Religion: Just a Form of Brain Washing?

[pat]

[quote]mbm693 wrote:
Are you kidding?!?!?! I fucking murdered you with this post. Crushed all your arguments in a public forum. You might not ever live down this kind of an ass whipping.
[/quote]

ROFLMAO!!! Oh yeah, “Tito, get me a tissue.” “Aunty Em, Aunty Em!”

Now do you mean like beating my ass, or are you dreaming of my ass covered in whipping cream with a cherry on top?

[pat]

[quote]wirewound wrote:
Science has proven itself to be much better at post-self, post-conceptual concept manipulation. It struggles very seriously with being non-self-contradictory, does not rely on unfalsifiable input, and is constantly struggling to correct its own errant conclusions.

Hence, it is THE preeminent tool for verifying post-conceptual truth claims. In order to exempt the God-concept from such rigorous examination, it must exist pre-conceptually - which it doesn’t.

Therefore, then, the only use of a God-concept is to point to a practice of pre-conceptual examination of one’s own direct experience - not as a competitor or replacement for science. Religion is woefully inadequate as a competitor or replacement for science in verifying post-conceptual truth claims, which is unfortunately how it is usually propagated.
[/quote]

Why do people assume that religion and science are competing in any way? I see them as living together quite comfortably. We are no caveman, I haven’t seen anybody try to explain phenomena with religious explanations in lieu of science for centuries now.

This idea is archaic and no longer valid as it is not being done anymore. Can we move past the notion?

[wirewound]

[quote]pat wrote:
wirewound wrote:
Science has proven itself to be much better at post-self, post-conceptual concept manipulation. It struggles very seriously with being non-self-contradictory, does not rely on unfalsifiable input, and is constantly struggling to correct its own errant conclusions.

Hence, it is THE preeminent tool for verifying post-conceptual truth claims. In order to exempt the God-concept from such rigorous examination, it must exist pre-conceptually - which it doesn’t.

Therefore, then, the only use of a God-concept is to point to a practice of pre-conceptual examination of one’s own direct experience - not as a competitor or replacement for science. Religion is woefully inadequate as a competitor or replacement for science in verifying post-conceptual truth claims, which is unfortunately how it is usually propagated.

Why do people assume that religion and science are competing in any way? I see them as living together quite comfortably. We are no caveman, I haven’t seen anybody try to explain phenomena with religious explanations in lieu of science for centuries now.

This idea is archaic and no longer valid as it is not being done anymore. Can we move past the notion? [/quote]

Ahem! “Creation Science” anyone?

[mbm693]

pat wrote:

So if I went on dictionary.com they will have the definition of the word ‘cloned’ as cloned? LOL!!! That’s brilliant. You’re a regular comodian. Last I heard, copying something and creating something are completely different things. By your logic, if I play a Beatles song, it must mean I wrote it too.

Copying and creating are totally different. So are copying and cloning. You can’t tell the difference because you’re an idiot.

I did go to dictionary.com and only one of the definitions uses the word copy, and it specifically refers to objects… not living things like sheep.

Besides, they took DNA from one cell and injected it into another and then stimulated division. The cell was already alive, they just exchanged the guts. They can only stumlate division with living cells, dead ones, or inert ones won’t work.
Nuclear transfer - Wikipedia

Your imaginary sky god didn’t create any of these raw materials either.

What are you going to do when a scientist animates an inert cell? It might happen tomorrow. Seems to me that it’ll thoroughly shatter your ridiculous world view. You’ll have to admit that life is just a chemical reaction, with no room for a soul anywhere in there.

What is an “inert cell”? Are you just making things up like in a scrabble game? Among all the properties of a cell one of them is that it is either living, or dead.

I am pleased to see you admit that life component was already present in any cloned living thing.

I took “inert cell” from your post. I was trying to spell it out for you in the words you were using so that perhaps you would understand. No dice apparently, you’re still an idiot.

I noticed you didn’t bother to answer my question. You seem to do that a lot when you don’t have an answer. I haven’t been afraid to answer any of your questions. If you want to be a coward that’s fine, I just wouldn’t recommend doing it in public.

Lastly, when we started this particular argument your statement was that scientists have never created anything. When I showed you scientists have in fact created things, you changed your point to be that scientists have never created any new matter or raw materials. Can’t you be consistent? If you had wanted to argue that particular point, my only response would have been that your imaginary sky god didn’t create any raw materials either. You can’t even get past the first objection to the teleological argument to prove he exists.

