Do We Need God?

[JustME]

do we need God?

what is "we" the conception of "we" comes out of ego becos "WE" are nuffin.........."I" am nuffin

"NEED" wot is a "NEED" why do we "need" things

We need to understand the conpect of not wot the question "Do we need god?" asks

but

Why do i feel the need to question why i need God?

ull fine ur answer there.................

bhul chuck maafi

[skepticSikh]

Firstly define an Atheist , before you try to understand Gautama and the different schools of Buddhism.

As it happens

On one such day Gautama was asked does he know the existence of God, he remained silent. His closest asked him afterwards,

“why did you not reply?”

Gautama replied

“If I said I know God existed, that would be a lie, because how could I ever know him truly, his limitless, his enormity, how can any one know the complete lord, if I said I know, I would be lying”

I'll ignore the utter lack of references, and I'll still share my quick research, with which I found the following...

Definitions

"‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God" (Stanford Encyclopedia)

"Pantheism is a metaphysical and religious position. Broadly defined it is the view that (1) "God is everything and everything is God … the world is either identical with God or in some way a self-expression of his nature" (Standford Encyclopedia)

Online Paper with referenced information I found useful (link)

Conclusions

I guess this means that Buddhism in its truest forms is sort of pantheistic, and so, while it denies the existence of a personal God, it does say this : "Will is the fundamental Supreme Power, whose vivifying essence pervades all cosmos, reaching in an endless circuit from the most minute inorganic atom to man. But, unlike Schopenhauer, it does not deny that this Will is the outcome of a Supreme Intelligence: it merely professes such knowledge as beyond the pale of physical conception." (online paer - see link above).

So, the truth seems to be sort of in the middle. Buddha wasn't an atheist. But he wasn't on the other extreme end of the spectrum either. He was, or at least what we know of him today in Buddhism, sort of a pantheist who recognized a "Primordial Essence".

Its also useful to read this...

[in Buddhism,]"a Divine Intelligence is acknowledged, but at the same time is not held to have any direct control over individual destiny, which is entirely subject to the laws of Cause and Effect, or to use a technical term, to the "Karma" (balance of merit and demerit) of the individual monad which follows and controls the state, condition or form of his re-births."

(online paper)

Of course, you can always read that paper, which explains things much better than me.

Interesting compromise...Buddhism is definitely not clean cut...

But to go back to the topic, all of you who think it is wrong to ask that question already do believe in God. So there's no point in asking you whether you need a God, is there? That question is for atheists and fence-sitters.

Say you think you don't need God. Then you are by definition a materialist, although you could still be ascetic and be good. Some would say you are not reaching your 'spiritual potential', but if you're a materialist, that doesn't matter. You believe in the morals that are practical in society and ensure its continuation, though u don't feel the need to believe in supernatural or spiritual phenomena to have those morals. You probably rely on reason and logic, and a fairly simplistic view of life. You see any thoughts of wholeheatedly believing in one philosophy as a mental restriction to lanes of logic that might intersect with that system of belief, which in other words means that you are not prepared to reject science and believe in 'pre-determined truth'. You are a human in the end...you don't believe in the afterlife and believe that consciousness entirely rests in neural networks and that the 'soul' is only our sense of identity and doesn't exist.

If you're satisfied, then fine. You probably would reject the proposition by believers that you're not satisfied until you meet with God by saying that God is only a conception humans have created to satisfy a mortal desire to know, to feel good as their belief releases chemicals in the brain that gives them a natural high, and to explain the as-yet-unexplained. Not to mention to foster a sense of security and social identity that brings humans a sense of place, or to simply pander the child in them.

I predict that most of you will be feeling angry by now, while atheists will feel equable, seeing the materialist logic of it. The point is that you know. How you feel about this is upto you...

[skepticSikh]

sorry to doublepost, but I just found words to describe my position better. And it so turns out that it isn't at all at conflict with Sikhism (or as I know Sikhism).

Firstly,narrowminded bigotry should be avoided like the plague, like genocide, like comma splices. The thing most people lack is the ability to leave their point of view and up and explore others' views. I lack it too, though i get a few glimpses now and then just like everyone else. The point is that when you don't realize what you are believing, you're an automaton. You follow rules, you follow ritual, you don't find the heart of it all. You're basically a robot if you believe in only one thing and don't listen to other views.

