agnosticism
-
I was an atheist but am swinging towards agnosticism recently.
it is the belief there is no proof either that god exists or not.
but I strongly am against religion! -
that depends on how u define 'god'.
all i know is there is definitely no single entity that is omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent all at the same time (Problem of evil). -
the argument against agnostic is simple.Originally posted by crimson soldier:I was an atheist but am swinging towards agnosticism recently.
it is the belief there is no proof either that god exists or not.
but I strongly am against religion!
do you think fairies exist. we cannot prove that fairies dun exist right.
since we cannot prove that fairies dun exist, are we to tell people that we are not sure fairies exist or not, hence we are agnostic abt it.
same goes for flying horse and teenage mutant ninja turtle and our most beloved spiderman. -
There are some advantages to being an agnostic... in that, you tend to be open-minded. At the edge of science... it is still very "hazy". Many things are still "unknown". Many things still cannot be done...Originally posted by crimson soldier:I was an atheist but am swinging towards agnosticism recently.
it is the belief there is no proof either that god exists or not.
but I strongly am against religion!
as for religion and "hard atheism"... they tend to hold on to "positions"
if you are a "hard" agnostic and since you are only "swinging" towards it, I guess you are not.. you will be as "certain" as both atheists and religious people...
that is to indulge in logical "fallacy".... for in reality... everything is changing constantly... there is, as Buddhism calls it, "no inherent existence"....
for me to continue from here on would be complicated... -
sry off topic and hijack your thread... just want to ask... what is the term used to describe someone who acknowledges the existence of god... but no specific religion
-
at the most basic...Originally posted by OasisBlue:sry off topic and hijack your thread... just want to ask... what is the term used to describe someone who acknowledges the existence of god... but no specific religion
Theist is someone that believes in the existence of God (any God)
Atheist is someone that does not believe in the existence of God (any God)
=====================
Religious Theist would be someone that indulges in his belief.
Hard Atheist would be someone that fight against Theism actively
Soft Atheist would be someone that does not believe but has no problems about others believing.
=====================
So you can be a non religious theist because religion is a lot more than theism but requires a belief in God/a god.
======================
If you believe in the existence of God/gods but you do not know which religion is right or you think that all religious are right... and you happily follow any religious rituals of any religions.... then you would be a religious agnostic.... -
ohhh and Buddhism... according to the people in ~BWB~ they do not believe in God/gods but many people that call themselves Buddhists do... or at least God-Like beings...
-
i have trouble understanding you. are you arguing against agnosticism or against it?Originally posted by january:the argument against agnostic is simple.
do you think fairies exist. we cannot prove that fairies dun exist right.
since we cannot prove that fairies dun exist, are we to tell people that we are not sure fairies exist or not, hence we are agnostic abt it.
same goes for flying horse and teenage mutant ninja turtle and our most beloved spiderman.
you said "the argument against agnostic is simple." but it seems that your argument is for agnosticism! I cannot prove god exists and I cannot prove god doesn't exist also, therefore I do not bother with others' theist or atheist beliefs. -
^5
me agnostic too! -
Thanks!Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:at the most basic...
Theist is someone that believes in the existence of God (any God)
Atheist is someone that does not believe in the existence of God (any God)
=====================
Religious Theist would be someone that indulges in his belief.
Hard Atheist would be someone that fight against Theism actively
Soft Atheist would be someone that does not believe but has no problems about others believing.
=====================
So you can be a non religious theist because religion is a lot more than theism but requires a belief in God/a god.
======================
If you believe in the existence of God/gods but you do not know which religion is right or you think that all religious are right... and you happily follow any religious rituals of any religions.... then you would be a religious agnostic....
-
Agnosticism is the path I tend to follow; although I may call myself a Christian, I don't go to Church because I don't believe it's up to someone else to tell me about they know more about God and how I should worship Him.
God is not for the common man to understand. -
U R Welcome! So nice to meet a polite person...Originally posted by OasisBlue:Thanks! -
No, only the God part we do not believe. Means there are other realms of existence according to Buddhism... which we usually never see, including ghosts, animals (we usually see them), and others.. including devas which you may say they are 'gods' in celestial places but we do not worship them. We do not worship anyone at all even the Buddha let alone someone still trapped in samsara and fundamental ignorance, not yet enlightened.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:ohhh and Buddhism... according to the people in ~BWB~ they do not believe in God/gods but many people that call themselves Buddhists do... or at least God-Like beings...
