Do you believe in God?

[Dotini]

Citation needed.

The aphorism is original, but inspired by GRRM.

 

[Danoff]

The aphorism is original, but inspired by GRRM.

You still need to support it if you want to pass that meme on.

 

[Dotini]

You still need to support it if you want to pass that meme on.

No problem. You will support it yourself when your best friend's wife has a baby, she holds it up to you, and you say, "Oh my, what a beautiful baby!"

 

[Danoff]

No problem. You will support it yourself when your best friend's wife has a baby, she holds it up to you, and you say, "Oh my, what a beautiful baby!"

Congratulations.

 

[TheGeologist]

He falls victim to one of the classic blunders, the most famous of which is to never involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less well known is that if you're trying to answer the question of where the universe comes from, you accomplish nothing by supposing it comes from something else... because you don't know where that came from. It's especially bad when you lack evidence to demonstrate that the universe comes from this other thing that answers no questions.

Inconceivable.

(Am I too late?)

 

[Dotini]

Inconceivable.

(Am I too late?)

Where the universe came from is not the right question. IMO, the right question is what is the best way to live on Earth.

 

[BobK]

...and here I was thinking the right question in this thread is "Do you believe in God?" Silly me.

 

[Imari]

Where the universe came from is not the right question. IMO, the right question is what is the best way to live on Earth.

THE right question? Or the right question for you?

Either way, the answer is forty two.

 

[Dotini]

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened."
- Winston Churchill


"One should be skeptical of both the believers and the scoffers"
- Dr Bernard Haisch


From Wikipedia:

The God TheoryEdit
In 2006, Haisch published a book entitled The God Theory, in which he writes

I offer a genuine insight into how you can, and should, be a rational, science-believing human being and at the same time know that you are also an immortal spiritual being, a spark of God. I propose a worldview that offers a way out of the hate and fear-driven violence engulfing the planet.​

Haisch published a follow-up in 2010, 'Purpose Guided Universe'. Both books reject both atheism and traditional theistic viewpoints, favoring instead a model of Pandeism wherein our Creator has become our Universe, to share in the actualized experiences therein manifested. Haisch provides as proof of his views a combination of fine tuning and mystical experiences arguments.

Advances are made by answering questions. Discoveries are made by questioning answers.[2]​

— Bernard Haisch

 

[Danoff]

Where the universe came from is not the right question. IMO, the right question is what is the best way to live on Earth.

They're both equally wonderful questions, and (based on current evidence) totally separable. There is absolutely nothing that we know of the universe that suggests that it offers an answer as to the best way to live on Earth. And I've not heard otherwise put forth by you or Haisch.

 

[Dotini]

They're both equally wonderful questions, and (based on current evidence) totally separable. There is absolutely nothing that we know of the universe that suggests that it offers an answer as to the best way to live on Earth. And I've not heard otherwise put forth by you or Haisch.

Well, you haven't read Haisch and you haven't been looking closely at what I've been trying to say. I will attempt a TL/DR version, with apologies to Haisch because I've only begun to read him myself. This is the starting point. If you don't like the idea, we stop right now, move on and never come back to it. Promise.

There is a serious problem with how traditional religions have treated human rights, science, etc. Murder, massacre, abuse, the whole 9 yards.

A worldview that offers a way out of the hate and fear-driven violence engulfing the planet is offered.

A way is found to reconcile science (Big Bang, 4.6 billion y/o Earth, evolution, etc.) with yourself also an immortal spiritual being, a spark of God.

 

[Danoff]

Well, you haven't read Haisch and you haven't been looking closely at what I've been trying to say. I will attempt a TL/DR version, with apologies to Haisch because I've only begun to read him myself. This is the starting point. If you don't like the idea, we stop right now, move on and never come back to it. Promise.

There is a serious problem with how traditional religions have treated human rights, science, etc. Murder, massacre, abuse, the whole 9 yards.