And then people who reject logic, who reject science, who reject math are really missing out. Science is science, and if you don't understand it, learn. It can explain a lot, and will continue to find out a lot.

Also, many people believe the same thing but don't realize it, so we should take the time to understand. I say this to preface what follows...

I don't believe in souls, ghosts, fortune-telling, astrology, the cycle of rebirth, reincarnation, hell, or heaven. All because these are all pre-determined truths that someone said at some point or the other. What I mean is that I believe in no one who claims to know a special answer without the legs of logic. You might think I'm an atheist, but wait up, don't flame me yet.

There is an enduring human capacity for imagination, and an intense desire to know and to connect. Pretty much basic psychology and empirical stuff here. There are also many unexplained things in the world. We need to explain things, so we make up the difference.

Further, we have consciousness, that strange, strange phenomena. And consciousness has led us to find logic and knowledge and everything to try and explain our world. Our consciousness also tries its very hardest to leave the obvious and transcend into very very deep parts of our mind, because that is pleasureable i guess, or because of the social effect of religion. So because there have always been things that are unexplainable, and there probably always will be, there has always been a God in our consciousness.

So, in all, God is when humans articulate their wonder at existence. Notice that we know only one consciousness, only one conscious species, and it is us. We can't ask yet what our alien brethren feel about our musings about existence, although that'll be pretty interesting. But I feel that this is it...the biggest question is that of our existence. And that is why there exist so many religions today. So, I guess i do need god, but really I exist, I don't "need" existence. Existence doesn't "need" me. We both just are...

[smartsingh24]

sorry to doublepost, but I just found words to describe my position better. And it so turns out that it isn't at all at conflict with Sikhism (or as I know Sikhism).

Firstly,narrowminded bigotry should be avoided like the plague, like genocide, like comma splices. The thing most people lack is the ability to leave their point of view and up and explore others' views. I lack it too, though i get a few glimpses now and then just like everyone else. The point is that when you don't realize what you are believing, you're an automaton. You follow rules, you follow ritual, you don't find the heart of it all. You're basically a robot if you believe in only one thing and don't listen to other views.

And then people who reject logic, who reject science, who reject math are really missing out. Science is science, and if you don't understand it, learn. It can explain a lot, and will continue to find out a lot.

Also, many people believe the same thing but don't realize it, so we should take the time to understand. I say this to preface what follows...

I don't believe in souls, ghosts, fortune-telling, astrology, the cycle of rebirth, reincarnation, hell, or heaven. All because these are all pre-determined truths that someone said at some point or the other. What I mean is that I believe in no one who claims to know a special answer without the legs of logic. You might think I'm an atheist, but wait up, don't flame me yet.

There is an enduring human capacity for imagination, and an intense desire to know and to connect. Pretty much basic psychology and empirical stuff here. There are also many unexplained things in the world. We need to explain things, so we make up the difference.

Further, we have consciousness, that strange, strange phenomena. And consciousness has led us to find logic and knowledge and everything to try and explain our world. Our consciousness also tries its very hardest to leave the obvious and transcend into very very deep parts of our mind, because that is pleasureable i guess, or because of the social effect of religion. So because there have always been things that are unexplainable, and there probably always will be, there has always been a God in our consciousness.

So, in all, God is when humans articulate their wonder at existence. Notice that we know only one consciousness, only one conscious species, and it is us. We can't ask yet what our alien brethren feel about our musings about existence, although that'll be pretty interesting. But I feel that this is it...the biggest question is that of our existence. And that is why there exist so many religions today. So, I guess i do need god, but really I exist, I don't "need" existence. Existence doesn't "need" me. We both just are...

With all due respect, you can't be a sikh then. What you've just said you don't believe in, are all talked about in Gurbani, and are what a Sikh must believe in. Now if you're having trouble believing it, then I think that it wouldn't be out of the question for you to pose questions. However, if you find that it would be a waste of time, then that's fine too, but realize that what you're living through right now is the height of reincarnation.

http://www.sikhitothemax.com/page.asp?ShabadID=48

This is your chance. Use it.

[Guest Dancing Warrior]

Firstly define an Atheist , before you try to understand Gautama and the different schools of Buddhism.

As it happens

On one such day Gautama was asked does he know the existence of God, he remained silent. His closest asked him afterwards,

“why did you not reply?”

