FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » If an atheist met God... (Page 1)

  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: If an atheist met God...
777
Member
Member # 9506

 - posted      Profile for 777           Edit/Delete Post 
...what would happen? Could he still be called an atheist, or could he even claim to be such a thing anymore? I'd just like to have this clarified to me--I mean absolutely no offense whatsoever to the atheists on this board. Don't worry; I'm well aware that you're out there.

Likewise, what would we Christians do if we died and found nothing waiting for us? While it's not necessarily healthy to adopt such worries as a mindset, these things can still be contemplated without undue harm to our hope and faith.

Really, though, what I'm trying to ask here is this: what would you do if you encountered absolutely undeniable evidence that what you now believe is wrong? Would you continue to lie to yourself? Or would you simply submit and try to make the best of things?

I personally think that answering this kind of question brings out some of the deeper aspects of peoples' personalities. It shows exactly how they would react in a worst-case scenario, and when this scenario is built upon the speculation of an utterly-horrific alternative, it really starts to carry some weight.

[ January 27, 2008, 12:41 PM: Message edited by: 777 ]

Posts: 292 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Strider
Member
Member # 1807

 - posted      Profile for Strider   Email Strider         Edit/Delete Post 
you spelled atheist wrong.

If I died and met god(i'm an atheist), I guess I wouldn't be an atheist anymore...by definition. I also wouldn't feel any differently about my life or how I lived it. And I'd have some stern questions to ask god.

I imagine that if a religious person died and they were wrong, they wouldn't really be around to feel much of anything.

Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Amanecer
Member
Member # 4068

 - posted      Profile for Amanecer   Email Amanecer         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
what would you do if you encountered absolutely undeniable evidence that what you now believe is wrong? Would you continue to lie to yourself? Or would you simply submit and try to make the best of things?
I would believe whatever made the most sense to me just like I do now. If God made himself somehow undeniable to me, I would believe. But I would need physical, repeatable proof. Emotional confirmations or unlikely coincidences would not be enough.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Leonide
Member
Member # 4157

 - posted      Profile for Leonide   Email Leonide         Edit/Delete Post 
"Was your PR manager taking the millennium off?"
Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Javert
Member
Member # 3076

 - posted      Profile for Javert   Email Javert         Edit/Delete Post 
I'd certainly believe in that god. Once I knew which god it was, I'd then have to take some time to decide whether I should worship it or not.

So belief, certainly. Submission? No. Partly because that term has negative connotations. Worship? Maybe...again, depending on the god.

Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
So if an atheist meets God and decides He isn't worth worshiping does he/she then become an antitheist?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
Not to quibble, but there is no such thing as 'absolutely undeniable evidence'.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Itsame
Member
Member # 9712

 - posted      Profile for Itsame           Edit/Delete Post 
Well, if God came down, spoke to me, performed a ton of impossible miracles (made me a giant, maybe gave me a ton of knowledge), then I'd believe in God. Wouldn't necessarily assume that it was the Christian God though.
Posts: 2705 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Javert
Member
Member # 3076

 - posted      Profile for Javert   Email Javert         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
So if an atheist meets God and decides He isn't worth worshiping does he/she then become an antitheist?

No, that would imply being actively opposed to the belief in god. We would just be anti-god. Or ambivalent to that god.

The question is vague unless 777 tells us the specific god we're supposed to be meeting.

From what I understand of the Mormon conception of god, I think I'd be mostly ambivalent. I'd request answers about all the business in the Old Testament. Would I worship him? Eh...I doubt it. Congratulate on putting together a universe from scratch, certainly. Ask for advice and information about everything, sure.

But worship? I think I'm far too American to worship anyone. I could be made to respect and trust though.

Then again, respect and trust are two things that I would have to withhold from most if not all of the gods that I have heard about.

Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Not to quibble, but there is no such thing as 'absolutely undeniable evidence'.

Well that is due more in part to the fact that humans can deny anything, even the things they know to be true.

Perhaps, "Absolute incontrovertible evidence" works better?

edit: Javert
quote:
No, that would imply being actively opposed to the belief in god. We would just be anti-god. Or ambivalent to that god.
I see nothing in the word antitheist that implies only the belief in God, not to mention anti-god should be rendered anti-theist IIRC. If you are against God, as in either you are hostile towards Him or simply disagree with His ideas you are an antitheist just as one could be an antisemite and be against everything generally semitic even if some of the particulars do not bother them.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Javert
Member
Member # 3076

 - posted      Profile for Javert   Email Javert         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
edit: Javert
quote:
No, that would imply being actively opposed to the belief in god. We would just be anti-god. Or ambivalent to that god.
I see nothing in the word antitheist that implies only the belief in God, not to mention anti-god should be rendered anti-theist IIRC. If you are against God, as in either you are hostile towards Him or simply disagree with His ideas you are an antitheist just as one could be an antisemite and be against everything generally semitic even if some of the particulars do not bother them.
Isn't 'theism' the belief in god? So wouldn't a 'theist' be a person who believes in god? Therefore, wouldn't 'antitheist' be either someone against the belief in god, or against the believers?

