Richard Dawkins: If I met god when I die

Anything goes (almost).

Richard Dawkins: If I met god when I die

Postby plwk » Mon Nov 05, 2012 6:05 am



So, what would you do if you met 'god'? :popcorn:
plwk
 
Posts: 2770
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 10:41 am

Re: Richard Dawkins: If I met god when I die

Postby Sherab Dorje » Mon Nov 05, 2012 9:42 am

Well, I don't think I'll be asking God which god he is. Apart from Mithras and Baal, who are quite similar except for the fact that mithras is a nudist, the rest are pretty bloody obvious. Especially Yaweh!
baal.jpg
baal.jpg (5.15 KiB) Viewed 1558 times

mithras.jpg
mithras.jpg (10.51 KiB) Viewed 1555 times

thor.jpg
thor.jpg (10.28 KiB) Viewed 1555 times

yaweh.jpg
yaweh.jpg (4.12 KiB) Viewed 1558 times

zeus.jpg
zeus.jpg (10.51 KiB) Viewed 1557 times
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Former staff member
 
Posts: 10207
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Richard Dawkins: If I met god when I die

Postby mindyourmind » Mon Nov 05, 2012 10:32 am

Thank you, Greg, for that important and handy guide to our friendly gods.

I now feel a lot more confident of not committing a dreadful social inelegance upon meeting such a god, such as misidentifying him / her out loud in front of everyone. One would be most embarrassed.
As bad as bad becomes its not a part of you

Talk Talk
User avatar
mindyourmind
 
Posts: 459
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 11:11 am
Location: South Africa

Re: Richard Dawkins: If I met god when I die

Postby Sherab Dorje » Mon Nov 05, 2012 11:05 am

mindyourmind wrote:Thank you, Greg, for that important and handy guide to our friendly gods.

I now feel a lot more confident of not committing a dreadful social inelegance upon meeting such a god, such as misidentifying him / her out loud in front of everyone. One would be most embarrassed.
:tongue:
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Former staff member
 
Posts: 10207
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Richard Dawkins: If I met god when I die

Postby Alex123 » Mon Nov 05, 2012 10:06 pm

About what Richard Dawkins said at the end:

Why did the God conceal himself? A smart believer can answer that:

1)God deliberately conceals himself and plants evidence against His existence to test our faith.

2) Evolution does NOT refute God. A smart believer can say that God made evolution, Big Bang, whatever science discovers to occur.
Even the water melting from the snow-capped peaks can find its way to the ocean"
User avatar
Alex123
 
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2012 12:32 am

Re: Richard Dawkins: If I met god when I die

Postby catmoon » Mon Nov 05, 2012 10:12 pm

Alex123 wrote:About what Richard Dawkins said at the end:

Why did the God conceal himself? A smart believer can answer that:

1)God deliberately conceals himself and plants evidence against His existence to test our faith.

2) Evolution does NOT refute God. A smart believer can say that God made evolution, Big Bang, whatever science discovers to occur.


There are no smart believers.
Sergeant Schultz knew everything there was to know.
User avatar
catmoon
Former staff member
 
Posts: 2995
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:20 am
Location: British Columbia

Re: Richard Dawkins: If I met god when I die

Postby catmoon » Mon Nov 05, 2012 10:17 pm

mindyourmind wrote:Thank you, Greg, for that important and handy guide to our friendly gods.

I now feel a lot more confident of not committing a dreadful social inelegance upon meeting such a god, such as misidentifying him / her out loud in front of everyone. One would be most embarrassed.


And oh hey look! I found an actual picture of him beiing embarrased!




Image
Sergeant Schultz knew everything there was to know.
User avatar
catmoon
Former staff member
 
Posts: 2995
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:20 am
Location: British Columbia

Re: Richard Dawkins: If I met god when I die

Postby tomamundsen » Mon Nov 05, 2012 10:36 pm

catmoon wrote:
Alex123 wrote:About what Richard Dawkins said at the end:

Why did the God conceal himself? A smart believer can answer that:

1)God deliberately conceals himself and plants evidence against His existence to test our faith.

