The Relevance of the Concept of God

[wynn]

Anthropomorphism isn't just imagining God with arms and legs, occupying a human-like body. Imagining God as a subjective personality like ourselves, a being that's conscious, that knows, and forms judgements, is anthropomorphic too, only now the anthropomorphism is psychological instead of physical.

"Penguins have two feet" - is this an anthropomorphism too?

Traditionally, God has been credited with numerous qualities that humans do not have (like omnipresence or being the source of everything else). But you only focus on those elements in the descriptions of God that God and man are said to have in common.

 

[wynn]

Strawman

Oh well ... It's not rare even for Buddhists and and aspirants to Buddhism to have an axe to grind with theism. Which is strange, because on principle, Buddists are by far the most equipped so as to not have an axe to grind with theism ...

 

[Yazata]

Oh well ... It's not rare even for Buddhists and and aspirants to Buddhism to have an axe to grind with theism. Which is strange, because on principle, Buddists are by far the most equipped so as to not have an axe to grind with theism ...

If you want to join in insisting that theists are better people than non-theists, that's ok with me. Don't expect me to agree though. I've disagreed numerous times with atheist assertions that they are superior to theists too. If you don't like me disagreeing, then feel free to make snide and insulting remarks about me. My happiness isn't dependent on your approval.

I am a little confused about why you're so prone to quoting Pali suttas (at me in particular) as if they were Biblical proof texts or something. You're pretty clearly not a Buddhist yourself. But Theravada Buddhism interests you for some reason, interests you enough that you seem to have put quite a bit of effort into studying it.

I don't expect you to ever explain what motivates you, in that or in anything. You seem to want to reveal as little about yourself as possible. That's perfectly fine. It's just that the obvious contradictions swirling around you make me curious.

 

[wynn]

If you want to join in insisting that theists are better people than non-theists, that's ok with me. Don't expect me to agree though. I've disagreed numerous times with atheist assertions that they are superior to theists too. If you don't like me disagreeing, then feel free to make snide and insulting remarks about me. My happiness isn't dependent on your approval.

I am a little confused about why you're so prone to quoting Pali suttas (at me in particular) as if they were Biblical proof texts or something. You're pretty clearly not a Buddhist yourself. But Theravada Buddhism interests you for some reason, interests you enough that you seem to have put quite a bit of effort into studying it.

I don't expect you to ever explain what motivates you, in that or in anything. You seem to want to reveal as little about yourself as possible. That's perfectly fine. It's just that the obvious contradictions swirling around you make me curious.

I've talked about this more than once already - When people directly or indirectly claim to know better than the Pali Canon or any traditional theistic scripture, when people directly or indirectly claim to have better solutions to life problems to offer than the Pali Canon or any traditional theistic scripture, then I test those people, to see what they really have to offer.

I have some background in the Pali Canon and in theistic scriptures so this is what I use as one source for the challenges.

Someone claims to know better than the Pali Canon or the Bhagavad-Gita? Someone claims that old religions are just Bronze Age nonsense and that modern life has so much more to offer than they? Okay, I say, bring it on, let's see what you've got!

 

[Syne]

I am still waiting for Yazata to explain what the difference is between objective and relative moralities, other than a god concept or other ideal observer influencing, or not, the conscience which informs them. He seems to be incapable of directly addressing my posts, in this thread as well as the one directly addressing relative morality. I can only assume he is stymied.

And it seems he only uses other people's posts, that he feels may be easier to refute, as an excuse to continue to act as if he has made some significant point here.

 

[wynn]

I am still waiting for Yazata to explain what the difference is between objective and relative moralities, other than a god concept or other ideal observer influencing, or not, the conscience which informs them. He seems to be incapable of directly addressing my posts, in this thread as well as the one directly addressing relative morality. I can only assume he is stymied.

And it seems he only uses other people's posts, that he feels may be easier to refute, as an excuse to continue to act as if he has made some significant point here.

Effectively interacting with people requires a good measure of tact, taking into account that some people may easily take offense. It's easy to underestimate the delicacy and size of a person's ego.

This applies also at a discussion forum, as well as in academia - even though on the face of it, people in such places are reasonably expected to be above that.

 

[(Q)]

Langan's CTMU or theory-to-universe mapping may be the foundation for the existence of God.

Back already Ogden? That was fast.