Religion

[Andrew Toll]

So, what is the ideal religion?

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

Well, that is a bit general. What does the religion intend to do?

Due to bias opinion, I believe it's Buddhism. Buddhism doesn't desire to spread its teachings upon others so it wasn't involved in any wars or genocides. Buddhism also accepts others ideals and is very peaceful. It doesn't request too much from others. It's more of a way of life.

Cheers

[Paul Gully]

None.

*chirp*

oh, we wanted actual /discussion/

well, what are you aiming for with religion? freedom? righteousness? self-imposed authority? enlightenment? 'happiness'? war?

my ideal 'religion' would impose no beliefs on others, not get in my way at all, be entirely transparant organizationally, and logically sound. that kinda crosses every single organized religion ever off the list. 

On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 5:21 PM, Andrew Toll <andyt...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Andrew Towle]

Paul, do you have no belief in some form of deity, god, or superior being? How do you think the universe was formed? How do you think life came into existence?



--
Andy T.

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

So you can be a Buddhist! ...Maybe...the logically sound part is a bit iffy. Science can't explain where souls go but Buddhism says it goes into another person to be born or riencarnation.

Paul is a science person so he believes in the Big Bang theory.

Cheers

[Andrew Towle]

Yes, I did notice the emphasis on theory. That's all it is, and that's all it may ever be. Anyways, Thuy, at one time, there used ot be about 1 billion people on planet earth, back in the early 1900's. That was before the baby boom after World War ll. Today, there are more than 6/1/2 billion people on earth. Your beliefs state that when one dies, their soul goes to someone else for their birth or for your own reincarnation. How can that be when our population has grown over the past century?

--
Andy T.

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

Ever thought of animals? In Buddhism, there are also other worlds. Nine in total, I think. Chaining to your religion, there may also be purgatory.

Also, can things be combined into that God created the Big Bang? God caused "his" organisms to evolve? God and science may coexist...maybe...

Cheers

[David Reich]

Guys, please, religion is a very serious matter to most people, try to be be civil and respectful or I, as the tyrant of this communication channel, may have to end this topic.   That doesn't mean don't discuss it - it wouldn't be a very good philosophy club if we couldn't discuss religion - but don't say anyone'll go to hell, or that they shouldn't belive what they do.  With that said, I'm with Paul on this one.  First, before I make a positive statement, let me clear some things up about atheism (note, this is what I belive, not necessarily what Paul or anyone else does, but that's probably pretty similar):

1.  There is insufficient evidence to prove the existence of a supernatural power.  That doesn't mean there certainly isn't one, just that there's no reason to think there is.  You have no evidence in favor (or against) magic-nerve-gas-farting-dragons, same with God.

2.  What many people see as 'miracles' proving the supernatural are just odd coincidences.  Maybe someone had a dream that predicted the future - that's magical, or divinely inspired, or psychic, right?  Well, consider that there are 7 billion people, each having lets say 4 dreams a night, any of which could either be literally or metaphorically interpreted, and the odds get pretty good that one will coincide with an actual event.

3.   There's a lot of stuff we don't know - as an example, how the universe started.  The Big Bang isn't at all universally accepted.  It's a hypothesis (theory in layman's terms, but theory in science means something entirely different - theory of gravity for example).  The thing is, it's a reasonably good hypoothesis, and seems a lot more likely to be what actually happened than a God creating everything - see Occam's Razor. 

With that said, I suppose the ideal religion would be something that:  Emphasized personal responsibility for actions, with no way to circumvent this (I'm looking at you, indulgences); Emphasized equality of humanity; Was memetic in it's transfer; Didn't inspire any sort of hatred for others; Encouraged hard work; Encouraged learning; and had a logical base.  Honestly I'd want it used more as an elaborate fairy tale for children, who eventually figured out (noone would tell them) that it's not particularly true, but also why they had been told about it.

Let me conclude with a quote (probably misquoted, this is from memory):

"If you define religion as a collection of statements, some of which are unprovable, then mathematics is not only a religion - it's the only religion that can prove itself to be one."

[Paul Gully]

OK. as for all of these questions: I believe that the beginning of the universe and the beginning of life on earth can be adequately explained by observable and empirical processes. there is ALOT of evidence for the big bang, and while there is no scientific consensus on the exact 'method' of abiogenesis, it is certainly agreed that it can, and probably did, happen. there is definitely no evidence in opposition.

also, I have to find a fault with this contention that science and god may 'coexist'- that is a (excuse me for saying this) lazy and hypocritical way out of a situation designed to make everybody happy as opposed to solving any problems, or at least is in the way you are using it.

sorry for apparent snappiness. this is a touchy issue, i understand, but things like that bug me to no end.

Pg

[Michael Oppenheimer]

Good quote.

I personally don't really have a religion. I believe some things from each. I believe there is some sort of higher being, but don't believe that it is necessarily "God". I don't know enough about the Big Bang Theory to agree with it or oppose it. But I believe that the "end" of the Universe will be a sort of gnab gib.

[Andrew Towle]

Here are my beliefs. If anyone posts anything more on this group, I want a direct response to what I am saying here. I just want to see what you all will say.

 

     I belive that God, my God, has been in existence forever. He is the beginning and the end. That is what the Bible says. It's true, I don't exactly understand it, but God says it, therefore it is. He created humans because he wanted something to love, we are his creations, and he loved us each individually, whether we love him or not. He loves us with an undying love, one that no one else can match, and it doesn't matter what you think of him.  He created you, ans that's why he loves you.