I'm not debating your statement, just your word usage.

Perhaps 'antitheos'?

Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally Posted by BlackBlade
Perhaps, "Absolute incontrovertible evidence" works better?

I'm glad you didn't say 'clear and incontrovertible" or I'd think I was at the UN.

Personally I believe that a God is possible. I'm not sure on any of the particulars, and I certainly don't disbelieve, I just dont ascribe to any particular faith's version of God. So, if I met Him or Her, I too would probably have a ton of questions I'd want answered, and even then, though I'd be a believer of His existance, I'm not really sure that would change much. I wouldn't go over to any faith, I likely wouldn't live my life differently, and unless He was willing to hang around and answer all my questions to my satisfaction, there's little chance I'd be willing to move over to a specific faith, though I'd be curious as to who, if anyone, was right all this time. [Smile]

Likewise if I died and was met with nothingness, as is, I might add, one of my greatest fears, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have awareness long enough to reach any meaningful level of understanding, making it more or less a moot point.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Launchywiggin
Member
Member # 9116

 - posted      Profile for Launchywiggin   Email Launchywiggin         Edit/Delete Post 
Because of the frailty of our personally-constructed realities, most of us would think we were dreaming, hallucinating, or seeing aliens. There's no way I could know that this "thing" claiming to be God actually created everything in the Universe.

I would be skeptical until the end. It's how God made me.

Posts: 1314 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
suminonA
Member
Member # 8757

 - posted      Profile for suminonA   Email suminonA         Edit/Delete Post 
Answer: If a deity would slap me in the face, I’d take it into consideration. (dead or otherwise)

also,

(open) Question: Did you meet your personally favorite deity before you were born?

A.

PS: I would be skeptical until the end. It's how the accidental Universe accidentally made me.

Posts: 1154 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by 777:
...what would happen? Could he still be called an aetheist, or could he even claim to be such a thing anymore? I'd just like to have this clarified to me--I mean absolutely no offense whatsoever to the aetheists on this board. Don't worry; I'm well aware that you're out there.

If you ask merely for information, the answer is that athiests do not believe that this will happen. If it were to happen, and if the supposed atheist were to evaluate this event for himself, he would possibly conclude that he was not talking to God, but was having a near-death or pre-death experience which altered his state of consciousness.

See the thing about us athiests is that we don't know about god and then deny him. We don't think he's real, so if we were to be presented with a godlike figure, we would search for explanations that corresponded to our experiences. In other words, if we were to meet "god" we wouldn't recognize him, because he doesn't exist, and recognizing something you don't have an image for is a little harder than you might think.

For instance, go to a museum and look at a painting. A 19th century programmatic painting works best. Then look the painting up in a book and find out what the critics or art experts have to say about the painting, and then look at it again. You'll find that you see aspects of the painting that you were not able to see before you read about it. Collective experience becomes important to your personal views on the painting.

I am not saying that athiests have "not read enough" about God, but that perhaps theists have not read enough about life or their own lives to understand the world around them. Or maybe not... I guess I'm not a devout athiest- I think the idea of that is an anathema.

Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fyfe
Member
Member # 937

 - posted      Profile for Fyfe   Email Fyfe         Edit/Delete Post 
My friend has a book called Lulu Meets God and Doubts Him.

Er. That's irrelevant. But it charmed me. [Smile]

Posts: 910 | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
777
Member
Member # 9506

 - posted      Profile for 777           Edit/Delete Post 
I sincerely apologize if I have offended any of the atheists on this forum. I didn't quite understand the mindset of standard atheism--I mean, even though I'm a devout Christian, I can still contemplate the concept of oblivion and all that such would imply... I didn't realize that atheists lack even the concept of God.

And I don't mean words like "mindset" or "lack" in offensive or negative terms. Believe me, I try to hold people in the highest regard, whatever their beliefs may be. Who am I to judge you?

For myself... well, if I were to die and find nothing, absolutely nothing there waiting for me, I'd probably go through a few simple phases. Odds are I'd be a bit frustrated at first, try to find something that wasn't there, and then, at the final end of things, submit to my fate. I try to be a bit hopeful about things when there's little hope to be had.

Of course, if it's oblivion that waits for me, I won't have anything to worry about anyway. But I'd know with my dying breath that I'd have lived a good life according to what I had believed.

"It's a bittersweet symphony, that's life..."

Posts: 292 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Leonide
Member
Member # 4157

 - posted      Profile for Leonide   Email Leonide         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
if I were to die and find nothing, absolutely nothing there waiting for me, I'd probably go through a few simple phases.
There's something decidedly impossible about this entire passage.
Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ClaudiaTherese
Member
Member # 923

 - posted      Profile for ClaudiaTherese           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by 777:
I didn't quite understand the mindset of standard atheism--I mean, even though I'm a devout Christian, I can still contemplate the concept of oblivion and all that such would imply... I didn't realize that atheists lack even the concept of God.