Therefore since Buddhism is not a divine-centered religion or we rely on the divine for some intervention or some better future lifetime, but rather it is about transforming every single person and to lead everyone to realisation of our true nature, and it is about liberation from all sufferings and attaining the unconditioned lasting bliss of Nirvana, those existence of unseen beings are not so important or relevant to our practice (which suggests that if you insists on not believing in their existence you can of course, still practise Buddhism and gain insights).. but we cant say they don't exist just because most of us can't see them... we can't say there are no extra-terrestrials either. Anyway, many people, including I, have undoubtedly witnessed paranormal beings like ghosts before. There are others who through their practise have also seen even further varieties of beings... But anyway already besides the point. -
but they can blindly follow... and that might be better than having nothing to follow and if they are not capable of finding their own way...Originally posted by SturmDerSchatten:Agnosticism is the path I tend to follow; although I may call myself a Christian, I don't go to Church because I don't believe it's up to someone else to tell me about they know more about God and how I should worship Him.
God is not for the common man to understand.
there is actually "nothing" to know about God because whatever you "know" "understand" or "appreciate" is wrong or God will not be God right?
If you can "understand God", then forget it... immediately, the God that you can understand is not worth it...
You can however... experience "God" in your own life... that "God" that you can never know with your human mind...
But that is a really long way off and most people start with "religion" before they find / experience God and break free from the religion... -
I meant, many people that call themselves Buddhists (outside of ~BWB~) believe in God/gods or God-like beings... and actually I think ~BWB~ people believe in God-like beings but not a creator, supreme GOD.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:No, only the God part we do not believe. -
Not really lah...Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:I meant, many people that call themselves Buddhists (outside of ~BWB~) believe in God/gods or God-like beings... and actually I think ~BWB~ people believe in God-like beings but not a creator, supreme GOD.
That would be against fundamental Buddhist teachings already. -
When I say god-like, I do not mean god-like from the perspective of Buddhists but non-Buddhists...Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Not really lah...
That would be against fundamental Buddhist teachings already. -
Even the Buddha, who would be the most "God like person" in Buddhism already, cannot change someone's karma, which includes doing things like granting him eternal rebirth in heaven, he cannot grant enlightenment, he cannot do many things that is against the laws of causality... therefore he is certainly not God-like, because a personal God that can go against laws of causality such as karma does not exist in Buddhism.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:When I say god-like, I do not mean god-like from the perspective of Buddhists but non-Buddhists... -
but they can blindly follow... and that might be better than having nothing to follow and if they are not capable of finding their own way...
Hmm. But there has to be some skepticism in following, you see? The Bible states something about "blind man leading the blind".
This is a very agnostic answer. Which I kind of agree to...
there is actually "nothing" to know about God because whatever you "know" "understand" or "appreciate" is wrong or God will not be God right?
Some call this state 'enlightenment' or 'nirvana'. But true; God cannot be fathomed with our simple intellect.
If you can "understand God", then forget it... immediately, the God that you can understand is not worth it...
Experiencing God is a personal feeling we all should strive for. Indeed God speaks to everyone differently, and that's why I've got something against organized religion.
You can however... experience "God" in your own life... that "God" that you can never know with your human mind...
But that is a really long way off and most people start with "religion" before they find / experience God and break free from the religion... -
IMO, regarding what Andrew and AEN are discussing, it all comes down to defining the terms 'god' and 'believe'.
For monotheistic religions such as Abrahamic religions (Judeo-Christian/Islamic), they define their one and only God as the creator of all things and has the characteristics of being perfect, omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent.
For Buddhism (and other polytheistic religions), the term 'god' is a term for supernatural entities, aka deities, which are usually NOT omniscient nor/and omnipotent.
Also, i noticed the use of the term "believe (in God/gods)" might be mis-understood. 'Believe' may be used by some people to have the same meaning as having faith and worshipping a certain entity, while to some other people, 'believe' may only mean having the confidence in the existence of the entity.
Buddhists do "believe" that gods/devas exists, just that they do not worship these supernatural deities. In this sense, saying a person "believes" in the existence of god(s) does not mean the person worships the god(s).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for me, an Atheist, the god in Abrahamic religions is out of the question - there is no way the characteristics of an entity that is all-perfect, omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent can exist at all without conflict at any time. Even if the Creator God does exist, he cannot be the same as described in their holy scriptures, which brings us to the question of the accuracy of their scriptures.
