I can prove the existance of God. Right now.

Let's take the "absurd" part first. What part of Buddhism do you regard as absurd? Do you think Dr. Martin Luther King was absurd for using Christian ideas to advance the Civil Rights Movement? Psyachairtist Viktor Frankl viewed the reiligious an as one who says yest to life. Was he wrong" Psychiatrist Viktor Frankl describes the religious man as the one says "yes" to life; as the man who, in spite of anything that life brings, still faces his existence with a basic conviction in the worthwhileness of life. (p 13-14) Was he absurd?

 

Buddhist, Christian. Jewish it does not matter, any of those faiths (and others not mentioned) rely on the same thing: blind faith in an invisible supreme being that has a vested interest in your life.

This belief relies on a person hoping the “god” has the time in his or her busy schedule to take an interest in one persons life, out of the billions of people on this planet and answering their requests over the other billions of people asking for favors via prayers.

Does that make any sense?

Dr. King was without a doubt a religious man, but his achievements were not solely based on Christian ideals, they were also centered on basic human rights.

As Victor Frankl said and I quote “Being tolerant does not mean that I share another one’s belief. But it does mean that I acknowledge another one’s right to believe, and obey, his own conscience.”

And I believe there is not a supreme being.

 

For the record, Buddahist dont profess a believe in god.
At least thats my understanding.

 

If it were true that all religious practice demands blind faith or petitionary prayer, it wouldn't make sense, but such is not the case.
The whole idea of basic human rights is a "devotional" statement.

 

Buddhists definitely do believe in God but they normally don’t use the word 'God' because that word is taken to mean a belief in a personal God, in other words a Theistic belief in God.

The Buddhist conception of God is thought to be Pantheistic, which suggests that God is the sum total of the universe, in other words that God is identical with everything that exists. Buddhists believe that God is more than equal to the universe, He is absolute and transcendent.

This world is a manifestation of God and is limited and imperfect.

Thats my limited understanding of Buddism.

 

While I'm not an expert on any religion, I've never ran across a single one that did not require some type of "petitionary" prayer as part and parcel of belonging to that club.

If it is considered "devotional" to have basic human rights, than thats a religious body I would happily join.

 

There is NO concept of God in Buddhism.
You people should really study and understand things before describing it.

They do have concept of reincarnation and Karma, but they have NO concept of God whatsoever, neither Theistic, nor Pantheistic or any.

 

Who you calling "you people"?

And you should take your own advice.

 

What about Rastafarinism?
They're a relgion without a Church or Preacher.
They don't require you to consume weed.

 

People. (look up MW dictionary for further)

I hang it as a banner on my wall.

 

Learn it, love it, live it.

 

somehow, i don't see the god i believe in, being overly impressed by anyone claiming to be able to prove its existence. such proofs, were they to exist, would be entirely beside the point of belief.

 

What I call black, others may call ebony, to coin a famous phrase, “whatever.”

I thought the point of this thread wasn’t to pick the fly shit out of the pepper, but
to prove the existence of a God.

So far I haven’t seen that proven or any credible attempt to do so.

 

Define the god you believe in.
Since you claim to know it so well, that should be easy.

And I can assure you, the last thing in the world in which I will find interest is in impressing some else's god.

 

The point of this thread is NOT to prove the existence of a particular belief ritual.

It's to ask the question "Is it even possible for a "god-force" to exist?"

Everybody's knee-jerk reaction is to say yes or no, but few people are interested in examinig the god-concept in the light of Reality.

Theist and atheist-- both claim to know all about god's existence. Once again, human arrogance is exceeded only by human ignorance. Pathetic.
-------------
For the record: in my book, organized religion is for suckers.
If there's a god, I'll take a look for myself-- but first I need to figure out a working definition.
Because nobody, anywhere, seems to have one.

 

I've offered one many times. I think your difficulty is that you doubt the validity of your own existence.

 

OOPs! I got my threads crossed.
Sorry, papabob.
-----------------------------------------
Anyways--
You've yet to offer a god definition that isn't completely subjective and based on the assumption that the individual believer is a factor in god's existence. A definition that's based on personal perspective is no definition at all-- it's a rationalization.

Or am I not reading you right?

 

Take two people; both have never been exposed to religion, however, one is a young child and one is an educated young adult. If you were to present the concept of god to these people, and make them attend religious services, which one would become a believer and which one would remain a non-believer?

It is amazing how well indoctrination works on a young mind.

^ Just my take on religion.

 

My definition is beyond the prism of belief and looks at only the practical nature of the idea of God. It is the practical perspective that allows us to put one foot in front of the other and negotiate variable terrain. Belief can only contend with other beliefs. There is a difference between practical operations and subjective sensations.
For any discussion we may have about God, you may substitute the word good for God and have the same results. For any discussion you may have about God, you may substitute the word reality for the word God and have the same result.

 

We're not talking religion.
Were talking god.
Not the same thing at all.