[Confused]

quote:
For myself... well, if I were to die and find nothing, absolutely nothing there waiting for me, I'd probably go through a few simple phases.

What Leonide said. I don't think we may share the same concept of "oblivion" and "nothing, absolutely nothing."
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ricree101
Member
Member # 7749

 - posted      Profile for ricree101   Email ricree101         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by 777:

For myself... well, if I were to die and find nothing, absolutely nothing there waiting for me, I'd probably go through a few simple phases. Odds are I'd be a bit frustrated at first, try to find something that wasn't there, and then, at the final end of things, submit to my fate.[/i]

To clarify a bit more, atheists don't actually expect to "experience" nothing after death, with the emphasis here on experience. The closest analogy would probably to say that after death is like before birth, in the sense that there really isn't any conscious "you" to experience things at all.
In other words, if atheists are right you will never actually know it since you will cease to have conscious thought once your life ends.

Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Javert
Member
Member # 3076

 - posted      Profile for Javert   Email Javert         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by ricree101:
quote:
Originally posted by 777:

For myself... well, if I were to die and find nothing, absolutely nothing there waiting for me, I'd probably go through a few simple phases. Odds are I'd be a bit frustrated at first, try to find something that wasn't there, and then, at the final end of things, submit to my fate.[/i]

To clarify a bit more, atheists don't actually expect to "experience" nothing after death, with the emphasis here on experience. The closest analogy would probably to say that after death is like before birth, in the sense that there really isn't any conscious "you" to experience things at all.
In other words, if atheists are right you will never actually know it since you will cease to have conscious thought once your life ends.

The closest comparison we can make is dreamless sleep. And even that isn't exactly right, but it's as close as we can probably get to understanding oblivion before it comes.

I don't think you've offended anyone here 777. At least, I haven't been. But one of the problems, I think, is that you seem to assume that believing that god exists would automatically lead to worshiping and/or submitting to that god, which is not the case.

Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
777
Member
Member # 9506

 - posted      Profile for 777           Edit/Delete Post 
I apologize for my lack of clear communication. I'm well aware that if oblivion were the case, there wouldn't be any sort of "me" to contemplate my fate. Sorry for starting off on the wrong foot there--ignore what I said earlier. Death is death, with nothing, not even myself, thereafter.

It's a very different philosophy from what I'm used to. It has its own comforts--a lack of pressure, a better appreciation for this single life I have to live--but all the same, I'd rather hope for an eternity than for a lifetime. Maybe that's the crux of our differences, and as such our moral/ethical philosophies: whereas (most) theists believe that we'll have something to experience after we die, atheists seem to believe that what we live now is all we'll ever have. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Posts: 292 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
aspectre
Member
Member # 2222

 - posted      Profile for aspectre           Edit/Delete Post 
"...Chairs exist. That doesn't mean I go around believing in them..."
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Joldo
Member
Member # 6991

 - posted      Profile for Joldo   Email Joldo         Edit/Delete Post 
Yes, I think I'd have to hash some things out with god before I got anywhere near belief . . .

You know, as a child, I always found the idea of death as oblivion more comforting than the idea of an afterlife. I remember thinking about sleeping forever, no dreams or anything, and thinking it sounded awfully nice.

Posts: 1735 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ClaudiaTherese
Member
Member # 923

 - posted      Profile for ClaudiaTherese           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by 777:
It has its own comforts--a lack of pressure

Actually, some (note the "some") atheists experience this as more pressure. If this life is the only chance you get, then there is no opportunity to make amends or have someone else make celestial amends to others for you. [I feel more pressure myself as a non-religious person than I did as a practising Catholic, for example, and for just this reason.]

quote:
a better appreciation for this single life I have to live--but all the same, I'd rather hope for an eternity than for a lifetime.

I'd rather hope for a lot of things that I don't think I can have. *grin

Doesn't mean, for me, that they then become possible just because they seem nicer. That is, I don't think the characteristic of being atheistic necessarily means that you prefer there is no God (or Gods), or that you prefer a non-eternity. Maybe, maybe not -- but one doesn't necessarily follow from the other. Separate considerations.

quote:
Maybe that's the crux of our differences, and as such our moral/ethical philosophies: whereas (most) theists believe that we'll have something to experience after we die, atheists seem to believe that what we live now is all we'll ever have. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I think many who believe in reincarnation do not believe in a deity (or deities) that organize the process. There are also other such possibilities to further existence that do not predicate an organized consciousness be behind them. My sense is that this dichotomy probably is a false one.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Itsame
Member
Member # 9712

 - posted      Profile for Itsame           Edit/Delete Post 
"The closest comparison we can make is dreamless sleep. And even that isn't exactly right, but it's as close as we can probably get to understanding oblivion before it comes."