2) Evolution does NOT refute God. A smart believer can say that God made evolution, Big Bang, whatever science discovers to occur.


There are no smart believers.

That's just not true.
User avatar
tomamundsen
 
Posts: 539
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 2:50 am
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: Richard Dawkins: If I met god when I die

Postby catmoon » Mon Nov 05, 2012 10:42 pm

tomamundsen wrote:
catmoon wrote:
Alex123 wrote:About what Richard Dawkins said at the end:

Why did the God conceal himself? A smart believer can answer that:

1)God deliberately conceals himself and plants evidence against His existence to test our faith.

2) Evolution does NOT refute God. A smart believer can say that God made evolution, Big Bang, whatever science discovers to occur.


There are no smart believers.

That's just not true.


Counter-example please.
Sergeant Schultz knew everything there was to know.
User avatar
catmoon
Former staff member
 
Posts: 2995
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:20 am
Location: British Columbia

Re: Richard Dawkins: If I met god when I die

Postby tomamundsen » Mon Nov 05, 2012 11:02 pm

catmoon wrote:Counter-example please.

Famous or otherwise? Ancient or contemporary?

If you allow examples from history, there are tons. Bacon, Galileo, Newton, Pascal, Kepler, Descartes. If you want famous contemporaries, it gets more limited and I'd have to do some research to pull up good names. In my field, there's Donald Knuth (wrote The Art of Computer Programming) and Larry Wall (creator of Perl), that I can think of that are both Christians and actually talk about it publicly.

In my personal experience, I went to a Catholic high school. The arguably smartest kid in my graduating class was very devoutly Catholic. He had a few heated arguments with me and other atheists at school. He got a 1600 on the SAT back when that was the highest possible score.
User avatar
tomamundsen
 
Posts: 539
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 2:50 am
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: Richard Dawkins: If I met god when I die

Postby catmoon » Mon Nov 05, 2012 11:09 pm

tomamundsen wrote:
catmoon wrote:Counter-example please.

Famous or otherwise? Ancient or contemporary?

If you allow examples from history, there are tons. Bacon, Galileo, Newton, Pascal, Kepler, Descartes. If you want famous contemporaries, it gets more limited and I'd have to do some research to pull up good names. In my field, there's Donald Knuth (wrote The Art of Computer Programming) and Larry Wall (creator of Perl), that I can think of that are both Christians and actually talk about it publicly.

In my personal experience, I went to a Catholic high school. The arguably smartest kid in my graduating class was very devoutly Catholic. He had a few heated arguments with me and other atheists at school. He got a 1600 on the SAT, back when that was the highest possible school.


To fall within the context of the argument, we have to go with contemporaries, or at least people who lived post-Darwin. The believers in question are those who believe the earth was created in 4004 BC or not too long prior to that.

I put it to you that anyone who gets a 1600 SAT score, and has all that mental ability, yet STILL persists in giving priority to pet beliefs over reason is by definition not too bright, and is displaying highly questionable judgement.

BTW I did 3 years in a Catholic high school myself. Small world.
Sergeant Schultz knew everything there was to know.
User avatar
catmoon
Former staff member
 
Posts: 2995
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:20 am
Location: British Columbia

Re: Richard Dawkins: If I met god when I die

Postby tomamundsen » Mon Nov 05, 2012 11:25 pm

catmoon wrote:The believers in question are those who believe the earth was created in 4004 BC or not too long prior to that.

Oh, didn't realize that's what you were going for. Yea, you'd have to be a dolt to believe that these days. From what I remember in high school, even the Catholic Church doesn't teach literal creation anymore.

catmoon wrote:I put it to you that anyone who gets a 1600 SAT score, and has all that mental ability, yet STILL persists in giving priority to pet beliefs over reason is by definition not too bright, and is displaying highly questionable judgement.

BTW I did 3 years in a Catholic high school myself. Small world.