     This next part is going to sound like some sort of mythology, but it's not. God created the Garden of Eden, where he created the first two humans. The Bible says that God 'created adam from the dust of the earth' and 'God saw man was good' and 'that man needed a companion', so he created a woman. And yes, they didn't wear clothes, they were naked, but they were not ashamed. He put adam temporarily to sleep, and took out one of his ribs, and from that he made Eve. At this time, man was perfect, sinless. God told them that they may have the entire Garden of Eden and all of the fruit in it, except, for one tree in the middle of the garden, know as the Tree of Knowledge. It held the knowledge of all good and evil, and so God told them not to eat the fruit of that tree. But, the devil, disguised as a serpent snuck himself into the Garden. He tempted Eve to eat from the Tree of Knowledge, and so she did, even though God had told them not to. She ate the fruit from the tree, and she enjoyed it, so she tempted Adam to eat from it also. He knew it was wrong, but he ate from it anyways. God saw them do this, and so he brought them out of the Garden. He put angels at the door to gaurd against them coming back in. When they were out of the garden, they saw their nakedness and were ashamed, so they made clothes for themselves and wore them. Now, they were open to sin,a nd so was the rest of man, all the way down through the ages and generations.

    

    

     That's the beginning of the Bible briefly in my words. Please respond, I want to hear everyone else's beliefs and what you have to say.

--
Andy T.

[Paul Gully]

why?

who says god exists? the book. who says the book is truth? 'god'. its a vicious circle kept up by priests and devout.

It sounds like mythology because it is, and it is no more true than the norse or greek myths. if you think otherwise, give me a reason. why is this more legitimate than they are?

anyway, all this does is divert the question away from 'the beginning' to 'the beginning of the beginning'. 

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

First, I respond with a webcomic. It's pretty funny, but certainly not true.

http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=2658
 
Second, Buddhism says nothing to object that so, as I said, Buddhism is more of a way of life. It doesn't press any theories except for where spirits go. I will direct you to the same webcomic but another strip, now.

http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=2401

Cheers

[Andrew Towle]

Hey just answer my question. How do YOU think the universe was created?



--
Andy T.

[Michael Oppenheimer]

If God has been in existence forever, how could he he have been there at the beginning? There would have been no beginning if he had been around forever.

It seems selfish if God created us just because he wanted something to love, and if your God is perfect, he wouldn't have any faults -- selfishness.

First of all, I'm pretty sure the Bible would have capitalised the word 'Adam', so that can't be a direct quote. If God was there from the beginning, was the devil there too? Because that would mean that they are equally powerful and could be worshipped as equals. Unless God created the Devil in which case that doesn't seem like a very smart thing to do, unless he wanted Eve to sin. Adam and Eve could not possibly have know that it was a bad thing to eat the apple because he didn't have that knowledge yet. How could they have known that the serpent was trying to do them wrong if they trusted everything and everybody. It seems to me that God would have created them with the knowledge that they should not eat from the tree or they would be expected to do so.

Also, you said that this is not mythology. Yes, yes it is.

[Andrew Towle]

Dude, thats hilarious!

--
Andy T.

[Michael Oppenheimer]

Hehe funny comic Thuy, I like the snake hand puppet.

[Andrew Towle]

I'm not gonna go any farther, but if you want to know what God says, then read the Bible for yourself. I'm not gonna say it all right here. He created you, and you're denying it. Listen to me, I don't hate anyone, and neither does God. He loves you whether you love him or not. Lucifer, now the devil, was once and angel. He was a beautiful angel, and got prideful of himself, and he put himself higher than god, so God took him out of Heaven. The devil chose to tempt the humans becaus ehe wanted them to suffer along with him.

--
Andy T.

[Paul Gully]

I dont have a stead-fast belief about how the universe was created- but the big-bang makes sense in explaining this universe, and can be even more throughly explained by M theory (membrane collision causes a bubble which expands outward, etc)

i admit that it doest explain where the membranes came from, etc, but it completely adequately explains this universe within logical bounds. before then we have no way of possibly understanding, at least not with any methods that are known of now

[Michael Oppenheimer]

You can't just ignore everything i said, RESPOND!!!!

[David Reich]

That's very.... assertive of you, Andrew.

Here goes a reply though, and I've got my copy of the Schocken Bible in front of me:

First, that's a reasonable summary of the Adam & Havva story, but I'd adivse most people to read the actual thing, it's not that long.  I've got a few questions, though, if you don't mind.

1.  You're ignoring the other, contradictory, creation story.  Genesis 1:20-26 puts the order of creation as; water-creatures/birds -> land animals -> humans, and Genesis 2:7-8 puts humans before plants - the various animals would have had to live a few days without food, and porbably a lot more while the ones He planted in Eden/Land-Of-Pleasure disseminated.

2.  Please, tell me where you're getting the idea that the snake in the Garden was the Devil.  It's not mentioned, anywhere.  Also, note that the fruit held the knowledge of "good and evil", which has been interpreted literally - and idiomatically, "good and evil" was a semi-common hebrew phrase, similar to our "Everything from A to Z".    Seriously, though, I'm mostly confused about the snake == Devil idea.