An apt analogy, especially as Plato (or at least Socrates, since in Plato's later dialogues, he states that there is an immortal soul) describes that as what it would be like if there were no afterlife.

Posts: 2705 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rollainm
Member
Member # 8318

 - posted      Profile for rollainm   Email rollainm         Edit/Delete Post 
Does that really tell us anything at all, though? I mean, what's the significance of that analogy?
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
I'm just going to point out that while the conversation is interesting, an atheist does not *necessarily* believe that there is no afterlife. I suspect that there is a high correlation between the two beliefs, but it is worth pointing out that the two are not inextricably linked.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ClaudiaTherese
Member
Member # 923

 - posted      Profile for ClaudiaTherese           Edit/Delete Post 
^---- [Wink]

[I'd agree with the likelihood of a high correlation between atheism and lack of a belief in an afterlife] except -- I think -- for Buddhism, which has ~300-350 million adherents worldwide.

---

Edited to add: Probably also Chinese Traditional Religion ([e.g.], "Confuscianism," with the ongoing veneration of ancestors that are dead but still thought to be involved in daily affairs, as I (limitedly!) understand it), with about 350-400 million [Confuscianist] adherents worldwide.

I am pretty sure neither of these is theistic, but in fact denies theism as a part of the beliefs, and yet -- as I read it -- neither limits existence to what we think of as just this life.

[ January 27, 2008, 08:54 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]

Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
suminonA
Member
Member # 8757

 - posted      Profile for suminonA   Email suminonA         Edit/Delete Post 
Mucus, that's why the label atheist is soo ... "useful". [Monkeys]

A.

Posts: 1154 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rollainm
Member
Member # 8318

 - posted      Profile for rollainm   Email rollainm         Edit/Delete Post 
Most Buddhists I've communicated with (which, granted, isn't that many) are more apatheist than traditional atheist, really.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ClaudiaTherese
Member
Member # 923

 - posted      Profile for ClaudiaTherese           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by rollainm:
Most Buddhists I've communicated with (which, granted, isn't that many) are more apatheist than traditional atheist, really.

Do you think they are not atheistic in the way you read the OPer to be using the term? *interested

---

Edited to add: I am under the impression that the various tenets of the various sects of Buddhism preclude an overseeing deity. There is the role of the Bodhisattva, but I can't make sense of that as a god. More as a middleman or teacher not as a ruler, overseer, or prime mover.

Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rollainm
Member
Member # 8318

 - posted      Profile for rollainm   Email rollainm         Edit/Delete Post 
...I suppose they could be.

But I think the question at hand is less...relevant for apatheists. By definition they're just not that concerned with the what-ifs.

But then, I suppose neither are many atheists, myself included.

Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
Buddhism: When I did some fast research on the theist/Buddhism question on Wikipedia, I got the impression that they were more agnostic than atheist. That is, they do not have an overseeing deity but they do not actually have a belief that there is not one either. As rollainm put it, its just not too relevant for them.

Confucianism (or other): I do not usually consider some of the Chinese traditions to be "religions" in the Western sense, or at least I find that it is sufficiently misleading to draw that equivalence. Some of my reasoning for Confucianism parallels that drawn here link
and I would agree with the linked assertion that it is more of a "secular ethical tradition" or philosophy.
I would also emphasize the point that the linked bit made about non-exclusivity, you can believe in many of the Chinese traditions without being forced to pick just one.

As far as the theism/atheism question, you may be right, but I'm not sure if they're actually atheist or just agnostic again.

Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ricree101
Member
Member # 7749

 - posted      Profile for ricree101   Email ricree101         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by 777:
I'd rather hope for an eternity than for a lifetime.

I don't know about. Have you ever really stopped and thought about just how long eternity really is? No matter how much there is to do, at some point you're pretty much done and still left with an eternity to go through.
Personally, I'd rather have an indefinite lifespan that was only limited by my how long I felt like going on. I don't know at what point I would consider enough, but I definitely wouldn't mind having a chance to find out firsthand.

Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Starsnuffer
Member
Member # 8116

 - posted      Profile for Starsnuffer   Email Starsnuffer         Edit/Delete Post 
Ok. Were I to meet a christian-style god (at least) I'd be impressed to say the least, and very curious for him to prove that he was not a product of my having hallucinations or something like that, but that could easily be done by having him show me designs for something humanity has never done before and upon following those designs, coming up with a novel new technology. (which I'll assume I wouldn't be able to figure out in a hallucination of mine, especially with my limited knowledge of calculus, physics etc etc..)

Following that affirmation of his existence I would not, de facto, worship that god, though I imagine I'd hold him in high esteem. If he informs me, however, that he guarantees, in his all-powerful way that if I don't worship in him some exact way, that I will suffer an eternity after death or some-such thing, I'd do what he demands, for the same reason I'd do anything someone with a gun to my head said to do.