Gautama replied

“If I said I know God existed, that would be a lie, because how could I ever know him truly, his limitless, his enormity, how can any one know the complete lord, if I said I know, I would be lying”

I'll ignore the utter lack of references, and I'll still share my quick research, with which I found the following...

Definitions

"‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God" (Stanford Encyclopedia)

"Pantheism is a metaphysical and religious position. Broadly defined it is the view that (1) "God is everything and everything is God … the world is either identical with God or in some way a self-expression of his nature" (Standford Encyclopedia)

Online Paper with referenced information I found useful (link)

Conclusions

I guess this means that Buddhism in its truest forms is sort of pantheistic, and so, while it denies the existence of a personal God, it does say this : "Will is the fundamental Supreme Power, whose vivifying essence pervades all cosmos, reaching in an endless circuit from the most minute inorganic atom to man. But, unlike Schopenhauer, it does not deny that this Will is the outcome of a Supreme Intelligence: it merely professes such knowledge as beyond the pale of physical conception." (online paer - see link above).

So, the truth seems to be sort of in the middle. Buddha wasn't an atheist. But he wasn't on the other extreme end of the spectrum either. He was, or at least what we know of him today in Buddhism, sort of a pantheist who recognized a "Primordial Essence".

Its also useful to read this...

[in Buddhism,]"a Divine Intelligence is acknowledged, but at the same time is not held to have any direct control over individual destiny, which is entirely subject to the laws of Cause and Effect, or to use a technical term, to the "Karma" (balance of merit and demerit) of the individual monad which follows and controls the state, condition or form of his re-births."

(online paper)

Of course, you can always read that paper, which explains things much better than me.

Interesting compromise...Buddhism is definitely not clean cut...

But to go back to the topic, all of you who think it is wrong to ask that question already do believe in God. So there's no point in asking you whether you need a God, is there? That question is for atheists and fence-sitters.

Say you think you don't need God. Then you are by definition a materialist, although you could still be ascetic and be good. Some would say you are not reaching your 'spiritual potential', but if you're a materialist, that doesn't matter. You believe in the morals that are practical in society and ensure its continuation, though u don't feel the need to believe in supernatural or spiritual phenomena to have those morals. You probably rely on reason and logic, and a fairly simplistic view of life. You see any thoughts of wholeheatedly believing in one philosophy as a mental restriction to lanes of logic that might intersect with that system of belief, which in other words means that you are not prepared to reject science and believe in 'pre-determined truth'. You are a human in the end...you don't believe in the afterlife and believe that consciousness entirely rests in neural networks and that the 'soul' is only our sense of identity and doesn't exist.

If you're satisfied, then fine. You probably would reject the proposition by believers that you're not satisfied until you meet with God by saying that God is only a conception humans have created to satisfy a mortal desire to know, to feel good as their belief releases chemicals in the brain that gives them a natural high, and to explain the as-yet-unexplained. Not to mention to foster a sense of security and social identity that brings humans a sense of place, or to simply pander the child in them.

I predict that most of you will be feeling angry by now, while atheists will feel equable, seeing the materialist logic of it. The point is that you know. How you feel about this is upto you...

An atheist only believes within himself, his right to exist, to nourish, to rest, to procreate, he is the centre of all importance there is nothing to which is loyalty embraces but his animalist life.

If you want reference to the schools and nature of Buddhism you should try to source the following and not rely on a western theologians conclusion on someone like the Buddha, how many English translations on Sikhism, history and scripture are correct? Try to reference the following to begin with.

the Vinaya-pitaka, a collection of books on the disciplinary rules of the order,

the Sutta-pitaka, didactic tracts consisting in part of alleged discourses of Buddha; and

the Abhidhamma-pitaka, comprising more detailed treatises on doctrinal subjects.

You don’t understand the nature of Gautama response to such questions about God. He would often tell those who inquired about the existence of God that there wasn’t one, and those that were true atheists that there was one! Why? Simply put Buddha was all about unsettling the settled and creating confusion, he claimed this was the best state to acquire reality. He believed “religious” people who had obtained all the rites of passage within their belief system were settled, comfortable, secure had become malingering in spirituality and had married religious morality, they were there, they had done it and that was it. Buddha tries to show that they were not there and they had done nothing. Equally the atheist who denied everything but his pitiful existence, here Buddha explains, what’s more easily understand for us being self proclaimed “Godly” people, that there is more than just individual darwinistic existence.