Progess is good, but why then do so many people still die from cancer? What in the fuck does that have to do with whether or not God exists?

You’re the stupidest person on the internet. People still die from cancer because science hasn’t advanced far enough to save them all. Luckily, we don’t have a god like yours around to create newer more horrible diseases that we have no defense against. I mean, if he made cancer, what the fuck else is up his sleeve?

Hang on, I need my hanky to deal with your insult…Perhaps in lieu of an argument? Because the existance and treatment of cancer has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not God exists…How hard, really, is that to understand?

If you’re going to posit an all powerful, all knowing, all creating god, then you have to accept that he created cancer. I’m not saying that cancer is proof of his existence. Please try to apply your appallingly poor reading skills better next time. I brought this up to say that I’d prefer and unfeeling, uncaring universe to a universe with a god that obviously has it in for us.

Experience would be key. You can google them all you want if you are interested in reading about them.

I think you need to have an atheist experience before you reject it as bullshit. You can google those if you think your tiny mind can handle it.

For God nature to be central to an argument you would have to concede the fact that He exists. After all, nothing cannot have a nature can it? For something to have a nature, it must exist first. Again, you are putting the cart before the horse, or you conceded God exists and now we can move on to discussing he-she-it’s nature.

No. That’s some of the worst reasoning I’ve ever encountered.
god doesn’t have to exist for it to be unlikely for him to exist.

Let me put this in terms even a child can understand.

You’re 7 years old and you hear a noise under your bed. It’s really unlikely that it’s a monster, it’s probably just the cat. But since it’s only unlikely that it’s a monster, that means the monster must exist.

After all, arguing that it’s unlikely that it’s a monster means that it most definitely is a monster. Sure the cat would make a better explanation, but you can’t prove that it’s not a monster, and the burden of proof is on you to prove it isn’t, so it must be a monster.

LOL! LOL!LOL!LOL! I can’t stop laughing. Oh almighty guru, fill me with your wisdom! LOL!

Wow. No argument here? Just a pitiful insult? I paralleled your logic exactly. Are you so stupid that you missed this, or are you just afraid again?

Show me how the logic applied above isn’t exactly the logic you’ve been applying to god.

[quote]

Well isn’t a that very careful non-answer? Are you running for office or something? You don’t want to answer the question because you don’t want to be held to the same standard you hold atheists/agnostics to. The sooner you concede this point the sooner you’ll stop looking like a dumb-shit on the internet

Allow me to be clear. I don’t give a shit if you have monsters under your bed or not. I don’t know if they exist and I don’t care. How in the flying fuck, does that in anyway, shape or form lend strength to your argument that their is no God.

That makes about as much sense as saying “I am thinking of the color green, therefore there must be no God.”

You are espousing what is called a “Red Herring”, a diversionary tactic from actual point and a logical fallacy of which you display many…I am glad your not on my side of the issue.[/quote]

This is not a “Red Herring”. I’ve been hoping you would realize that the logic you apply to god works equally well for monsters under the bed. You can’t disprove them, but you don’t believe in them anyway. You can’t disprove god, but you DO believe in god. Show me what the difference is.

[mbm693]

[quote]pat wrote:

ROFLMAO!!! Oh yeah, “Tito, get me a tissue.” “Aunty Em, Aunty Em!”

Now do you mean like beating my ass, or are you dreaming of my ass covered in whipping cream with a cherry on top?[/quote]

Wow, excellent come back. I can see I’m obviously over matched.

[mbm693]

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:

It is dishonest because you wrote it, you are weaving a story about yourself that is to your liking. You exhibit very strong negative feelings towards religion, it is very plain to see. And there is nothing wrong whit that, I’m sure you have good reasons, just be honest about it.
My “faith” is best defined as agnosticism, I think. And yes, I have a positive attitude towards religion in general. I don’t like preachers, though.[/quote]

It’s not dishonest at all. I truly can’t prove there is no such thing as santa, just like I can’t prove there is no such thing as god. It is impossible to prove the negative. However, I would say god and santa have about an equal chance of existing.

Of course I have negative feelings towards religion. It’s the only form of make-believe a grown man will be criticized for not playing.

[mbm693]

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Well, you asked me if YOU should believe in Santa. Have you had a Santa experience that is leading you to a belief in him?[/quote]

I saw santa in the mall last xmas.

I don’t think I’m getting your point. Either the logic was sound or it wasn’t, it shouldn’t matter who you apply it to.