A worldview that offers a way out of the hate and fear-driven violence engulfing the planet is offered.

A way is found to reconcile science (Big Bang, 4.6 billion y/o Earth, evolution, etc.) with yourself also an immortal spiritual being, a spark of God.

Where's the part where we have some kind of reason for thinking this is true?

I get that you like self-deception, but I'm not seeing anything that suggests that the universe offers an answer as to the best way to live on Earth. This is just a wish-list basically.

 

[Dotini]

Where's the part where we have some kind of reason for thinking this is true?

I get that you like self-deception, but I'm not seeing anything that suggests that the universe offers an answer as to the best way to live on Earth. This is just a wish-list basically.

I understand it is something you do not wish for. Probably fervently. So it ends now.

 

[zzz_pt]

If I had to choose a religion for the whole world, none of the Abrahamic religions nor Hinduism would be on my list.

I'd probably go with Jainism. Nonviolence + Atheism seems a more acceptable compromise.

 

[Danoff]

I understand it is something you do not wish for. Probably fervently. So it ends now.

Ok so you're admitting that it's just a wish-list. So why does this hold meaning for you? And why go about it in such an indirect way? Why not just believe that your life has meaning, full stop. Why believe in an intelligent universe as a means to meaning instead of just believing that your life holds meaning... or maybe all human life holds meaning. I mean if you're ok with crafting something to believe to give yourself meaning, I think we could craft something that does so more directly, and maybe provides more of a warm fuzzy. How about this, how about believing that 500 years from now your remains will be found and you'll be worshipped as a god by humanity from then on as the last religion. All humans going forward in time will know you, study your life, and believe you to be the greatest most perfect example of humanity ever. Hows that for meaning? Why not believe that? Seems like a better wish.

 

[Dotini]

If I had to choose a religion for the whole world, none of the Abrahamic religions nor Hinduism would be on my list.

I'd probably go with Jainism. Nonviolence + Atheism seems a more acceptable compromise.

Does Jainism accept science? Where would Buddhism place on your list?

 

[zzz_pt]

Does Jainism accept science? Where would Buddhism place on your list?

I think religion and science are rationallly incompatible, so Jains are not an exception. But I appreciate the main "commandment", if you will, to avoid violence at all costs.

I don't know enough about Buddhism to give an answer. But I know it would be higher up the list than all the other 4 main religions on the planet.

I don't want to be an apologist for Jainism. It would be my choice if atheism / non religion was not an option on a parallel universe.

 

[Danoff]

But I appreciate the main "commandment", if you will, to avoid violence at all costs.

Sounds like Quakers. I spent a lot of time among Quakers during my childhood.

 

[zzz_pt]

Sounds like Quakers. I spent a lot of time among Quakers during my childhood.

I never met a Quaker but I think they're often mistaken as being Muslims because of their turbans.

I have an idea of them being quite peaceful and low profile but I don't know anything about their religion. Did they came from India (or thereabouts) as well?

 

[Danoff]

I never met a Quaker but I think they're often mistaken as being Muslims because of their turbans.

I have an idea of them being quite peaceful and low profile but I don't know anything about their religion. Did they came from India (or thereabouts) as well?

No turbans. Here's what a Quaker more typically looks like so that you can get the right mental image.

Quakers started out in England and were exported to the colonies like so many other sects of Christianity. Eventually they pretty much dropped the Christianity, and now worship "the light", which is inclusive of the Christian god. I would say based on personal experience that a very high percentage of Quakers are Christian, but it is not a requirement. Their beliefs are super amorphous, almost zero actual religious structure. The one thing you really have to believe to be a Quaker is that violence is bad in all forms. And they go deep on that one, not wanting to commit acts of violence against inanimate objects.

Quakers had a big surge in membership from hippies who were "conscientious objectors", who obtained non-combat roles during military drafting, or managed to avoid serving altogether. Because of that influx and the lack of structure beforehand, Quakerism is about as wildly varying a religion as you might find.