Short of this bullying commandment of god he could provide convincing arguments and proof as to why I should behave in a given way and therefore get me to act "Christian" and highly respect him. Following what he has to say because it seems like a good idea, not only because he says he'll break my kneecaps if I don't.

In summary: As an agnostic atheist (I can't KNOW there's no god, but I can't KNOW there is one either) I would at least believe in a god's existence once he proved that existence to me. I would not necessarily subscribe to his commands or anthing unless given enough reason to do so. (That reason could consist of logical reasons, threats, or bribes... whatever)

Though I may encounter a refutation of my current belief, it does not mean that refutation would change how I behave in day to day life.

Posts: 655 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ClaudiaTherese
Member
Member # 923

 - posted      Profile for ClaudiaTherese           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Mucus:
Buddhism: When I did some fast research on the theist/Buddhism question on Wikipedia, I got the impression that they were more agnostic than atheist. That is, they do not have an overseeing deity but they do not actually have a belief that there is not one either. As rollainm put it, its just not too relevant for them.


All is samsara, no? And so God is samsara, and so clinging to a belief in God is samsara, no?

quote:
No one saves us but ourselves,
No one can and no one may.
We ourselves must walk the path,
But Buddhas clearly show the way.

-- The Dhammapada, 165

---

quote:
Originally posted by Mucus:
Confucianism (or other): I do not usually consider some of the Chinese traditions to be "religions" in the Western sense, or at least I find that it is sufficiently misleading to draw that equivalence. Some of my reasoning for Confucianism parallels that drawn here link
and I would agree with the linked assertion that it is more of a "secular ethical tradition" or philosophy.

Well, yes. But my point was not that adherents to the tenets of Confucius are religious, but that a large number of them represent people who

1. Do not believe in God, and yet
2. Believe in some form of afterlife.

Or are you meaning to suggest that most followers of Confucius do believe in God? [Confused]

Or that most do not believe in some sort of afterlife?

Because unless you disagree with one of these, I'm not sure how you are disagreeing with the point I made.

---

Edited to add: Not that you aren't allowed to disagree with me! [Smile] (For some, it appears to be a useful default state. [Wink] ) I just mean that I am confused as to what we are disagreeing about. [Is this the semantic atheist/agnostic question again, or something else? I am reading 777 as dividing persons into two kinds (theistic and atheistic); i.e., "whereas (most) theists believe that we'll have something to experience after we die, atheists seem to believe that what we live now is all we'll ever have. Please correct me if I'm wrong." In that context, he/she seems to be using "atheist" in the broad sense of the word.]

[ January 27, 2008, 06:24 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]

Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
Sorry, I think that I was unclear.

My second paragraph was objecting to the line "Edited to add: Probably also Chinese Traditional Religion ("Confuscianism"
That is, I was just pointing out that it is probably unhelpful to equate Confucianism to a religion.

My second point about "non-exclusivity" was made a bit more clear in my link. But roughly, I'm not sure that Confucianism has much to say on the subject of god and more importantly there is no rigorous mechanism as in Christianity to make sure that everyone believes in Confucianism and *only* Confucianism. People are free to mix in elements of traditional ancestor worship, Taoism, or Buddhism.

So I guess my point is, many adherents to Confucianism *may* be atheist and yet believe in an afterlife but I do not believe that it is due to their adherence to Confucianism. Rather, their belief in the afterlife is due to a traditional belief in ancestor worship which just happens to be popular among the type of people that become pick up elements of Confucianism.

So I'm not so much disagreeing with you, as much as I am disagreeing with your terminology and cause and effect.

I hope that wasn't too confusing.

____________

As for Buddhism, you may possibly be correct. My initial statement was referring to a couple passages in here
such as
quote:
What is deemed as 'the creation of the universe by an all-powerful creator deity' in many other religions is not accepted by any school of Buddhism.

Avidya, or 'ignorance', is the closest thing in Buddhism to the First Cause of creation, but is not attributed to any God or Buddha. The Gautama Buddha explained the origin of the world of samsara in this way, but refused to answer questions about the origin of the unconditioned ‘things as they are‘ in the Pali Canon.

This did not sound like to me that they had an actual belief that there was no God. Rather that what they believe in doesn't actually happen to include a God. (I admit this might be a rather subtle distinction)

(... and perhaps I am reading too much into the word "ignorance"?)

Also to add: One part that I should make clear. I do not agree with 777's division of people into two camps, either atheist or theist. Or at least that I find that there is enough distinction between atheists and agnostics that it is useful to consider them separately.

Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ClaudiaTherese
Member
Member # 923

 - posted      Profile for ClaudiaTherese           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Mucus:
My second paragraph was objecting to the line "Edited to add: Probably also Chinese Traditional Religion ("Confuscianism"
That is, I was just pointing out that it is probably unhelpful to equate Confucianism to a religion.