[mbm693]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
mbm693 wrote:
Sloth wrote:
mbm693 wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
just as an atheist does not take it on faith that God does not exist.

He doesn’t rely on faith?! But, you already said he can never have evidence of God’s non-existence. So, without such evidence, he must have faith that there is no God. There’s a saying about many an Atheist losing their faith in foxholes. When, an atheist loses their faith, they pray.

atheistfoxholes.org

I’m an atheist towards god the same way (and for pretty much the same reasons) I’m an atheist towards santa clause.

Based on your logic above, should I believe in Santa Clause too?

I wouldn’t know, as I haven’t lived your life. Personally, I haven’t had a Santa Clause type of experience. Just religious experiences that lead me to my Christian faith.

PS. Thanks for the link. But, you missed the point, I think.

I got the point, I just hate that atheists in foxholes quote.

I’m confused as to why living my life would be a prerequisite for applying your logic in this situation. Logic is the same for everyone, and it is either correct or it isn’t. Can you elaborate on this further?

The link leads to the true story of someone else’s religious experience. God told Mr. Huger that he (god) didn’t exist. What makes your experience more valid than his?

http://www.jhuger.com/mat_enlight

This one is just funny:

http://www.jhuger.com/kisshank.php

What makes mine more valid than his? The one right off the top of my head is that I’ve only been able to experience my experiences. So, I’ve been able to validate my own experiences, for myself.[/quote]

I think I understand what you’re saying here. You believe in god because you feel (for lack of a better word) god. Am I getting warmer? Please explain further.

My point is that only one of you could have had a true experience because they were mutually exclusive. If I’m right about your opinion above, I don’t guess this would matter much to you.

[Sloth]

[quote]mbm693 wrote:
Sloth wrote:
mbm693 wrote:
Sloth wrote:
mbm693 wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
just as an atheist does not take it on faith that God does not exist.

He doesn’t rely on faith?! But, you already said he can never have evidence of God’s non-existence. So, without such evidence, he must have faith that there is no God. There’s a saying about many an Atheist losing their faith in foxholes. When, an atheist loses their faith, they pray.

atheistfoxholes.org

I’m an atheist towards god the same way (and for pretty much the same reasons) I’m an atheist towards santa clause.

Based on your logic above, should I believe in Santa Clause too?

I wouldn’t know, as I haven’t lived your life. Personally, I haven’t had a Santa Clause type of experience. Just religious experiences that lead me to my Christian faith.

PS. Thanks for the link. But, you missed the point, I think.

I got the point, I just hate that atheists in foxholes quote.

I’m confused as to why living my life would be a prerequisite for applying your logic in this situation. Logic is the same for everyone, and it is either correct or it isn’t. Can you elaborate on this further?

The link leads to the true story of someone else’s religious experience. God told Mr. Huger that he (god) didn’t exist. What makes your experience more valid than his?

http://www.jhuger.com/mat_enlight

This one is just funny:

http://www.jhuger.com/kisshank.php

What makes mine more valid than his? The one right off the top of my head is that I’ve only been able to experience my experiences. So, I’ve been able to validate my own experiences, for myself.

I think I understand what you’re saying here. You believe in god because you feel (for lack of a better word) god. Am I getting warmer? Please explain further.

My point is that only one of you could have had a true experience because they were mutually exclusive. If I’m right about your opinion above, I don’t guess this would matter much to you.

[/quote]

I believe because of personal experiences. I’m not too intersted in what he believes, actually. Haven’t read what you’ve said/links about him, as it’s not relevant to my belief and experience.

[Sloth]

[quote]mbm693 wrote:
Sloth wrote:

Well, you asked me if YOU should believe in Santa. Have you had a Santa experience that is leading you to a belief in him?

I saw santa in the mall last xmas.

I don’t think I’m getting your point. Either the logic was sound or it wasn’t, it shouldn’t matter who you apply it to. [/quote]

I think it’s mutual. I’m not understanding what you’re driving at.

[pat]

[quote]mbm693 wrote:

Copying and creating are totally different. So are copying and cloning. You can’t tell the difference because you’re an idiot.

I did go to dictionary.com and only one of the definitions uses the word copy, and it specifically refers to objects… not living things like sheep.
[/quote]
CLONING Definition & Usage Examples | Dictionary.com

cloned, clon�?�ing, clones

v. tr.

To make multiple identical copies of (a DNA sequence).