A typical quaker service (they call it "meeting") takes place in someone's house. The congregation arrives and sits in silence for an hour, after which the service is over and refreshments are had. If you're inspired by the light during "meeting", you're supposed to stand and share your inspiration with the group. Sometimes quaker meetings go for an entire hour without anyone saying anything. Sometimes lots of people stand and talk, or even passive-aggressively argue with the "inspiration" of others. These are called popcorn meetings, because people are popping up left and right.

I suppose after pacifism, the next most strongly held Quaker belief is that you don't need anyone to talk to your god for you (such as a priest or pastor).

Edit:

My personal experience with Quakerism is that my parents considered themselves Quaker for a time and dragged me to meeting.

 

[zzz_pt]

No turbans. Here's what a Quaker more typically looks like so that you can get the right mental image.

Quakers started out in England and were exported to the colonies like so many other sects of Christianity. Eventually they pretty much dropped the Christianity, and now worship "the light", which is inclusive of the Christian god. I would say based on personal experience that a very high percentage of Quakers are Christian, but it is not a requirement. Their beliefs are super amorphous, almost zero actual religious structure. The one thing you really have to believe to be a Quaker is that violence is bad in all forms. And they go deep on that one, not wanting to commit acts of violence against inanimate objects.

Quakers had a big surge in membership from hippies who were "conscientious objectors", who obtained non-combat roles during military drafting, or managed to avoid serving altogether. Because of that influx and the lack of structure beforehand, Quakerism is about as wildly varying a religion as you might find.

A typical quaker service (they call it "meeting") takes place in someone's house. The congregation arrives and sits in silence for an hour, after which the service is over and refreshments are had. If you're inspired by the light during "meeting", you're supposed to stand and share your inspiration with the group. Sometimes quaker meetings go for an entire hour without anyone saying anything. Sometimes lots of people stand and talk, or even passive-aggressively argue with the "inspiration" of others. These are called popcorn meetings, because people are popping up left and right.

I suppose after pacifism, the next most strongly held Quaker belief is that you don't need anyone to talk to your god for you (such as a priest or pastor).

Edit:

My personal experience with Quakerism is that my parents considered themselves Quaker for a time and dragged me to meeting.

Thanks! I had no clue about this. I only knew the name but I had no idea this was what Quakerism means. Quakers and Jains have a lot in common it seems.

I was thinking of Sikhism when I mentioned the turbans. I remember watching a short documentary on YouTube about their main temple but it was a while ago.

 

[Dotini]

I think religion and science are rationally incompatible...

This has always been the case until very recently. I intend to start a new thread on this topic, so stay tuned.

 

[TenEightyOne]

No turbans. Here's what a Quaker more typically looks like so that you can get the right mental image.

Quakers started out in England and were exported to the colonies like so many other sects of Christianity. Eventually they pretty much dropped the Christianity, and now worship "the light", which is inclusive of the Christian god. I would say based on personal experience that a very high percentage of Quakers are Christian, but it is not a requirement. Their beliefs are super amorphous, almost zero actual religious structure. The one thing you really have to believe to be a Quaker is that violence is bad in all forms. And they go deep on that one, not wanting to commit acts of violence against inanimate objects.

Quakers had a big surge in membership from hippies who were "conscientious objectors", who obtained non-combat roles during military drafting, or managed to avoid serving altogether. Because of that influx and the lack of structure beforehand, Quakerism is about as wildly varying a religion as you might find.

A typical quaker service (they call it "meeting") takes place in someone's house. The congregation arrives and sits in silence for an hour, after which the service is over and refreshments are had. If you're inspired by the light during "meeting", you're supposed to stand and share your inspiration with the group. Sometimes quaker meetings go for an entire hour without anyone saying anything. Sometimes lots of people stand and talk, or even passive-aggressively argue with the "inspiration" of others. These are called popcorn meetings, because people are popping up left and right.