Yea, well he was home-schooled up until high school. So he had very Catholic parents with apparently decent genetics that forced him to study a whole lot and be a good "Christian Gentleman" as our school's motto went (all boys :jawdrop: ). He didn't believe in literal creation, though.
User avatar
tomamundsen
 
Posts: 539
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 2:50 am
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: Richard Dawkins: If I met god when I die

Postby lobster » Tue Nov 06, 2012 11:54 am

So, what would you do if you met 'god'?


remove the mirror :D
User avatar
lobster
 
Posts: 952
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2012 9:06 pm

Re: Richard Dawkins: If I met god when I die

Postby undefineable » Tue Nov 06, 2012 12:17 pm

catmoon wrote:To fall within the context of the argument, we have to go with contemporaries, or at least people who lived post-Darwin. The believers in question are those who believe the earth was created in 4004 BC or not too long prior to that.

I put it to you that anyone who gets a 1600 SAT score, and has all that mental ability, yet STILL persists in giving priority to pet beliefs over reason is by definition not too bright, and is displaying highly questionable judgement.

BTW I did 3 years in a Catholic high school myself. Small world.


Reality Check - Cognitive Dissonance. :roll:
"Removing the barrier between this and that is the only solution" {Chogyam Trungpa - "The Lion's Roar"}
undefineable
 
Posts: 500
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 1:34 am

Re: Richard Dawkins: If I met god when I die

Postby undefineable » Tue Nov 06, 2012 12:28 pm

Just to clarify, I'm confident that there are smart, educated Fundamentalist Christians, who remain so in spite of any associated cognitive dissonance. What kind of message does saying anything else send the world about Buddhists? :jawdrop:
"Removing the barrier between this and that is the only solution" {Chogyam Trungpa - "The Lion's Roar"}
undefineable
 
Posts: 500
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 1:34 am

Re: Richard Dawkins: If I met god when I die

Postby catmoon » Tue Nov 06, 2012 12:55 pm

I suppose the message would be that Buddhists have serious doubts about fundamentalists.
Sergeant Schultz knew everything there was to know.
User avatar
catmoon
Former staff member
 
Posts: 2995
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:20 am
Location: British Columbia

Re: Richard Dawkins: If I met god when I die

Postby Alex123 » Tue Nov 06, 2012 6:47 pm

catmoon wrote:There are no smart believers.


Even Buddhists are believers.

1) We Believe in Historical Buddha, though there isn't foolproof evidence that Historical Buddha Gotama existed.
Even if He existed, we can't prove for certain that
2) He was full Awakened.
Even if he was, we can't prove that he
3) He didn't say un-truths, for whatever reason.

Even if above three unprovable claims are accepted on Belief:

4) How do we know that such and such a lineage has accurately transmitted His teaching over 2,500 years?

We take these pointers on Faith.

Furthermore we can't disprove that there is God who deceives us regarding his existence to test our Faith in him. How do we know that God didn't plant fossils into ground to make evolution seem true. How can we disprove the idea that there is God but he deliberately creates evidence against His own existence to test our faith?

We can say that one of the advantages of Buddhism is possibility to become Awakened here-and-now. But this would be terrible if one would go to eternal Hell (or whatever punishment God does).

We Believe.
Even the water melting from the snow-capped peaks can find its way to the ocean"
User avatar
Alex123
 
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2012 12:32 am

Re: Richard Dawkins: If I met god when I die

Postby catmoon » Wed Nov 07, 2012 5:36 am

Alex123 wrote:
catmoon wrote:There are no smart believers.


Even Buddhists are believers.

1) We Believe in Historical Buddha, though there isn't foolproof evidence that Historical Buddha Gotama existed.
Even if He existed, we can't prove for certain that
2) He was full Awakened.
Even if he was, we can't prove that he
3) He didn't say un-truths, for whatever reason.

Even if above three unprovable claims are accepted on Belief:

4) How do we know that such and such a lineage has accurately transmitted His teaching over 2,500 years?

We take these pointers on Faith.

Furthermore we can't disprove that there is God who deceives us regarding his existence to test our Faith in him. How do we know that God didn't plant fossils into ground to make evolution seem true. How can we disprove the idea that there is God but he deliberately creates evidence against His own existence to test our faith?