3. Finally, you say, "...they made clothes for themselves and wore them."  That's not at all right - Genesis 3:21, "Now YHWH, God, made Adam and his wife coats of skins and clothed them."  Also, nowhere are guarding angels mentioned


Note, I've been ninja'd many a time since beginning to write this (looking up specifics took a while), but it's still coherent.

[Paul Gully]

NO!

do you understand what you just did there? you entered into a 'discussion' like a teacher. you assumed rightness. you are not an infallible authority- no one is- and to be able to *discuss* anything well, you need to understand that. if you are given evidence, either refute it with evidence of your own, or accept it. (admittedly no one here provided actual evidence, but you didn't even consider the reference of evidence)

[David Reich]

Another responce, to all the ninjas here:  Thuy, Sinfest is amazingly win.  Michael, you want a responce, so let me put on my christian-mask for a second and see if I can do something:  The Devil's been around as long as God, but they're not equals - God lets the Devil exist out of His universal love for everything.  ...  yeah, I can't come up with anything for why God let A&E eat the fruit, that's a hard one.  Very internally inconsistent. 

Also, Paul, Andrew is being rather non-debate-y about this, but try to keep your cool, he might just be getting around to it.

[Michael Oppenheimer]

i dont know everything the bible says
and i dont understand all of what i do know
but i do know and understand

that God created me

and that he loves me

and dont interrupt

he loves you too

he created you and allowed you to exist

yes your parents concieved you

but god made humanity

and I know with all that is within my heart

i know this to be true

i dotn belive it i know it

god is very very real

and he loved you so much it is uncomprehendable to us humans

but he knows you better than you know yourself

he created you

and he loves you

i promise

Quote from Andrew

[Michael Oppenheimer]

sorry if that sounded like i was teasing, because i definitely was not

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

Aren't you Jewish?

[Michael Oppenheimer]

*sigh*
Well Thuy, I was until about 2 hours ago when I realised that I just take the things I like from Judaism and scrap the things I don't.

[David Reich]

Also: He sorta never mentioned Jesùs in that thing.

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

I see. So you choose what to believe in. On that note, what do you believe the end of the world to be like? Discuss.

On that note, I bring up another Sinfest comic.
http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=2623

Cheers

[Michael Oppenheimer]

I think it's going to be a total gnab gib.

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

AH... the opposite of a big bang! An implosion where anti-matter dominates!

[Andrew Towle]

The end of the world would take a lot longer to explain than the beginning.

--
Andy T.

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

yet, we are still to explain the beginning . I think this is starting to relate to our topic on the Multiverse.

Cheers

[David Reich]

So it is, so it is.  I'd like to contribute to discussion of THE END, but my view of it is a bit non-religous and so out of the scope of this discussion.

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

Does it have anything to do with this?

http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=2623

[David Reich]

No.  It ought to, but doesn't

[dew96 (saucy)]

Heya.
Wowsers. You guys have seem to have written a lot and I've posted nothing here, right? Well, using the guidelines forced upon me and from a philosophical view let me explain two things completely irrelevant to what you guys were talking about and say something new about religions.

1. The Reason (Philosophically and Simplified) Why Polytheism Doesn't Work
2. The (Logical) Reason to Believe in a God

1. Okay, so I'm not sure if any of you have said anything at all about polytheism, and so this is irrelevant mostly, but I think it belonged in this discussion. This argument and the other I am going to make was proposed by someone I know well who is very philosophical but would never join this group, and he referenced to some other philosophers who I have forgotten the names, so I will just name them Someguy for simplicity. Anyway, getting back to polytheism. Let's talk about the definition of a "god". Here's a dictionary.com definition: the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth, love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle. And another thing: perfect. If there are to be more than one perfect beings, it is impossible. If there were two or more perfect beings that were different deities, than one could not be perfect or neither if they were different for each other. That's just logic, right? Or not?

2. This idea comes from Someguy:
    There are four possibilities coming from the belief in a god.
              1. There is not a God, you don't believe in Him, and nothing happens when you die.
              2. There is not a God, you do believe in one, and nothing happens when you die.
              3. There is a God, you believe in Him, and you go to heaven when you die.
              4. There is a God, you don't believe in Him, and you don't go to heaven when you die (Hell, Purgatory, etc.)
   Therefore in 1/2 circumstances, believing in a God helps or affects in no way. There is a 1/4 of nothing happening if you don't believe in a God, and a 1/4 chance that something bad will happen. Logically, one would want to be safest and go with the highest percentage and say that it is safest to believe in a God so that you have 1/4 of a chance of going to heaven and if your wrong nothing happens.

Cheerios

[Andrew Towle]

I like what dmccoy said at the end there. Even if there isn't a God, wouldn' tou not want ot take your chances of going to hel if there was one? Even if you then chose to believe in a god, but were wrong, you would have nothing to lose. It's not like atheism has any type of reward for you at the end when you die. So why not worship God?

--
Andy T.

[David Reich]

Someguy's idea is called Pascal's Wager.  And here, let me refute it in two of the hell of a lot of possible ways to do so: 

First, consider Islam.  Assuming we put atheism out of the picture, you've got a one-half chance of being right about Christianity, and one-half if you're Muslim.  If you pick the wrong one, you go to hell.  Oh, wait, Judaism, now you've got a 1/3rd chance.  You don't want to go about offending Thor, though - now you've only got a quarter chance of picking the right one.  Same for any of these:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religions_and_spiritual_traditions.  Are you confident that it's Jesus you need to worship, and not Candomblé? 