Besides, they took DNA from one cell and injected it into another and then stimulated division. The cell was already alive, they just exchanged the guts. They can only stumlate division with living cells, dead ones, or inert ones won’t work.
Nuclear transfer - Wikipedia

Your imaginary sky god didn’t create any of these raw materials either.

What are you going to do when a scientist animates an inert cell? It might happen tomorrow. Seems to me that it’ll thoroughly shatter your ridiculous world view. You’ll have to admit that life is just a chemical reaction, with no room for a soul anywhere in there.

What is an “inert cell”? Are you just making things up like in a scrabble game? Among all the properties of a cell one of them is that it is either living, or dead.

I am pleased to see you admit that life component was already present in any cloned living thing.

I took “inert cell” from your post. I was trying to spell it out for you in the words you were using so that perhaps you would understand. No dice apparently, you’re still an idiot.

And how does that strengthen your argument? Wait let me piece it together…
Pat is an idiot, therefore, there is no God.

Oh, I get it now! Wow funny I didn’t see it before!

I noticed you didn’t bother to answer my question. You seem to do that a lot when you don’t have an answer. I haven’t been afraid to answer any of your questions. If you want to be a coward that’s fine, I just wouldn’t recommend doing it in public.

What question? Where?

Lastly, when we started this particular argument your statement was that scientists have never created anything. When I showed you scientists have in fact created things, you changed your point to be that scientists have never created any new matter or raw materials. Can’t you be consistent? If you had wanted to argue that particular point, my only response would have been that your imaginary sky god didn’t create any raw materials either. You can’t even get past the first objection to the teleological argument to prove he exists.

Scientists do not create anything and never have. They manipulate that which already exists. Matter cannot neither be created or destroyed, it can only change form. How hard is that to understand?
You set something on fire, it changes to gas, heat, light, and ash. The thing just change forms the amount of matter that existed still exists in the same volume.

The “cloners” didn’t create life, they took something that was already alive and changed it�??s DNA. They didn’t create the DNA they took it from something that was already living.
I thought I explained this to you, apparently it didn�??t stick.

Progess is good, but why then do so many people still die from cancer? What in the fuck does that have to do with whether or not God exists?

You’re the stupidest person on the internet. People still die from cancer because science hasn’t advanced far enough to save them all. Luckily, we don’t have a god like yours around to create newer more horrible diseases that we have no defense against. I mean, if he made cancer, what the fuck else is up his sleeve?

Hang on, I need my hanky to deal with your insult…Perhaps in lieu of an argument? Because the existance and treatment of cancer has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not God exists…How hard, really, is that to understand?

If you’re going to posit an all powerful, all knowing, all creating god, then you have to accept that he created cancer. I’m not saying that cancer is proof of his existence. Please try to apply your appallingly poor reading skills better next time. I brought this up to say that I’d prefer and unfeeling, uncaring universe to a universe with a god that obviously has it in for us.

Did I deny he created cancer? Are you changing your argument to, “God could not create such a nasty thing such as cancer therefore God does not exist.” Either stick to a single line of reasoning or start a new one. You are all over the place ad it make no sense.

Experience would be key. You can google them all you want if you are interested in reading about them.

I think you need to have an atheist experience before you reject it as bullshit. You can google those if you think your tiny mind can handle it.

For God nature to be central to an argument you would have to concede the fact that He exists. After all, nothing cannot have a nature can it? For something to have a nature, it must exist first. Again, you are putting the cart before the horse, or you conceded God exists and now we can move on to discussing he-she-it’s nature.

No. That’s some of the worst reasoning I’ve ever encountered.
god doesn’t have to exist for it to be unlikely for him to exist.

So let me get this strait, I am arguing that something must exist in order to have a nature about it. You are arguing that you have take into account something’s nature, even though it doesn’t exist…Hmmm…I see, so explain to me how nothing can have a nature about it. If I have a big “nothing” in my hand, what is it’s nature?
Isn’t nothing rather the absence of something? Or are you claiming that nothing is an actual “thing”?

Let me put this in terms even a child can understand.

You’re 7 years old and you hear a noise under your bed. It’s really unlikely that it’s a monster, it’s probably just the cat. But since it’s only unlikely that it’s a monster, that means the monster must exist.

After all, arguing that it’s unlikely that it’s a monster means that it most definitely is a monster. Sure the cat would make a better explanation, but you can’t prove that it’s not a monster, and the burden of proof is on you to prove it isn’t, so it must be a monster.