Ah. It's the academic term (see below) that is more inclusive, and I studied world religions academically. I did not mean to mark the terms as equivalent, but to note the more colloquial term that overlaps for reference. [CTR as a whole has numbers more in the range of 800 million, as opposed to "Confuscianism's" 350-400 million. But I've edited above to be more clear.]

quote:
Chinese traditional religion:

In older world religion books the estimates of the total number of adherents of Confucianism range up to 350 million. Other books, including older versions of the Encyclopedia Britannica, have listed Chinese religionists under "Taoism," with adherent estimates up to about 200 million. But these figures are all based on counts of the same segment of Chinese people throughout the world -- people practicing what is, sociologically, more accurately called Chinese traditional religion, and often called Chinese folk religion. The word "traditional" is preferable to "folk" because "folk" might imply only the local, tribal customs and beliefs such as ancestor worship and nature beliefs. But "Chinese traditional religion" is meant to categorize the common religion of the majority Chinese culture: a combination of Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism, as well as the traditional non-scriptural/local practices and beliefs. For most religious Chinese who do not explicitly follow a different religion such as Islam or Christianity, these different ancient Chinese philosophies and traditions form a single, seamless composite religious culture and worldview.
[italics added]

quote:
People are free to mix in elements of traditional ancestor worship, Taoism, or Buddhism.
None of which are theistic, right?

quote:
So I guess my point is, many adherents to Confucianism *may* be atheist and yet believe in an afterlife but I do not believe that it is due to their adherence to Confucianism. Rather, their belief in the afterlife is due to a traditional belief in ancestor worship which just happens to be popular among the type of people that become pick up elements of Confucianism.

Well, sure. No quibble there. 777 wasn't referencing causality, but correspondence, and correspondence was all I was claiming.

quote:
So I'm not so much disagreeing with you, as much as I am disagreeing with your terminology and cause and effect.

Just to be perfectly clear -- I also find the issue of causality irrelevant. [Smile] I didn't make any claims about cause and effect, just correspondence.

I think our difference on terminology is for sure something we can make sense of with each other, for whatever we need to communicate. I'll happily use "Confuscianism."

quote:
This did not sound like to me that they had an actual belief that there was no God. Rather that what they believe in doesn't actually happen to include a God.

I think that plenty of people believe different things and still call themselves Christian, or Buddhist, or what have you. But I'm pretty sure that at the core of Buddhism is the idea that all is illusion, and that it is the clinging to illusion that leads to suffering. "God" would be a part of "all." It's another illusory distinction.

However, it may be that my Western mind just isn't grasping something.

quote:
Also to add: One part that I should make clear. I do not agree with 777's division of people into two camps, either atheist or theist. Or at least that I find that there is enough distinction between atheists and agnostics that it is useful to consider them separately.

Yeah, I think there is a lot of nuance not being captured there.

[ January 27, 2008, 09:00 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]

Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
CT:
quote:
People are free to mix in elements of traditional ancestor worship, Taoism, or Buddhism.
quote:
None of which are theistic, right?
China seems to be all over these boards these days. TBH in my experience, (being around Chinese people for the better part of 17 years) MOST Chinese people believe in a sort of conglomerated version of Buddhism Taoism and Ancestor Worship. Taoism has hundreds if not thousands of Gods and Goddesses, all of which may be seated right next to idols of Buddha, Confucius, etc.

Daily prayers as well as specific holiday related rites are prescribed throughout the year for most of these adherents. In Taiwan I got to spend two years asking a lot of people about their religious affiliation. Taiwan, is a good representation of many different groups of Chinese people all in one place. Almost all of them, identified as "Buddhist" (with Taoist a very close second) when asked, but if asked if they believed in God they almost always answered affirmatively. Usually if they said either one of those religions, and you looked at their shrine, they almost all looked identical, in that they had the same basic layout.

It's mildly humorous for me to hear people learned people point out that Buddhism does not believe in a God and that there are X hundred million of them. I think if you asked at least most of the Chinese Buddhists they would still say they believe in God and could even identify him by a name or image.

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ClaudiaTherese
Member
Member # 923

 - posted      Profile for ClaudiaTherese           Edit/Delete Post 
BlackBlade, I'm looking up Chinese Buddhist deities online, and what I am finding are mainly boddhisattvas and lohans, or guardian angels. Are these what you mean by "Gods and Goddesses?"
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese:
It's the academic term (see below) that is more inclusive, and I studied world religions academically. I did not mean to mark the terms as equivalent, but to note the more colloquial term that overlaps for reference.

Your link actually points to our exact point of our miscommunication.

quote:

In comparative religion texts Confucianism, Taoism and Chinese Buddhism are sometimes addressed in three separate chapters, and sometimes treated in one chapter as "Chinese religion." Even today there are very valid reasons for distinguishing Taoism from Confucianism, and distinguishing both from Chinese Buddhism and non-scriptural Chinese folk religion. For religious, philosophical, historical and scriptural purposes, distinguishing between these separate traditions is quite manageable.