Anyway, another problem with that - from an atheist's perspecitive, it's not a 50% chance that there is a god.  I don't deny the possibility, but the concept that there is a god - and that it's one of the ones worshipped above - is close enough to a .001% case that it's pretty much worth dismissing.  Sure, it's possible - but do I want to live my life in fear, wasting time going to church every sunday, not getting to participate in debates like this properly, just in case it is that .001%? 

Pascal's Wager is very interesting to statistics - the concepts of infinite positive and negative outcomes - but in it's origional form it's not particularly valid.


Polytheism - you're argument there is just semantics.  I would concede that it's impossible for more than one perfect being to exist (individualy), but 'god' doesn't necessarily mean that.  Another dictionary.com definition: "(lowercase) one of several deities, esp. a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs." (definition 3).  "deity" gives me "divine character or nature, esp. that of the Supreme Being; divinity." (def. 2) "divine" gives me "of superhuman or surpassing excellence: Beauty is divine."  (def 8).  Nowhere in there is anything about perfection mentioned.  Your argument takes invalid things as definitions.

[Paul Gully]

i am thankfull you made that reply before i did, i couldnt do it before school, cause there is, as you said, a hell of a lot of ways to refute it. (it is ANOTHER example of argument by speculation, too. its a rationalisation)

[David Reich]

yay, free blocks _at_ school! 

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

David's argument does make me happy that nothing bad happens if you don't believe in Buddhism. That's why I think Buddhism is ideal. It doesn't punish you for not believing in it and it agrees with science. Besides, even if Kingdom comes day comes, would I go to Hell even if I, for being Buddhist, avoided all Seven Deadly Sins? Think about it. All Seven Deadly Sins are linked to human desire which is the main principle of suffering in Buddhism. If I am okay enough for heaven except for the tiny detail of believing in God, will I still be sent to Hell? Can't Buddha be another form of God but only thought of first? Isn't Buddha like Jesus in the way of helping others from suffering? Can't Nirvana be like Heaven?

Besides, hell can't be too bad looking Sinfest
http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=2644

Cheers

[Andrew Towle]

The way you describe it, Buddhism seems to be kind of passive, as I could say. And the way I see it, just not doing the Seven Deadly Sins wouldnt keep me from hell or send me to heaven. Atleast logically, thought this isn't exactly what Christians belive, not only would have to not do bad but also believe in the good. Thats how you can stay away from Hell.

--
Andy T.

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

Buddhism is very passive. No crusades, no killing in the name of  _____, no explosions, no plagues, ect. The only instance of death is Tibet and you know who didn't fight.  Besides, Buddhists believe in good. I thought that was kinda given. Good is integral to everything, even to atheists/matheists like Paul and David! Ha ha...matheist.

Cheers

[dew96 (saucy)]

Just to clear something up, I didn't say in that in Pascal's Wager that you had to be Christian. His idea simply puts that the belief in ANY god would be sufficient. So Buddhism, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, it's all good.

Oh, and about Buddhism. Am I wrong or right that according to the theology it has that no matter what you do in this life you continue to reincarnate until eventually you are able to reincarnate to higher and higher statuses in life until eventually you are reincarnated into something like a monk and then you reach nirvana? Or am I being completely wrong and am talking about Hindusim (sorry)?

[Paul Gully]

but then the argument falls apart! It is dependent on eternal immortal consequence and equal binary choice. if you take other religions into count, then neither of these are satisfied.

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

Hinduism and Buddhism are pretty closely related. You don't need to be a monk to reach enlightenment, though. If you only simplify life so all desire is gone, you reach enlightenment. Usually, it's through humans because I've never heard of a Buddha squirrel. And yes, one continues to reincarnate until he/she reaches enlightenment. Once that person's life is over, they reach a place higher than heaven. There is heaven in Buddhism, though...I think...I'm not a full expert on this.

There are a lot of religions so believing in the wrong one can send you to Hell. How do we know that the Greek's aren't right? How do we know that Satanism isn't the truth (which I really hope it isn't)? We all know that all religions can't fully coexist. *Sigh. Still, Buddhism does a pretty good job at coexisting!

Cheers

[David Reich]

Pascal's wager _does_ apply to christianity though!  Assuming any of the Big Three to be the correct one, they each teach that you must believe in the correct part of that religion to get to Heaven.  Simple belief in a "Higher Power" isn't enough for any religion. 

As for Thuy's thing about the "tiny little detail" is a big problem I have with christianity, actually.  If the God is so petty that he would send a good person to heaven just for being logical - in the way that he was created, by God - without having been given any reason by God to have belief, than I'm not sure I want to worship that sort of God anyway.

[Andrew Towle]

Yes, Thuy i agree with you. Some people say that all religions can live in peace to coexist with each other. * cough cough(baha'i faith) cough cough But obviously, that's impossible because different religions have different beliefs.

--
Andy T.

[dew96 (saucy)]

Wait, what, can you repeat that argument? I'm not sure what you're saying.

I can tell you though how one, according to the Old and New Testament, gets to heaven though, which is not by one's acts at all. According to Christianity, God loves us so much as His mercy is so great that as long as we are faithful (no, I don't mean go to church every Sunday, I mean a real devoted Christian) to Him, we will go to His Kingdom (yeah, Heaven) and be there for, ya know, eternity. I'm not sure what "he would send a good person to heaven just for being logical - in the way that he was created, by God" means. Or are you saying there that completely no argument for Christianity because there is nothing to back it up? To which I would say, what proves reincarnation? What reason does the God of Judaism show love, yet the God of Islam show little? And also, in this religion discussion I feel that we need to focus on the philosophical aspects of religion instead of which one is "better" (its completely subjective).