LOL! LOL!LOL!LOL! I can’t stop laughing. Oh almighty guru, fill me with your wisdom! LOL!

Wow. No argument here? Just a pitiful insult? I paralleled your logic exactly. Are you so stupid that you missed this, or are you just afraid again?

I sure as fuck can’t find one. What was that? If that was an analogy then it is the dumbest thing I have ever read. It is so full of logical fallacies it�??s not worth addressing; you need to reform the “argument” so that it makes some sense. This it must be a monster because it’s sounds like a monster, because it’s not a cat…Um, whatever.

Show me how the logic applied above isn’t exactly the logic you’ve been applying to god.

Well isn’t a that very careful non-answer? Are you running for office or something? You don’t want to answer the question because you don’t want to be held to the same standard you hold atheists/agnostics to. The sooner you concede this point the sooner you’ll stop looking like a dumb-shit on the internet

Allow me to be clear. I don’t give a shit if you have monsters under your bed or not. I don’t know if they exist and I don’t care. How in the flying fuck, does that in anyway, shape or form lend strength to your argument that their is no God.

That makes about as much sense as saying “I am thinking of the color green, therefore there must be no God.”

You are espousing what is called a “Red Herring”, a diversionary tactic from actual point and a logical fallacy of which you display many…I am glad your not on my side of the issue.

This is not a “Red Herring”. I’ve been hoping you would realize that the logic you apply to god works equally well for monsters under the bed. You can’t disprove them, but you don’t believe in them anyway. You can’t disprove god, but you DO believe in god. Show me what the difference is.

You’re right it’s a Red Herring and a Strawman…It has nothing to do with the argument of the Prime Mover or uncaused cause. Zero, it is a diversion and a lame attempt to display your unmitigated brilliance. Show me how a monster under your bed is the same thing as ending as existence being contingent on predecessors. What caused the monster to exist, that caused the noises, that caused you think it was a monster?

[pat]

[quote]mbm693 wrote:
pat wrote:

ROFLMAO!!! Oh yeah, “Tito, get me a tissue.” “Aunty Em, Aunty Em!”

Now do you mean like beating my ass, or are you dreaming of my ass covered in whipping cream with a cherry on top?

Wow, excellent come back. I can see I’m obviously over matched.[/quote]

Next up! Yo Mamma insults…

[pat]

[quote]wirewound wrote:
pat wrote:
wirewound wrote:
Science has proven itself to be much better at post-self, post-conceptual concept manipulation. It struggles very seriously with being non-self-contradictory, does not rely on unfalsifiable input, and is constantly struggling to correct its own errant conclusions.

Hence, it is THE preeminent tool for verifying post-conceptual truth claims. In order to exempt the God-concept from such rigorous examination, it must exist pre-conceptually - which it doesn’t.

Therefore, then, the only use of a God-concept is to point to a practice of pre-conceptual examination of one’s own direct experience - not as a competitor or replacement for science. Religion is woefully inadequate as a competitor or replacement for science in verifying post-conceptual truth claims, which is unfortunately how it is usually propagated.

Why do people assume that religion and science are competing in any way? I see them as living together quite comfortably. We are no caveman, I haven’t seen anybody try to explain phenomena with religious explanations in lieu of science for centuries now.

This idea is archaic and no longer valid as it is not being done anymore. Can we move past the notion?

Ahem! “Creation Science” anyone?

[/quote]

Oh brother! I stand corrected. There are some people out there still trying to do this. Square peg meet round hole.

Well, they don’t speak for me or any theists I know. That’s what you get when you several thousand year-old texts translated many times over and try to take it literally vs. just getting the basic message. Eeek.

[wirewound]

[quote]pat wrote:
wirewound wrote:
pat wrote:
wirewound wrote:
Science has proven itself to be much better at post-self, post-conceptual concept manipulation. It struggles very seriously with being non-self-contradictory, does not rely on unfalsifiable input, and is constantly struggling to correct its own errant conclusions.

Hence, it is THE preeminent tool for verifying post-conceptual truth claims. In order to exempt the God-concept from such rigorous examination, it must exist pre-conceptually - which it doesn’t.

Therefore, then, the only use of a God-concept is to point to a practice of pre-conceptual examination of one’s own direct experience - not as a competitor or replacement for science. Religion is woefully inadequate as a competitor or replacement for science in verifying post-conceptual truth claims, which is unfortunately how it is usually propagated.

Why do people assume that religion and science are competing in any way? I see them as living together quite comfortably. We are no caveman, I haven’t seen anybody try to explain phenomena with religious explanations in lieu of science for centuries now.