But in Buddha’s message he explains without consciousness, awareness and with imprisoning attachment to the illusion of desire both groups suffer regardless..

In the Buddhist conception of Nirvana (liberation) no account was taken of the all-god Brahma (God). And as prayers and offerings to the traditional gods were held to be of no avail for the attainment of this negative state of bliss, Buddha, with greater consistency than was shown in pantheistic Brahminism, rejected both the Vedas and the Vedic rites. It was this attitude which stamped Buddhism as a heresy. For this reason, too, Buddha has been set down by some as an atheist. Buddha, however, was not an atheist in the sense that he denied the existence of the gods. To him the gods were living realities. In his alleged sayings, as in the Buddhist scriptures generally, the gods are often mentioned, and always with respect. But like the pantheistic Brahmin, Buddha did not acknowledge his dependence on them. They were like men, subject to decay and rebirth. The god of today might be reborn in the future in some inferior condition, while a man of great virtue might succeed in raising himself in his next birth to the rank of a god in heaven. The very gods, then, no less than men, had need of that perfect wisdom that leads to Nirvana, and hence it was idle to pray or sacrifice to them in the hope of obtaining the boon which they themselves did not possess. They were inferior to Buddha, since he had already attained to Nirvana. In like manner, they who followed Buddha's footsteps had no need of worshipping the gods by prayers and offerings. Worship of the gods was tolerated, however, in the Buddhist layman who still clung to the delusion of individual existence, and preferred the household to the homeless state. Moreover, Buddha's system conveniently provided for those who accepted in theory the teaching that Nirvana alone was the true end of man but who still lacked the courage to quench all desires. The various heavens of Brahminic theology, with their positive, even sensual, delights were retained as the reward of virtuous souls not yet ripe for Nirvana. To aspire after such rewards was permitted to the lukewarm monk; it was commended to the layman. Hence the frequent reference, even in the earliest Buddhist writings to heaven and its positive delights as an encouragement to right conduct. Sufficient prominence is not generally given to this more popular side of Buddha's teaching, without which his followers would have been limited to an insignificant and short-lived band of heroic souls. It was this element, so prominent in the inscriptions of Asoka, that tempered the severity of Buddha's doctrine of Nirvana and made his system acceptable to the masses.

[kullykhalsa]

smart singh24 what you just described in your post is a "god of the gaps" theory where by we fill in anything we dnt kno with the existence of god! its what most religous scientist do! i hope you can read veer jis link frm sikhitothemax help you understand better

bhul chuk maf :wub:

[Guest Akirtghan]

one cannot be called guru ka sikh, if he/she questions guru sahib themselves. you can only be a sikh (learner) not guru ka sikh.

[smartsingh24]

smart singh24 what you just described in your post is a "god of the gaps" theory where by we fill in anything we dnt kno with the existence of god! its what most religous scientist do! i hope you can read veer jis link frm sikhitothemax help you understand better

bhul chuk maf :wub:

? I don't follow. How'd I post a theory with what I said? and what link? You sure you don't mean skepticSikh?

[kullykhalsa]

sorry veer ji i didnt notice the quote bit lol my apologies :wub:

[skepticSikh]

I understand the god of the gaps theory as the theory in which true-believers filled in gaps of understanding with God. Basically, they looked at stars and said "god did it". Which is exactly what you said. But I don't see why that counteracts any of what I said. This theory is not a theory, it's just the way a true-believer, who discounts logic and makes leaps of faith, makes.

Again, i agree with you dancing warrior; the right answer to that little issue of whether buddha was an atheist is actually deeper than what it may seem. What you describe is pantheism, or very close to pantheism. Or maybe not...because its about the primordial essence, and pantheism purports that the world itself is god. I guess buddha doesn't conform to just a few philosophical descriptors...

i also was rather amused by that "save yourself" post. What is my last chance? What are you even talking about? A reasonable mind can still live morally and be a good person in this world, so there is no compulsion on my consciousness (apart from that imposed by the recognition of the fact that others are just as conscious as me). I can reasonably understand the essence of the message that so many philosophers have hinted at; ofcourse, i don't know everything, but still. And answer me, if you purport to have studied science and math, and to have that little thing called critical thinking and rationality, how come you don't apply that logic to every compartment of your knowledge? How come you don't question religion? Why do you not want to ask questions? What is the harm of inquiry?