[David Reich]

Ah, dammit, typo.  Should have put sent to hell.  Hopefully that makes sence now

Also, which religion is "better" is not at all subjective, in any way.  Not in either the sense of "more likely to be true", Judaism is more likely to be true than Islam, for example, just because it claims less extra truths - and thus occam's razor.  Or in the sense of better for the people - isn't buddhism better than, say, islam in that sense, because it suggests more peacefulness?

[dew96 (saucy)]

Okay, well see that is in a more philosophical way which is what I was trying to get us to. I mean, we are a Philosophy club. Anyway, as long as its not just opinion but more like that, I'm cool bro.

[Michael Oppenheimer]

Well, going by Occam's Razor, out of the big three (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) Judaism seems to be the best.  It has half of Christianity and going by what David R. said "Judaism is more likely to be true than Islam, for example, just because it claims less extra truths" the same is true for Judaism vs Christianity.
Just a question, what is Jesus (in Christianity)? I've always been really fuzzy on whether he is better, the same as, or less than God. Could someone please explain his situation please?

[Andrew Towle]

Ok. Here does. The Bible is divided into two testaments; called the Old Testament and the New Testament. The New Testament, which is the second testament in the Bible, starts at about 0 A.D. That wa when Jesus was born. Jesus was born as the Son of God, yet he was also a part of God. He was sinless, and as we say 'righteous', meanign eh did'nt sin. God put him on the earth so that he would be a sacrifice for the sins of all humanity. Even though he was the Son of God, Jesus was still accused of being fraud. Not only was Jesus sent to be a sacrifice, but he was also sent to preach to the peoples. He was, as one may say, a liaison between people and God. In about his 33rd year( as expert theologians say), he was sacrificed on the Cross. This took place in somewhere called Golgotha, which meant the 'place of the skull'. After his death, he was put in a stone tomb and a large stone was rolled back in front of it after his body was placed there. Three days later, the tomb was opened again, and his body was not there. He went and talked ot his disciples and to some other people. This is just a very brief description, and there is a lot more to be said throughout that story, but this gets the gist of it.

     And yes, that stuff was from the Bible so I din't make any of it up.

 

--
Andy T.

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

When Jesus was burned at the cross, they put a black face cloak over his head, didn't they?

Cheers?

[Andrew Towle]

ill have to look in on that

--
Andy T.

[Andrew Towle]

I'm sorry Thuy, but the Bible says nothing about that. He also wasn't burned at the cross either. He wa nailed into it and the cross was mounted up and that's how he dies, bleeding, not by being burnt. Just wondering: Did Buddhist teachings say that he was burned at the Cross and that a black cloak wa sput over his head? Or did someone else tell you that? I just want to know.

--
Andy T.

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

I actually heard that he did on the History Channel, but when they scientifically tested it, it had the same facial measurements as Leonardo Da Vinci. Coincidence? I think so.

Buddhist teachings say nothing about Jesus or God or any afterwards. Buddhism only tells one how to reach Nirvana and end suffering. Still, there were some cool stories about Siddhartha and the other Buddhas and their journeys to enlightenment!

Cheers

[Andrew Towle]

Ok. Maybe you got it confused with someone else, but that's fine. I think I've actually heard stories of them putting black cloaks over peoples heads when they were burned at the stake. Maybe that's true.

     In buddhism, you say the goal is to put away all longing and desire right?

--
Andy T.

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

Yeah, only maybe. It's only science's way of trying to put down Christianity.

And yes, in Buddhism desire causes suffering. To desire nothing means you've reached Nirvana. Now for a Mahayana Buddhist, I'm not like a full monk that lives in a temple. Mahayana Buddhists think of this more as an ideology with riencarnation and how desire causes suffering. Why do you ask?

Cheers

[Andrew Towle]

I just want to know what I can. I think if you want to be knowledgeable about your own religion, you should also be knowledgeable about others, too. Know what I mean?



--
Andy T.

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

Yes, I understand but I rather not have that desire for this sort of knowledge. Knowledge is good but not when it can be used as a weapon against others. Still, that depends on your intent since any knowledge is a weapon. I'll enjoy learning about other religions as long as it doesn't cause any hostility. Know what I mean? Cause I don't.

Cheers

[dew96 (saucy)]

In a group I have at my church we discuss our religion and try to better understand others for the sake of knowledge and understanding other people. One of the groups we've lately been talking about is the New Age "religion:. I know a bit about it, but before I get into all that, does anyone else know about it? By the way, Andrew good explaination of Jesus, though I would like to add that, as Thuy asked if Jesus was equal or lesser than God, let me just say that plainly, He was God. God was in heaven, but He was also on Earth. Jesus was simply God extended on earth. Then there are more arguements that come with that and boy I hate them but I'll explain them if I have to.

Now, I just wonder: In Buddhism, the goal is peace, right? But not just peace, it's life without distractions. You have to eliminate all desire before you go to nirvana, right? But what about the desire of knowledge? Even Buddha seeked that. Or is that not considered part of desire?