This idea is archaic and no longer valid as it is not being done anymore. Can we move past the notion?

Ahem! “Creation Science” anyone?

Oh brother! I stand corrected. There are some people out there still trying to do this. Square peg meet round hole.

Well, they don’t speak for me or any theists I know. That’s what you get when you several thousand year-old texts translated many times over and try to take it literally vs. just getting the basic message. Eeek.
[/quote]

I actually have a religion, but I don’t believe in God. That’s right, I’m Buddhist. I’m not an atheist, because I also don’t believe there is no God. I’m a non-theist.

[pat]

[quote]wirewound wrote:

I actually have a religion, but I don’t believe in God. That’s right, I’m Buddhist. I’m not an atheist, because I also don’t believe there is no God. I’m a non-theist. [/quote]

Don’t you guys have a muse, or energy you draw from?
Forgive me I don’t know a whole lot about Buddhism…

[wirewound]

[quote]pat wrote:
wirewound wrote:

I actually have a religion, but I don’t believe in God. That’s right, I’m Buddhist. I’m not an atheist, because I also don’t believe there is no God. I’m a non-theist.

Don’t you guys have a muse, or energy you draw from?
Forgive me I don’t know a whole lot about Buddhism…[/quote]

There’s no first cause in Buddhism. The doctrine of ‘dependent origination’ and the reality that all things are ‘empty of self’ sort of prevent it. Reality itself as experienced prevent it.

A God as described in most theistic religions would be subject to the same samsaric cycle of karma and rebirth as we all are - only the scale would be grander.

[Lorisco]

[quote]mbm693 wrote:

I took “inert cell” from your post. I was trying to spell it out for you in the words you were using so that perhaps you would understand. No dice apparently, you’re still an idiot.

I noticed you didn’t bother to answer my question. You seem to do that a lot when you don’t have an answer. I haven’t been afraid to answer any of your questions. If you want to be a coward that’s fine, I just wouldn’t recommend doing it in public.

[/quote]

Inert typically means inactive in terms of splitting, etc. But I’m not sure the context it was used?

However, Pat is correct in that man has never brought matter into existence, only manipulated matter. And I know many believe that matter cannot be created or destroyed. It always exists, just in different forms.

[katzenjammer]

Why wouldn’t this “samsaric cycle of karma and rebirth” be called “god”? Who moves this cycle? What do you mean by “dependent origination”? Sorry for so many questions.

[Lorisco]

[quote]wirewound wrote:
pat wrote:
wirewound wrote:

I actually have a religion, but I don’t believe in God. That’s right, I’m Buddhist. I’m not an atheist, because I also don’t believe there is no God. I’m a non-theist.

Don’t you guys have a muse, or energy you draw from?
Forgive me I don’t know a whole lot about Buddhism…

There’s no first cause in Buddhism. The doctrine of ‘dependent origination’ and the reality that all things are ‘empty of self’ sort of prevent it. Reality itself as experienced prevent it.

A God as described in most theistic religions would be subject to the same samsaric cycle of karma and rebirth as we all are - only the scale would be grander.[/quote]

Where did this “samsaric cycle of karma and rebirth” originate and how is it regulated? Who or what brought the system that allows this to function into human reality?

[wirewound]

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
wirewound wrote:
pat wrote:
wirewound wrote:

I actually have a religion, but I don’t believe in God. That’s right, I’m Buddhist. I’m not an atheist, because I also don’t believe there is no God. I’m a non-theist.

Don’t you guys have a muse, or energy you draw from?
Forgive me I don’t know a whole lot about Buddhism…

There’s no first cause in Buddhism. The doctrine of ‘dependent origination’ and the reality that all things are ‘empty of self’ sort of prevent it. Reality itself as experienced prevent it.

A God as described in most theistic religions would be subject to the same samsaric cycle of karma and rebirth as we all are - only the scale would be grander.

Where did this “samsaric cycle of karma and rebirth” originate and how is it regulated? Who or what brought the system that allows this to function into human reality?

[/quote]

Siddhartha never answered this question directly except to say that someone who insists on knowing these things is like a man struck by a poisoned arrow who will not allow anyone to help him until he knows what wood the shaft of the arrow is made of, who the attacker was, of what clan he was, whether it was a brahman or an untouchable, whether it was a man or a woman, etc. The question is considered unimportant in light of the dire circumstances of one’s situation.