As for the Buddhist term of definition of gods as supernatural deities, my personal opinion is again how to define 'supernatural'. Can someone with much superior technology or knowledge appear to be 'supernatural' to those who are less superior? A magician and his tricks can appear to be 'supernatural' to the spectators - but of coz, we 'know' and are told that magicians are just normal people who uses tools to help them conjure tricks. Imagine how magicians can be worshipped in ancient days.
Similarly, the use of superior technology can appear to be supernatural to a culture of lower technology. If a 'god' is deemed 'supernatural' to us becoz of tools or gadgets (tools which are beyond our understanding), then i believe that it can be very possible. If we're talking about spiritual superiority (if spirituality exists), then unless it can be proven beyond doubt, I cannot bring myself to believe it.
Conclusion - I'm a:
Strong Atheist against Judeo-Christian/Islamic religion
Weak atheist against 'gods' which are NOT all-powerful/knowing/perfect -
sometimes as a atheist, i am really amazed at how believers or karma believers can argue your ways with so profound explanation of your beliefs.
truly amazing..
From atheist point of view, our reasoning is already every clear cut to us but it just does not drive through to others. that is so strange. -
i know there is a class of believers of a god
who is not all powerful, benevolent and stuff like that but the point is that there is no evidence that such a God exist..
superman may exist in our life but we say it does not really exist because there are no traces of evidence.
If we want to be supertitious about things, i can also say that the flying comets that we sometimes see in the sky is the evidence of superman because he was pushing them across the sky for exercising.... -
Originally posted by sgquitter:
Yes. Buddhism is not a polytheistic religion, it is not a religion classified in those categories because we do not worship any of those so called 'gods'. They are not really gods, they are just celestial beings, and we do not worship any one of them.
[b]IMO, regarding what Andrew and AEN are discussing, it all comes down to defining the terms 'god' and 'believe'.
For monotheistic religions such as Abrahamic religions (Judeo-Christian/Islamic), they define their one and only God as the creator of all things and has the characteristics of being perfect, omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent.
For Buddhism (and other polytheistic religions), the term 'god' is a term for supernatural entities, aka deities, which are usually NOT omniscient nor/and omnipotent.
Also, i noticed the use of the term "believe (in God/gods)" might be mis-understood. 'Believe' may be used by some people to have the same meaning as having faith and worshipping a certain entity, while to some other people, 'believe' may only mean having the confidence in the existence of the entity.
Buddhists do "believe" that gods/devas exists, just that they do not worship these supernatural deities. In this sense, saying a person "believes" in the existence of god(s) does not mean the person worships the god(s).As for me, an Atheist, the god in Abrahamic religions is out of the question - there is no way the characteristics of an entity that is all-perfect, omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent can exist at all without conflict at any time. Even if the Creator God does exist, he cannot be the same as described in their holy scriptures, which brings us to the question of the accuracy of their scriptures.
Actually, if you understand the nature of reality, if you understand Emptiness, you will know why so called 'supernatural abilities' may occur. Classical science will not be able to explain this because classical science is limited to time-space relativity. But if you take a look at Quantum Physics, you can actually find many insights that corresponds well to Buddhism and can really explain quite some stuff as well. I am confident that as these scientific studies develope more and more findings will prove Buddhist teachings. In fact there are so many things that Buddhism already knew for a long time, that are only now discovered by scientists.
As for the Buddhist term of definition of gods as supernatural deities, my personal opinion is again how to define 'supernatural'. Can someone with much superior technology or knowledge appear to be 'supernatural' to those who are less superior? A magician and his tricks can appear to be 'supernatural' to the spectators - but of coz, we 'know' and are told that magicians are just normal people who uses tools to help them conjure tricks. Imagine how magicians can be worshipped in ancient days. Similarly, the use of superior technology can appear to be supernatural to a culture of lower technology. If a 'god' is deemed 'supernatural' to us becoz of tools or gadgets (tools which are beyond our understanding), then i believe that it can be very possible. If we're talking about spiritual superiority (if spirituality exists), then unless it can be proven beyond doubt, I cannot bring myself to believe it.