We can say that one of the advantages of Buddhism is possibility to become Awakened here-and-now. But this would be terrible if one would go to eternal Hell (or whatever punishment God does).

We Believe.



I'll just quote myself a bit from 4-5 posts up the thread:

To fall within the context of the argument, we have to go with contemporaries, or at least people who lived post-Darwin. The believers in question are those who believe the earth was created in 4004 BC or not too long prior to that.
Sergeant Schultz knew everything there was to know.
User avatar
catmoon
Former staff member
 
Posts: 2995
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:20 am
Location: British Columbia

Re: Richard Dawkins: If I met god when I die

Postby Dave The Seeker » Wed Nov 07, 2012 1:10 pm

Alex123 wrote:Even Buddhists are believers.

1) We Believe in Historical Buddha, though there isn't foolproof evidence that Historical Buddha Gotama existed.
Even if He existed, we can't prove for certain that
2) He was full Awakened.
Even if he was, we can't prove that he
3) He didn't say un-truths, for whatever reason.

Even if above three unprovable claims are accepted on Belief:

4) How do we know that such and such a lineage has accurately transmitted His teaching over 2,500 years?

We take these pointers on Faith.

Furthermore we can't disprove that there is God who deceives us regarding his existence to test our Faith in him. How do we know that God didn't plant fossils into ground to make evolution seem true. How can we disprove the idea that there is God but he deliberately creates evidence against His own existence to test our faith?

We can say that one of the advantages of Buddhism is possibility to become Awakened here-and-now. But this would be terrible if one would go to eternal Hell (or whatever punishment God does).

We Believe.



As to your 4th point, The 4 Noble Truths and The Noble 8 fold path are the basis for all lineages of Buddhism.
These have been passed down and there is no reason their accuracy has been or needed to be changed.

Why would god deceive us if there really was one?
Each moment in life is a test, do you make the wholesome action, or the unwholesome one?

Eternal hell, there is the biggest contradiction in the teachings of the Christian church. An all loving and forgiving god sending one of his children to suffer eternally........
I also went to Catholic schools and got a great education. But in the studies of the bible, it also says we are all part of god.
So he/she cuts off a finger or toe and sends it to an eternal hell because it did the wrong action? This concept never sat well with me.

In my understanding, we will suffer in some way for our actions that are caused by greed, anger and delusion.
But upon being able to release the three fetters we will not be bound to clinging to the "me" or "I" and help other sentient beings to find the path to Enlightenment. The letting go of the things that only harm and bring suffering.

:namaste:
Everyday problems teach us to have a realistic attitude.
They teach us that life is what life is; flawed.
Yet with tremendous potential for joy and fulfillment.
~Lama Surya Das~

If your path teaches you to act and exert yourself correctly and leads to spiritual realizations such as love, compassion and wisdom then obviously it's worthwhile.
~Lama Thubten Yeshe~

One whose mind is freed does not argue with anyone, he does not dispute with anyone. He makes use of the conventional terms of the world without clinging to them
~The Buddha~
User avatar
Dave The Seeker
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 11:02 pm
Location: Reading MI USA

Re: Richard Dawkins: If I met god when I die

Postby Alex123 » Wed Nov 07, 2012 4:27 pm

Dave The Seeker wrote:As to your 4th point, The 4 Noble Truths and The Noble 8 fold path are the basis for all lineages of Buddhism.
These have been passed down and there is no reason their accuracy has been or needed to be changed.


Same could be said about such and such religion.

Dave The Seeker wrote:Why would god deceive us if there really was one?


To test us, to make us grow, to overcome critical intellect, for example.


Dave The Seeker wrote:Eternal hell, there is the biggest contradiction in the teachings of the Christian church. An all loving and forgiving god sending one of his children to suffer eternally........


Only God knows the answer.... :roll:
Even the water melting from the snow-capped peaks can find its way to the ocean"
User avatar
Alex123
 
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2012 12:32 am

Next

Return to Lounge

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests

>