I tend to separate these too, but if we use the former "inclusive" definition that you've been using. I agree with "most" of what you said. [Smile]

quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Taoism has hundreds if not thousands of Gods and Goddesses, all of which may be seated right next to idols of Buddha, Confucius, etc.

Pet peeve:

Strictly speaking, I think it is better to translate them as "gods and goddesses" rather than capital "G" Gods and Goddesses. To draw a Western parallel, they occupy the same sort of niche as the Greek gods did in Rome (albeit usually with less power) and ancestor idols may be similar to the Imperial cult in ancient Rome. However, I do not usually capitalize those and say "Greek Gods" rather than "Greek gods" or say that people that believed in Augustus Caesar believe in God. Rather, those people believed in a god.

I tend not to do this in order not to draw false connotations that they are easily equivalent to the Christian God. (I'm not necessarily saying that you are, but that many would)

Point of interest: Heck, in Cantonese I often see many of these pseudo-mythological deities translated as "saints" rather than "gods" which I think gives more accurate connotations. (e.g. the idea that some deities were once regular people that either were worshipped as gods after death or attained supernatural power in their life)
Hmmm, pondering it, I think "patron saints" is even better.

(I've also seen them translated as "fairies" but let's not complicate matters...more anyways)

[ January 28, 2008, 12:45 AM: Message edited by: Mucus ]

Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ClaudiaTherese
Member
Member # 923

 - posted      Profile for ClaudiaTherese           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Mucus:
I tend to separate these too, but if we use the former "inclusive" definition that you've been using. I agree with "most" of what you said. [Smile]


*grin

Were that more controversies were so gently and graciously settled.

Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
It shows exactly how they would react in a worst-case scenario, and when this scenario is built upon the speculation of an utterly-horrific alternative, it really starts to carry some weight.
If an atheist meets god, why is it the worst case scenario?

Are they going to hell no matter what they were like aside from being an atheist?

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
suminonA
Member
Member # 8757

 - posted      Profile for suminonA   Email suminonA         Edit/Delete Post 
Maybe this should go in a new thread, but I have this related question, to the original post:

How would one actually know if they met what the others call “God”?
This may sound dumb, but every reference to that specific deity sounds like an “inside joke” that I personally don’t get. How can two people agree about what “God” means, if neither of them can explain what it is, exactly? If anyone can, I’d be delighted to find out more details. [Smile]

A.

Posts: 1154 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Corwin
Member
Member # 5705

 - posted      Profile for Corwin           Edit/Delete Post 
Perhaps if you'd meet other (already dead) people in that supposed afterlife and God would have some sort of conference with all of you. [Big Grin] You'd then agree on who/what God is, regardless of previous personal ideas. Of course that wouldn't mean that everyone would follow/worhsip God unless he has a way to prove that his thinking/moral system is the "right" one.

If I were in this position I wouldn't "believe" in God. I'd know that something God-like exists. Whether it was the creator of all or not would need further evidence. All the evidence would of course need to be repeatalbe, that is to say I won't think there's a God because I saw a bright light once and it spoke to me. And if at one point something would come up to prove that this being was just an alien who listened to us for a long time in order to build himself up as our God, I'd accept the new evidence as soon as available and properly explained.

Posts: 4519 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
777
Member
Member # 9506

 - posted      Profile for 777           Edit/Delete Post 
If you met God, He'd probably make it known to you exactly who He is. I don't know how He'd do this--it might be humorous, it might be a stern reminder, and it just might be a painful experience. I doubt it, though--most of such visionary experiences are accompanied by comforting phrases such as "Fear not!"

And if there were multiple people present, He'd probably state it, prove it, and let any believers take Him up on it. Utterly skeptical people would remain in the dark by their own choice.

These are just my personal thoughts, not solid doctrine or anything.

**************

To address the "bully" situation: this I can answer with LDS doctrine, more or less; if you count the King Follett Discourse as canonical, then we're on the same track.

From what I can gather, the eternal family system of the LDS tradition is effectively structured like a ladder of glory--much like a social ladder or any other such conventional idea. God the Father--the traditionally ancient God of us all--is located two rungs above us, with God the Son located directly between us. We're the next step down.

By looking at it this way, you can probably guess what follows. Eternal progression is simply progress up the ladder. Placing God on the ladder means that his eternal progression is still in progress; "eternal" encompasses him as well.

The crucial point, now: in order to progress up the ladder, the person above you must gain glory enough to rise to the next position of glory. By glorifying that which lies above you, you grant Them the ability to pull you up to the next level, thus improving your condition.

Essentially, the problem of "bullying" arises from the fact that most people don't have the eternal perspective in mind when proceeding through life, and as such, do not see "commandments" as what they really are--statements on how life works, rather than biased and illogical commands in order to limit your freedom. If you don't comply, then you'll go to Hell--but again, in the LDS tradition that's not as bad as it may sound.