[Andrew Towle]

Ha. It's just good, atleast in my opinion, to have a basic knowledge of other religions, so that if you ever encounter someone witht that religion, or maybe even talk to them about it, such as we are now, you'll be able to understand why that person believes what they do and where they are coming from.

--
Andy T.

[Andrew Towle]

Yeah, and you desire other things too. You desire to talk to us on this google group, you desire to have the food and shelter that you need daily, you desire to go to that tea party ina few days. You want to do those things. Does that keep you from nirvana?

--
Andy T.

[dew96 (saucy)]

Hey, where are our atheist friends here? I would think that they would be the ones who would want to crush all the things we were saying here.. Oh well.

And now for a random post! This theory is from C.S. Lewis, I believe, but please correct me if I'm wrong about that.
C.S. Lewis once wondered why so many people had the desire to know a God. Obviously there was a desire because there are so many people who believe in something and such a variety of beliefs. C.S. Lewis equated this desire to something else. He said that, since bread exists, we want it. But if bread didn't exist, we wouldn't seek it because we wouldn't know to ask for it. So, if we want a God, if we seek a God, then that must mean that somehow, a God does exist. Otherwise why would we seek one?

As part of the informal discussion structure, though, I will point out my fallacy. If a God exists and He wants to be known, they why does he not make it more obvious? Miracles happen, but they could just as easily be named coincidences. But I would like to say, is there something the world seeks that doesn't exist? And don't say "world peace", or "perfection" because those things do exist they are just unachievable (mostly).

(Insert catchy ending interjection here)

[David Reich]

ARGH!  ATHEIST CRUSH!

ah, C.S. Lewis, fun.  I want a device that causes anything I point it at to turn into solid gold.  Does such a device necessarily exist? 

Also, a problem with your latter argument, "If a God exists and He wants to be known, they why does he not make it more obvious?", a god doesn't necessarily want to be known.  I would suppose the Christian god does though, so it's still valid.

Hey, here's a fun argument by syllogism.  The source is not me, but I forget what it actually is, so I'll take the credit if you don't mind:

The bible says that God is love.
Pat Benatar says that love is a battlefield.
Battlefields are a part of war, & war is hell.
And according to John-Paul Sartre, hell is other people.
So going by this undeniable logic God is other people, & as no-one here appears to be God then he must not exist.

Makes perfect sense!

Oh, and Thuy, as far as I can see, buddhism is no more scientifically plausible than anything else, really.  The whole "Souls" thing sorta violates natural laws & all.

[Andrew Towle]

Honestly, it seems you have to be pretty stubborn to be an atheist.

--
Andy T.

[David Reich]

How so? I see it the other way.  We have all the, you know, actual evidence, theists sorta have to just listen to everything and then say "I accept that you have a logical proof against what I believe, but I believe it anyway, because I have 'faith', and I'm sticking with it."

[Paul Gully]

yeah, i agree with David's assessment. While I technically take the agnostic view day-to-day, when having an argument it is many times easier to defend the atheistic position than a theistic one. i dont understand where we are being stubborn. what evidence are we rejecting?

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

This is exactly what I mean. The desire for knowledge is fine but when used as a weapon against others, it becomes horrible.

Besides, science can't prove that souls don't exist. Souls are actually energy that define us, who we are, much like our minds and thoughts and actions.

From what I learned, Siddhartha gained all knowledge when reaching enlightenment. All knowledge of the universe came to him (or so I heard). He wanted to explain how our bodies become food and parts for the plant, but since people were so simple in those days they interpreted it as riencarnation. Or so I heard.

Cheers?

[Paul Gully]

ACTUALLY

logical evidence against souls definitely exists. this one in particular is from descartes. here:

If a soul exists, it cannot be made of physical matter, because then it is nothing more than a simple physical process. now in order to accommodate for this, you have to create 'another kind of substance'. this is called 'Substance Dualism'. Now, the problem here is that this substance would have to follow some other set of rules, or else it would, as was mentioned before, be just physical matter (and as such also deterministic). so ok, a soul exists, and it is made out of some 'other matter' that follows completely alien rules. how on earth does this thing stay 'in tune' with this world?

the way descartes phrased it was with clocks- one huge clock, which is the world, and one other one which is the soul. what keeps the two of them in synch? either they are linked (and as such are causally related (ie deterministic)) or they are both perfect machines (in which case they are ALSO deterministic).

so ok, there could be such a thing as a soul, just there couldn't ALSO be free will.

[Ahmed]