Conclusion - I'm a:
Strong Atheist against Judeo-Christian/Islamic religion
Weak atheist against 'gods' which are NOT all-powerful/knowing/perfect
Now these paranormal happenings -- they are not supernatural, but they are non local activities of the nature of our universe. They are just as it is. You may want to look at how due to the non-local nature of our universe electrons can communicate each other at absolutely no time at all, regardless of the distance: The Universe as a Hologram - Holographic Reality (btw this is a very very good article, it is not about supernatural abilities about how science can link to the teachings of Emptiness and non-local consciousness, but the book does have many examples of how supernatural activities were possible in the light of the holographic universe.. a v good book):
...Aspect and his team discovered that under certain circumstances subatomic particles such as electrons are able to instantaneously communicate with each other regardless of the distance separating them. It doesn't matter whether they are 10 feet or 10 billion miles apart.
Somehow each particle always seems to know what the other is doing. The problem with this feat is that it violates Einstein's long-held tenet that no communication can travel faster than the speed of light. Since traveling faster than the speed of light is tantamount to breaking the time barrier, this daunting prospect has caused some physicists to try to come up with elaborate ways to explain away Aspect's findings. But it has inspired others to offer even more radical explanations... (pls cont reading from URL)
The article really explains very well so do read the whole thing. And you know what... Buddhism has always already knew that the nature of reality as Emptiness and Non-Locality. Emptiness is not a void, it means interdependent origination and that everything lack solid separate inherent existence -- they are dependently arisen out of conditions, only conditions are needed.
The principle of conditionality in Buddhism:
When there is this, that is.
With the arising of this, that arises.
When this is not, neither is that.
With the cessation of this, that ceases.
Another great example of Dependent Origination is also found in the Net of Indra teachings:http://buddhism.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=129929
And in Buddhism, it is completely possible to wake up to our own true nature as Non-local and Empty luminosity - means non local consciousness. When we wake up to that, we attain enlightenment, and though I am not yet enlightened many others are even today.. some even post in my forum.
The metaphor of Indra's Jeweled Net is attributed to an ancient Buddhist named Tu-Shun (557-640 B.C.E.) who asks us to envision a vast net that:
* at each juncture there lies a jewel;
* each jewel reflects all the other jewels in this cosmic matrix.
* Every jewel represents an individual life form, atom, cell or unit of consciousness.
* Each jewel, in turn, is intrinsically and intimately connected to all the others;
* thus, a change in one gem is reflected in all the others.
This last aspect of the jeweled net is explored in a question/answer dialog of teacher and student in the Avatamsaka Sutra. In answer to the question: "how can all these jewels be considered one jewel?" it is replied: "If you don't believe that one jewel...is all the jewels...just put a dot on the jewel [in question]. When one jewel is dotted, there are dots on all the jewels...Since there are dots on all the jewels...We know that all the jewels are one jewel" ...".
To be continued in the next post... -
As my Buddhist friend Thusness who is a highly experienced and enlightened practitioner said -- Buddhist teachings are very consistent throughout everything -- from philosophy, to practice (i.e unlike other religions which focuses on Shamatha as the pathway to the ultimate, Buddha taught Insight/Vipashyana is the way to Enlightenment), to everything, including so called 'supernatural powers'. Buddha never talked anything about time and space -- he taught conditionality, he did not talk anything about "who", "where" or "when", he taught Emptiness.
But also the consequence and implication of this model of reality is that it completely explains why so many countless cases of those who have paranormal abilities could actually, well, have paranormal abilities. (For a sound documentation of some people with paranormal abilities you may want to look at http://www.amazingabilities.com/, there are many others) Personally I know many people who have psychic and supernatural abilities, both from this forum and out of this forum. It is something that is more common than some people may think.
So therefore, it is possible according to Buddhists that there are beings who have access to non-local abilities. They may not necessarily be just magicians. I don't really like to call them 'supernatural', but that is just a conventional way of saying it... if you explain emptiness to old grandmas they'll probably fall asleep.
Anyway do look into this: Supernormal Powers and Forms of Direct KnowledgeA forum friend told me about Russel Targ just now, it's quite interesting how he explains non-locality and links it with these psychic phenomena. He is looking forward to getting the book 'The End of Suffering', which contains many Buddhist teachings as well. Here's an interview with him, it doesnt answer your questions you asked, but anyway thought you might be interested... http://www.consciousmedianetwork.com/members/rtarg.htm
p.s. Buddhism does not encourage development of supernatural abilities prior to attaining wisdom and enlightenment.. for more information go to my forum.