From what I understand, this is a good description of the process of exaltation. Of course, this is what I understand from my own reading of the Discourse, which may be completely incorrect. Fellow members, please correct me if I'm wrong--I may be making a complete fool of myself here.

Posts: 292 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Corwin
Member
Member # 5705

 - posted      Profile for Corwin           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by 777:
If you met God, He'd probably make it known to you exactly who He is. I don't know how He'd do this--it might be humorous, it might be a stern reminder, and it just might be a painful experience. I doubt it, though--most of such visionary experiences are accompanied by comforting phrases such as "Fear not!"

And if there were multiple people present, He'd probably state it, prove it, and let any believers take Him up on it. Utterly skeptical people would remain in the dark by their own choice.

These are just my personal thoughts, not solid doctrine or anything.

That's the problem right there. There have been people convincing others that they are God's prophets. A complex enough intelligence could provide you with a very plausible explanation that it is God. However, that doesn't make it God. It would make it God (or God-like) for me "until otherwise proven". You can't "remain in the dark" when light is shone in your eyes. But you can remain skeptical about the light being God.

What if I turn this question around? Let's say a believer met someone who gave him good reasons to think he's God. Then after a while some events would prove that it was just an alien with a good knowledge of both the Universe and the human mind, who made it all up. What would the believer think? This is God but the evidence is somehow faked? There still is a God but this is not it? What if the believer finds himself in this situation several times? God A is disproved, God B the same, etc. How many evidences of fraud are necessary to come to the conclusion that perhaps the initial belief in God was also based on lies?

Posts: 4519 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
777
Member
Member # 9506

 - posted      Profile for 777           Edit/Delete Post 
I'm not sure what my reaction would be. Odds are that, unless my God tells me to do something that's unbecoming of His own given personality--that of the Christian God--then I'd probably just go with the flow. And so on with the next God, and the next after that. Eventually, all "false" Gods would be disproved, and I would finally meet God.

But that's only if this is the case.

I understand your concern--that God may or may not fake His own being, or that the God we meet in the afterlife may or may not be the God we think we should be meeting--as well as the concern that God does not necessarily deserve to be worshiped if he exists. All of these are good and reasonable concerns, but the problem arises from the fact that those with a Christian mindset would probably take it on faith, whereas many without wouldn't take it at all. Faith, once again, proves itself to be a crucial difference between us.

I can see where faith clashes directly with reason--I mean, if there's no evidence that something should be taken as truth, then it's probably harmful to do so, isn't it? Yet the greatest risks have both the greatest consequences and the greatest rewards. I think that what God asks us to do is to take the risk that he's real, and that he's right. It may be hard, but it's what we Christians do.

*********

Of course, many think that God being right makes them right as well, which is hardly the case. This is where abuse of religion kicks in, which can claim most of the atrocities done in God's name throughout history.

Posts: 292 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Corwin
Member
Member # 5705

 - posted      Profile for Corwin           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by 777:
Eventually, all "false" Gods would be disproved, and I would finally meet God.

In my view this is the "triumph of hope over experience". As a scientist I can't really accept it as a "reasonable" point of view. My own reasoning would go along this way: "Ok, the first one might be God. Oh, it's not? The second one might be, but something's fishy here. Oh, it's not? The third one? Something fishy from the start, need a lot to believe it's really God this time..." Of course whether everything should be subjet to reason or not is another question.

[Edit] If you'd act like this about God, would you act like this for anything else? If not, why not?

quote:
I understand your concern--that God may or may not fake His own being, or that the God we meet in the afterlife may or may not be the God we think we should be meeting--as well as the concern that God does not necessarily deserve to be worshiped if he exists. All of these are good and reasonable concerns, but the problem arises from the fact that those with a Christian mindset would probably take it on faith, whereas many without wouldn't take it at all. Faith, once again, proves itself to be a crucial difference between us.
The main question is "why have faith?" "Because it can't do any harm", "because it's comforting", "because otherwise I'm depressed cause there'd be no purpose in life" are not valid answers in my opinion. "Because I had an experience that leads me to believe there's a God" might be enough for one person, but that's hardly enough to convince me if there's no repeat and no proof that said experience is nothing more than a momentary sensory overload. "Concern" is not the issue here; reality is.

quote:
Yet the greatest risks have both the greatest consequences and the greatest rewards.
I don't see any real reward in believing in God. Sure, people have said that belief is necessary for this and that, but for me that only comes from people. There are many things people say that I don't believe, religion is just the most complex (and contradictory) of them.

quote:
Of course, many think that God being right makes them right as well, which is hardly the case. This is where abuse of religion kicks in, which can claim most of the atrocities done in God's name throughout history.
Agreed on this account. Of course, religion doesn't hold the monopoly for this. [Smile] Everything that can give you an edge can be interpretted to "mean" "I'm right".
Posts: 4519 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2