In the name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful
Please do not be mean or use bad language as we are just having a
discussion. In Qur’an it says, 2:256. “There is no compulsion in
religion...” If you have anything to say to me, please read fully
everything that I have written and watch the video that I have put up.
Only after doing so, and only then, should you contact me with your
thoughts and questions, thanks.
Let’s look things logically (scientifically) as religion without logic
is nothing but nonsense. Let us start from the beginning. We theorize
through modern science and technology in the most logical theory of
the big bang, of how the universe, time and space, came into
existence. I think we can all agree that the universe is huge in size
and quite complex. We can’t assume the universe just suddenly came
into existence by chance. Why? For example, if you take all the pieces
of a car (all the screws and whatnot) and you throw them all up in the
air, would it come down as a built car? How about if you did it for a
never ending time, would it make a difference? Logically, the answer
is no. So how can we expect such a vast universe to just come into
existence all of a sudden out of chance? It doesn’t make sense.
Therefore, we must acknowledge that there is something or someone
behind the creation of the universe as it could not have just happened
on its own by chance. Now you might ask who created that someone/
something, well that’s the thing, that someone (God) was not created,
he was just there. This is something our minds cannot comprehend
naturally.
Now, if there were more than one someone or something behind the
creation of the universe, it would be disastrous. They would fight
each other for domination over the universe or want different rules or
something. As we know, the universe has its own set of rules (ex.
Gravity) which it follows perfectly all throughout. Everything is
where they are supposed to be. By this I mean, if the Earth were to be
a mile closer to the sun, we’d all die and a mile distance in space is
very small. The whole universe follows the same set of rules. This
goes to prove that there is only one being that created the universe
and there is no other associated with that being.
Ideal means a conception of something in its perfection while
religion means a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and
purpose of the universe. Putting these together, we get, a set of
beliefs concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe in
its perfection. This means that these beliefs concerning us and the
universe must be perfect in every way (they cannot be wrong or false
statements of any kind). If I were to show you a new ‘item’ that you
knew nothing about and it was unknown to you in every way (smell,
touch, look, taste, sound), how would you know what it was? You’d ask
who to help you understand it? It’s creator. The holy books of
Judaism, Christianity and Islam are intended to be those guidelines
from your creator. Those religions that do not have a ‘holy book’ are
manmade religions altogether and therefore, although they may be
rewarding or peaceful, they are not logically correct as an ideal
religion, as man is not perfect and cannot create perfection. So we
must take the three religions under consideration as ideal religions.
The Bible has been changed by man way too many times in order for it
to be an ideal religion in the world of today. Again, making the
point, man is not perfect nor can he reach perfection. He is neither
perfect nor can he create perfection. I would go into all the
different topics but knowing that fact alone, everything else is
nullified.
Judaism? Honestly, I don’t even know what these guys believe in and
I will leave it at that.
Before I talk about Islam, I’d like to say that every religion/group
has its extremists and it does not reflect the general majority.
Furthermore, I want you to clear your mind of what you know or you
think you know about Islam. I have defined “ideal religion” as the
religion that is not manmade but rather, divine and fully agreeable
with science and the laws of nature. I do not believe in ‘faith alone’
as it is belief without proof and logic and therefore dumb. If God
gave us brains, should we not use it; and if he was the one who gave
us brains, shouldn’t our brains lead us to him? When comparing
science and Islam, you will find that they go hand in hand. By this I
mean that they do not contradict each other in any way. Going over all
the scientific miracles would take a very long time so I will leave it
to you guys. The thing is, the Qur’an has not been changed and the
original Arabic still remain. Let’s say that the Qur’an was changed
but then can you explain all the scientific miracles, historic
miracles, mathematical miracles etc. Also, if it was changed, how come
there are no contradictories? Man cannot make perfection, only
perfection can create perfection.
http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_index.html
Text link
http://tv.muxlim.com/video/2vzTQ3OUyZF/SCIENTIFIC-MIRACLES-OF-THE-QURAN/
Video of the miracles
I am sorry if I have made any errors. I am not a scholar so I may not
be presenting Islam the fully correct way. Therefore, forgive me as I
take responsibility for all my errors.


On Apr 29, 5:21 pm, Andrew Toll <andytol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So, what is the ideal religion?

[David M.]

Okay, your arguments are completely valid. However, what have you
studied in depth about Christianity that you would know about the
writing, passing, and translation of the bible to nullify it? I don't
disagree with Islam, in fact I believe that the major three have the
same background in common; we share many of the same stories, believe
in the same God (with the exception of beliefs about Him), and if I
can believe we have things that relate us easily then why must you
banish all our ideas and rant your own? I agree with many things that
Islamic people are after, and I understand much of where you come
from, but before you just shove it all in our faces think about the
others. We have atheists, Christians, Jews, and Buddhists reading
this.

> Text linkhttp://tv.muxlim.com/video/2vzTQ3OUyZF/SCIENTIFIC-MIRACLES-OF-THE-QURAN/

[Ahmed]

Sorry if i offended anyone. What i was trying to say was that there is
a difference between manmade religion and devine religion, and
Judiesm, Christianity and Islam are from the same source, God, and
therefore they are pretty much the same thing. However, the Bible has
been changed so many times by mankind and there are so many different
versions and that is why i said "null". Again i am sorry if i offended
you, but it is true, the Bible has been changed a lot and the Qur'an
has not.

> > > So, what is the ideal religion?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[dew96 (saucy)]

That is true, although the bible has been found in its original forms and has only been changed by translation. There are original versions of the bible (or parts of it) which is why us English speaking folk have it all up for interpretation, especially since many of the sayings they used then don't make much sense now. And by the way, personally how do you think of Muhammad, Alla's Prophet? How was he more authoritative than any other prophet from any other religion?

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

Well, I think it's great that we have an Islamic person. Different views allow deeper discussions. I honestly thought that this discussion would go nowhere. Although, the Buddhist scriptures didn't change a lot.

So relating to the general question, do you believe that Islam is the ideal religion? I argue that Buddhism is but I'll accept your opinion. Everyone is entitled to one

Cheers

[Andrew Towle]

Ok david M. Ahmed can say anything, and you really don't need to tell him who's reading this and to remember whatever. He'll find out soon enough. An also, the Bible has NOT only been changed by translation. There are some people who are making versions of the Bible(popular ones, in fact) that don't state things directly or have some things with their meanings changed. Some bibles for example, won't point out that homosexuality is a sin, when infact, according to Christian beliefs it is. Anyone who believes homosexuality is not a sin is very obviously not a Christian.
     Ahmed, you rock homie, but still, I'm a Christian.