I suppose after pacifism, the next most strongly held Quaker belief is that you don't need anyone to talk to your god for you (such as a priest or pastor).

Edit:

My personal experience with Quakerism is that my parents considered themselves Quaker for a time and dragged me to meeting.

That's a great overall description of Quakerism but I've never met a Quaker who looked like your picture! Maybe the English way is more demure

 

[Dotini]

I think President Richard Nixon was a Quaker. He made his wife wear a cloth coat.
Amongst his most notable achievements were to open up China and take the world off the gold standard.

 

[Danoff]

That's a great overall description of Quakerism but I've never met a Quaker who looked like your picture! Maybe the English way is more demure

In the US a lot of Quakers started out as draft-dodging flower children, and then hung around and eventually brought their own kids. I met a lot of... earthy? crunchy? people.

 

[Famine]

I never met a Quaker but I think they're often mistaken as being Muslims because of their turbans.

I have an idea of them being quite peaceful and low profile but I don't know anything about their religion. Did they came from India (or thereabouts) as well?

Are you thinking of Sikhs?

Edit: I scrolled down. Yes. Yes you are

 

[Danoff]

Now that you guys got me thinking about the Quakers...

You can kinda see how pacifism stems from a certain interpretation of the New Testament. Christ arguably taught pacifism in the extreme (turn the other cheek, endure the crucifixion, etc.). So you can see how Quakers who sought to embody the teachings of Christ would teach that violence is always bad, even against those who would harm you - since this is what Christ did and taught. However, Christ pulled a few fast ones in the New Testament, including whipping merchants, drowning some pigs, and cursing a tree. So based on those "accounts" he didn't fulfill perfection according to Quakerism, even to a Quaker who thinks violence against a tree is ok, whipping merchants is right out.

So some Quakers prefer to follow the pacifist teachings of the NT without accepting it as the literal word of God. But I always found their interpretation of the message of the NT strongly at odds with the sortof cartoon Christian American gun-loving gay-hating burn-in-hell (let's face it, probably baptist) type.

That these two groups both associate (even loosely) with Christianity and come to such wildly different ways of life and priorities is a testament to just how poorly their God communicated to his people, and it almost makes you wonder if he even exists in the first place.

 

[zzz_pt]

However, Christ pulled a few fast ones in the New Testament, including whipping merchants, drowning some pigs, and cursing a tree.

And the (in)famous passage in Luke 19:

…26 He replied, ‘I tell you that everyone who has will be given more; but the one who does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. 27 And these enemies of mine who were unwilling for me to rule over them, bring them here and slay themin front of me.’ 28 After Jesus had said this, He went on ahead, going up to Jerusalem...

The whole parable of the ten minas is quite interesting in a couple other points... And not for being positive.

 

[TexRex]

No turbans. Here's what a Quaker more typically looks like so that you can get the right mental image.

Quakers started out in England and were exported to the colonies like so many other sects of Christianity. Eventually they pretty much dropped the Christianity, and now worship "the light", which is inclusive of the Christian god. I would say based on personal experience that a very high percentage of Quakers are Christian, but it is not a requirement. Their beliefs are super amorphous, almost zero actual religious structure. The one thing you really have to believe to be a Quaker is that violence is bad in all forms. And they go deep on that one, not wanting to commit acts of violence against inanimate objects.

One can't help but wonder if they consider shaving (or even just a trim) to be an act of violence.

In the US a lot of Quakers started out as draft-dodging flower children, and then hung around and eventually brought their own kids. I met a lot of... earthy? crunchy? people.

They're supposed to have a soak in some hot water; it says so right on the back of the cardboard can.

 

[UKMikey]

One can't help but wonder if they consider shaving (or even just a trim) to be an act of violence.


They're supposed to have a soak in some hot water; it says so right on the back of the cardboard can.

I was wondering why the oats mascot has such a clean-shaven chin but according to the plain speaking respondents to this discussion thread at QuakerQuaker their facial hair isn't an article of faith but more of a fashion statement.