God Poll?

[Father McPot]

Course he did, remember the reason for the ark...

[Hir]

Voted for the last option.

Blaise Pascal the French 17th century scientist who did a lot of work on the nature of vacuums and invented the whole branch of maths called probablitity theory thought about the existence of a God and when he combined probability theory with zero and the infinite, he concluded that one should assume that God exists. Using his probability theory, which made loads of French gamblers rich and was very successful he argued that its best to believe, because its a good bet.

Whatever the odds of there being a god the expected value would always be infinity if there was one and you were a believer. Any odds multiplied by infinity gives infinity. You'd be blessed so too speak. If you don't believe and find out there is one then your expectation is negative infinity. The worst possible return. The third option: If there is no chance that God exists then the expected value of Pascals wager - to being a believer could be then be calculated by (zero x infinity) which is gibberish. Nobody would really make this bet though as they can't say for sure there was zero chance that God exists.

exactly correct. Large number theory, never managed to pin this down in a laymans (for me) explanation to quote a source, says that there are probabilities so remote that if this eventuality occurs it must have meaning, although the scientist have no idea of what this meaning is.

[Guest ironlungs]

but if u knew ur stuff about religion, u would know that buddhism is a rip from christianity and islam.

its just the different ways the 'stupid people' have implemented them.

[cf]

but if u knew ur stuff about religion, u would know that buddhism is a rip from christianity and islam.

its just the different ways the 'stupid people' have implemented them.

no way ....as has been stated earlier buddhists believe in no higher authority than man,they dont worship or recognise the existence of any kind of god.

whilst the jews,muslims,sikhs,christians etc can all look back and see there are the same roots to their theological thinking even the diverse buddhist schools of thought can only look back to this one man (or the incarnation of one being)

(......did someone turn radio 4 back on again?)

[Guest ironlungs]

yeh have to agree there. ok its a bit deeper than i care to go into

[cf]

religion ? deep?

[Lizard]

I don't believe there's any kind of God, it's a totally ridiculous concept based entirely upon superstition, the fact that so called intelligent people still believe in such a preposterous notion is the source of the greatest amusement to me.

the phrases "if you believe that, you'll believe anything " and "there's one born every minute" spring instantly to mind .

the fact that so many people believe in such utter nonsense is all the proof I need for my theory that we are little more than a bunch of ignorant apes who had no business coming down from the trees in the first place. And we wonder why the most popular human passtime seems to be slaughtering eachother , in world of such primitive savages I find it hardly surprising .

[Father McPot]

but if u knew ur stuff about religion, u would know that buddhism is a rip from christianity and islam.

its just the different ways the 'stupid people' have implemented them.

So how is that, considering Buddhism came before christianity?

Buddhists dont believe in a God (or in one case a person stated they believe God(s) are irrelevant). The closest thing to that is The Buddha, who is looked at as a role-model and an inspiration to those who wish to achieve enlightenment.

[Arnold Layne]

I don't believe there's any kind of God,

Fine, that's your opinion, and it may very well be correct.....

it's a totally ridiculous concept based entirely upon superstition, the fact that so called intelligent people still believe in such a preposterous notion is the source of the greatest amusement to me.

the phrases "if you believe that, you'll believe anything " and "there's one born every minute" spring instantly to mind .

the fact that so many people believe in such utter nonsense is all the proof I need for my theory that we are little more than a bunch of ignorant apes who had no business coming down from the trees in the first place. And we wonder why the most popular human passtime seems to be slaughtering eachother , in world of such primitive savages I find it hardly surprising .

And that's a load of offensive gobshyte

[Aveburyman]

but if u knew ur stuff about religion, u would know that buddhism is a rip from christianity and islam.

its just the different ways the 'stupid people' have implemented them.

[Twenty Three]

where do you think the people got god worship from

The pagans

I disagree MJ.The shamanistic aeon pre-dates the pagan aeon.The shamanistic aeon were the days of the nomad,when the animating spirit of living beings was universally symbolized as a Horned god.The pagan aeon followed with the beginnings of agriculture when the nomad became the settler.

[Boojum]

but if u knew ur stuff about religion, u would know that buddhism is a rip from christianity and islam.

its just the different ways the 'stupid people' have implemented them.

Buddhism isn't a religion, per se, it's a philosophy, there's a subtle difference (the main difference being that there's no deity in Buddhism, a prerequisite for something to be considered a religion). And I think you'll find Buddhism was actually an extension of (or a reaction to) Hinduism in a similar way as Christianity was a reaction to Judaism

I'd have to say that I believe in 'the other', but it bears no relationship whatsoever with the belief systems espoused by organised religion, in fact such is it's removal from them that in terms of organised religion I could be considered an atheist. But, ultimately, I just don't know - which is one of my main problems with organised religion, they claim to know the answer, whereas I think I may just about know the question

[Skyhigh-64]

I just don't know - which is one of my main problems with organised religion, they claim to know the answer, whereas I think I may just about know the question

Here's another stick to stir the muddy waters. Tiers within each religion vary in terms of philosophy, even (those) ones.

I was having a fullon with a catholic someone-pretty-high up, and a jewish fella who knew his stuff (beat those qualifications!) , and I was surprised with the interpretation both gave to their beliefs. Both were very philospophical and poo poohed the notion of an exact interpretation. The jewish bloke even said that hyprocrisy is present and required in all mainstream religions, as they are all underpined by the requirement of 'faith' , which he said can only really be tested when you commit to something you don't know for certain exists, or that you in some other way doubt.

That liberal attitude gave me a fewmixed reactions at first, but then I thought that the peeps that want or live by such exact interpretations must need them (for whatever reason) - and for a priest etc to give that person a 'philospophical liberal' answer would be giving them no comfort at all.

So varied levels of philosophy are required for varied audiences or situations perhaps.

[Muppet]

Buddhism isn't a religion, per se, it's a philosophy, there's a subtle difference (the main difference being that there's no deity in Buddhism, a prerequisite for something to be considered a religion). And I think you'll find Buddhism was actually an extension of (or a reaction to) Hinduism in a similar way as Christianity was a reaction to Judaism

<nods>

Think of Buddhism as Hinduism stripped for export.

[Hir]

Here's another stick to stir the muddy waters. Tiers within each religion vary in terms of philosophy, even (those) ones.

I was having a fullon with a catholic someone-pretty-high up, and a jewish fella who knew his stuff (beat those qualifications!) , and I was surprised with the interpretation both gave to their beliefs. Both were very philospophical and poo poohed the notion of an exact interpretation. The jewish bloke even said that hyprocrisy is present and required in all mainstream religions, as they are all underpined by the requirement of 'faith' , which he said can only really be tested when you commit to something you don't know for certain exists, or that you in some other way doubt.

That liberal attitude gave me a fewmixed reactions at first, but then I thought that the peeps that want or live by such exact interpretations must need them (for whatever reason) - and for a priest etc to give that person a 'philospophical liberal' answer would be giving them no comfort at all.

So varied levels of philosophy are required for varied audiences or situations perhaps.

This is why Annie Lennox likes Bud ish ism, because it gives you a framework then allows you to fill in your own spaces from your own expereince and your own take.

Avoid Zen Buddhism like the plague. It is not that it is wrong but it is a style best suited to the society that created it and has demands of decipline that westerners may find 'rejects' them from an attempt to examine Buddhism. I suspect that if you really get Zen it is mega mega but you might miss it and get fustrated and get nothing ismyhonesttake

Edited June 24, 2006 by Hir