conclusion, even to the extent of choosing the same holy book out of all the options available?

My nine-year-old niece believes in God; her seven-year-old brother does not. They go to UU church, so they know that the choice is theirs and that they may change their minds as well. UU religious education teaches children about various world religions, so that if they do wish to adopt a religious belief system, they can choose the one that seems best to resonate with them.

excellent comments vamp...


what do you teach your child when it comes to truth and religion?

[Trinidad]

 mike777, on 2013-October-25, 00:15, said:

excellent comments vamp...


what do you teach your child when it comes to truth and religion?

I don't know what Vampyr teaches her children, but I can tell you what we try to teach ours: To know about all religions (within practical limitations), to respect them and to defer their judgement.

That means that we actively get them in contact with religions:
They both go to a Roman Catholic school.
They have been to christian ceremonies (funerals, weddings) in church.
They have been to the local mosque.
They have travelled to India to attend an Upanayanam.
We discuss fundamental questions such as "where do we come from?" and "where are we going?".

All these things are discussed openly in our family. Of course, they learn our views (as non-believers), but they will also here sentences that start with: "These people believe xyz because of pqr and that is why they klm.".

It may seem that we do a lot to show them religions, but we aren't. We want to expose them to the diversity of the world that we live in, in all aspects... that not everybody does things the way we do them... and that these other people are happy too. And religion is merely one aspect of these people's lives.

Rik

[hrothgar]

 Trinidad, on 2013-October-25, 05:46, said:

I don't know what Vampyr teaches her children, but I can tell you that we try to teach ours: To know about all religions (within practical limitations), to respect them and to defer their judgement.

That means that we actively get them in contact with religions:
They both go to a Roman Catholic school.
They have been to christian ceremonies (funerals, weddings) in church.
They have been to the local mosque.
They have travelled to India to attend an Upanayanam.
We discuss fundamental questions such as "where do we come from?" and "where are we going?"

All these things are discussed openly in our family. Of course, they learn our views (as non-believers), but they will also here sentences that start with: "These people believe xyz because of pqr and that is why they klm.".

It may seem that we do a lot to show them religions, but we aren't. We want to expose them to the diversity of the world that we live in, in all aspects... that not everybody does things the way we do them... and that these other people are happy too. And religion is merely one aspect of these people's lives.

Rik

When I was going through confirmation in the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, we had an exchange program with one of the local Catholic parishes as well as a reform synagogue. We were expected to attend services at one of the partner sites for a month each as well as to study the tenets of their religions as to get a better idea regarding common beliefs between the religions as well as some of the idiosyncrasies.

At the time, I didn't much like going to extra services, however, in retrospect it was one of the most valuable parts of the whole experience.

[the hog]

 Fluffy, on 2013-October-24, 01:12, said:

I find it more likely that all gods are the same one, but both options are possible.

Fluffy, you still have not answered. Who made God(s)?

[mike777]

 the hog, on 2013-October-26, 21:28, said:

Fluffy, you still have not answered. Who made God(s)?

God made god......not illogical...but yes logic is important.


You don't say this but yes....is Christian god logical or not? Is Islam god logical?

Is God all powerful but limited to laws of logic, phil...etc


My understanding is the answer is yes...but you may disagree.

[kenberg]

 hrothgar, on 2013-October-25, 07:09, said:

When I was going through confirmation in the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, we had an exchange program with one of the local Catholic parishes as well as a reform synagogue. We were expected to attend services at one of the partner sites for a month each as well as to study the tenets of their religions as to get a better idea regarding common beliefs between the religions as well as some of the idiosyncrasies.

At the time, I didn't much like going to extra services, however, in retrospect it was one of the most valuable parts of the whole experience.

I was confirmed in the Presbyterian church in 1952. We had no such exchange programs, I think our minister could have benefited from such a program, we kids did not need it. My parent's closest friends were a Catholic family. The mother, May, would come over and sit with my mother in the kitchen, drink a lot of beer, and discuss life. Once May suggested that Kenny (that's me) should be sent to Holy Spirit because May's daughter Shirley was getting a much better education there. Not true, imo, but anyway my mother firmly explained that since we were not Catholic, we would not be doing that. As far as I can recall, that's the only religious issue that ever arose. My Jewish friends had to go to Hebrew School, which made them unavailable at certain times. That was a nuisance. My friend Stan never joined the Boy Scouts ( was in for a couple of years, loved camping, the rest was, well, the rest), but he did go to YMCA summer camp. He never went much into detail, but I got the idea that despite the C in YMCA, it was seen as more accepting of Jewish kids than the local chapter of the Boy Scouts was. But there were Jewish kids in it, so who knows.

I think, but I am not sure, that the first girl I dated was Jewish. The fact that I am not sure indicates how important it wasn't. The second girl I dated was Unitarian, a faith I had never before heard of. She thought that her church might be attractive for a budding atheist such as myself since, as the expression went, Unitarians believed in at most one God. It didn't fit me. For unexplainable reasons, my mother decided that Judy, this second girlfriend, was black (we didn't capitalize it back then). Once my mother got a notion she never backed down. They never met but if they had I am sure Mom would have said that she had really white skin for a black girl.

I don't want to give the wrong impression here. It's true that we all got along just fine, but marriage was seen differently. Stick with your own kind, as Anita tells Maria in West Side Story. When, as happened, a Jewish guy married a non-Jew, his parents held a funeral and declared him dead. And May Britt marrying Sammy Davis Jr.? Very shocking. I never saw my father treat anyone differently based on religion or race. He never used foul names. But marriage was suppose to be to someone from your own group. The practicality of it was stressed, although I imagine it would be naive to think it was all about practicality.

While I am discussing early background: A friend grew up to become a Methodist minister. Around 1965 or so he performed a marriage ceremony for two guys. More than a bit of a shocker. It turned out that there was nothing in the Methodist rule book that prohibited this, presumably because when the rule book was written it never occurred to anyone that such a rule would be required.

From my early life or from my later experiences or whatever, I really am not much interested in telling other people what they should think about God. I'll take care of my beliefs, they can take care of theirs.

[Trinidad]

I grew up with the old Dutch saying:
Twee geloven op een kussen
daar slaapt de duivel tussen.

This translates to: "Two religions on one pillow has the devil sleeping in between."

And for this "religion" was defined very narrowly: Calvinists from different factions are seen as different religions. (Another wisdom says that the Netherlands has as many religious factions as it has inhabitants.)

Rik

[Fluffy]

 the hog, on 2013-October-26, 21:28, said:

Fluffy, you still have not answered. Who made God(s)?

Actually I've done, mikeh has used that argument, and as I said, from god's perspective, lack of a maker might not be any kind of problem. We are locked in a 3d world but god could have a 4d or 7d intelligence we cannot ever begin to understand.

There is also a cyclic theory were god was created by a superior god, and that superior god by another even greater etc, and the greatest of all is us. I don't think it makes much sense but I don't reject it totally.