--
Andy T.

[Ahmed]

In the name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful

I acknowledge that God is the creator of everything and he chooses
amongst his creation to be the best; for everything is by his will and
he does what he pleases. As you all may already know, the Qur’an
contains the stories of Moses (AS) and Jesus (AS) as well as many
other prophets of God. If we think about this, we can conclude that
because of the Qur’an’s stories of previous prophets, Muhammad PBUH
was so successful. What do I mean? Well, Moses (AS) went through many
issues concerning his people; of how to maintain those who believe
rather than a lot of the prophets before him who were going around
giving the message of God to everyone. Moses (AS) was one of the
prophets who had his own big nation. In fact, MOST of the Qur’an talks
about Moses (AS) and how he dealt with his people. This explains
Muhammad’s PBUH great success, since he was the last prophet of God,
he had all the lessons that the other prophets spent their life on. He
knew how to spread the religion and how to maintain it in the best way
possible. You’re probably now confused that if they’re all prophets of
God and they had the same teachings, why are they different. Well this
is because, as I’ve said, people have changed the teachings of the
prophets or they forgot or something happened down the line and so God
kept on sending prophets but in Qur’an it says that Muhammad is the
last prophet. My proof? Well if you look at Qur’an you will find that
there are no contradictions and it is backed up by scientific proofs
while the Bible of today is pretty much like nothing of its former
self. I hope i answered your question. thanks.

> >http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_index.html
> > > > Text linkhttp://

> > tv.muxlim.com/video/2vzTQ3OUyZF/SCIENTIFIC-MIRACLES-OF-THE-QURAN/

> > > > Video of the miracles
> > > > I am sorry if I have made any errors. I am not a scholar so I may not
> > > > be presenting Islam the fully correct way. Therefore, forgive me as I
> > > > take responsibility for all my errors.
>
> > > > On Apr 29, 5:21 pm, Andrew Toll <andytol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > So, what is the ideal religion?- Hide quoted text -
>

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Paul Gully]

First, to Ahmed. Hello and welcome.

Second, Andrew: Show me one passage from the bible where it specifically says anything implying that homosexuality is a sin. 'beliefs' are not standardized, even in a religion, so no matter what the 'authority' says, you are whatever religion you identify yourself with. it (the anti-gay message) is a contrived ideal made in the face of bigotry. and to say that no meaning is lost in translation is a flat out lie. (take an ancient language, this becomes clear) (also, this is ignoring the Council of Nicaea and the 'controversy' about that and whatnot)

Third, again to Ahmed: I dont know how to respond to all of this, firstly because there is so much of it. basically you are showing us your beliefs, and i respect that, but that is all there is. no matter how much you rationalise that your belief has superiority, it simply does not stand up, (just like any other religion) in the face of observation and evidence. if a 'divine religion' is what you say it is, than there is no such thing, not even islam. 

Also, about this contention that science and religion can coexist. im not saying they cant (nor am i saying that I actually think they can), but the method you suppose they can does no one any good. to say that god created the big bang, first of all invalidates everything else people have to say about god, because then everything follows deterministic laws, and 'science' applies universally afterwards. it also is just hiding the question, or using a 'god of gaps' thing. (there also is a fair amount of 'scholarly' or backed up speculation as to the causation of the big bang itself, even if just speculation at this point)

again, i have said this before: take no offense at what i say, but debate me rationally and logically. that is the point, and despite the apparent 'heartlessness' of the statement, belief has little value  

[Michael Oppenheimer]

All religions are man-made. The Bible was written by man, the Qua-ran was written by man. The Torah was written by man. The Bible was translated and therefore cannot be exactly the same; it was changed by translation. Thuy, that's a cop-out. People, GIVE REASONS! Ahmed, what scientific evidence does the Qua-ran give?

[Andrew Towle]

You should know this. A lot of religion is faith. Christianity and ISlam aren't man made. They are the beliefs derived from what God has said. So are the things in the Bible and Qu'ran.

On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 7:54 PM, Michael Oppenheimer <doomw...@gmail.com> wrote:

All religions are man-made. The Bible was written by man, the Qua-ran was written by man. The Torah was written by man. The Bible was translated and therefore cannot be exactly the same; it was changed by translation. Thuy, that's a cop-out. People, GIVE REASONS! Ahmed, what scientific evidence does the Qua-ran give?

--
Andy T.

[Paul Gully]

the thing is that those statements are made ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE, andrew. its cyclical. if you believe the Bible (or the Qu'ran), you believe that it is the word of god, and therefore are correct. but you cant say that you believe them because of that, because it requires your unconditional belief to start it. Christianity and Islam cant BOTH be not man-made, too. at least not if you believe in a merciful god. (also to say that a lot of religion is faith is kinda backwards. ALL of religion is faith)

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

You should know that most of religion is influential. Millions and millions of people believe in Christianity since they all believe that what Jesus said is true. He was very influential. Now what about the "insane" people? They believe that they have been contacted by God. Should we believe them? Are they the new Jesus trying to salvage us from damnation?

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

Cheers (I forgot one)