The End of Suffering
(Running time = 36 mins)
Regina first interviewed Russell Targ almost 21 years ago just before he was leaving for the Soviet Union to take part in an experiment with Brezhnev's psychic healer, in what was to become a well known documentation on the efficacy of remote viewing for military purposes.
Russell Targ is a physicist and author who has devoted much of his professional career to the research of the human capacity for psychic ability. In 1972, he co-founded the Stanford Research Institute's federally-funded program that investigated psychic abilities in humans. The program provided invaluable information and techniques to various government intelligence agencies, including the DIA, the CIA, NASA, and Army Intelligence. In his ten years with the program, Targ co-published his findings in some of the most prestigious scientific journals. He is the co-author, with Jane Katra, of five books about psychic abilities, two of which are: Miracles of Mind: Exploring Non-local Consciousness & Spiritual Healing, and The Heart of the Mind: How to Experience God Without Belief.
Russell was also quite active in the development of the laser and its various applications, having written over fifty articles on advanced laser research. He is a Senior Member of the Institute of Electrical Engineers and has received two NASA awards for inventions and contributions in laser and laser communications. Recently retiring from his position as senior staff scientist at Lockheed Martin, Russell now devotes his time to ESP research and offering workshops on remote viewing and spiritual healing.
In an abstract from a research paper, Russell said, "Since ancient times spiritual teachers have described paths and practices that a person could follow to achieve health, happiness, and peace of mind. A considerable body of recent research indicates that any kind of spiritual practice is likely to improve ones prognosis for recovering from a serious illness. Many of these approaches to spirituality involve learning to quiet the mind, rather than adhering to a prescribed religious belief. These meditative practices are inherent aspects of Buddhism, Hinduism, mystical Christianity, Kabalistic Judaism, Sufism, and other mystic paths. What is indicated in the subtext of these teachings is that as one learns to quiet his or her mind, one is likely to encounter psychic-like experiences or perceptions. For example, in The Sutras of Patanjali, the Hindu master tells us that on the way to transcendence we may experience many kinds of amazing visions, such as the ability to see into the distance, or into the future; and to diagnose illnesses, and also to cure them. However, we are admonished not to become attached to these abilities - that they are mere phenomena standing as stumbling blocks on the path to enlightenment. In this paper, I will describe my recent experience in teaching remote viewing at three workshops in Italy, in which we emphasize expanded awareness of who we are, rather than an ability to find car keys and parking spaces. Our spiritual approach, did not interfere with all three of these groups demonstrating highly significant remote viewing in a double-blind setting." -
I think some buddhist misinterpreted original buddha teaching and make up their own theories.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:As my Buddhist friend Thusness who is a highly experienced and enlightened practitioner said -- Buddhist teachings are very consistent throughout everything -- from philosophy, to practice (i.e unlike other religions which focuses on Shamatha as the pathway to the ultimate, Buddha taught Insight/Vipashyana is the way to Enlightenment), to everything, including so called 'supernatural powers'. Buddha never talked anything about time and space -- he taught conditionality, he did not talk anything about "who", "where" or "when", he taught Emptiness.
But also the consequence and implication of this model of reality is that it completely explains why so many countless cases of those who have paranormal abilities could actually, well, have paranormal abilities. (For a sound documentation of some people with paranormal abilities you may want to look at http://www.amazingabilities.com/, there are many others) Personally I know many people who have psychic and supernatural abilities, both from this forum and out of this forum. It is something that is more common than some people may think.
So therefore, it is possible according to Buddhists that there are beings who have access to non-local abilities. They may not necessarily be just magicians. I don't really like to call them 'supernatural', but that is just a conventional way of saying it... if you explain emptiness to old grandmas they'll probably fall asleep.
Anyway do look into this: Supernormal Powers and Forms of Direct Knowledge
p.s. Buddhism does not encourage development of supernatural abilities prior to attaining wisdom and enlightenment.. for more information go to my forum.
Buddhism has certainly lost itself in some aspects and really need to wake up its idea.
Anyway, Budhhism nowadays is so divergent with so many different teachings. Everyone is conducting their different concepts.
Trying to say that Budhhism predicts what science has achieved is also trying to take credit from scientists.
i would urge eternal now to really start doubting your beliefs.