NationStates Jolt Archive

***Edited: I would appreciate counter-responses from religiously-minded people. Feel free to say whatever you wish as far as the rules go.***

I was raised both Lutheran and Mormon. I eventually rejected both. I did gain valuable and important insight on Christianity, and warped religions, such as Mormonism.

I refuse to believe in an illogical God. I refuse to believe that God has a human personality, and can become angry, jealous, wrathful. And I refuse to accept doctrines written by Man that contain inherent flaws and contradictions. If God is Christian, and I am sent to Hell for refusing to lower my intelligence to accept an idea which makes no sense at all, then so be it. Perhaps Heaven isn't worth it.

And this isn't just limited to Christianity. Although Islam promotes the idea that non-converts can eventually redeem themselves in Hell after suffering enough to accept Allah, it is still as harsh and cruel as the Christian concept of redemption and damnation. Judaism of course is included in this batch.

Moving from the three main monotheistic religions comes Hinduism, the largest surviving polytheistic religion. Hinduism promotes the idea that there are many Gods, with human characteristics, forms, personalities, and seeming weaknesses, much akin to Greek mythology. Hinduism also claims that the universe is constantly destroyed and reformed every billion years or so. And, of course, as most people are aware, they revere the cow, a symbol of life to Hindus, from which much of their nutrition was historically based upon, and can be interpreted as such. This is too absurd to me to be universal truth.

And then there comes the more spiritual religions, such as Buddhism, and the moral religion of Confucianism. I fail to see how we have souls. There is nothing to point to this, nor anything to prove it, so for me, the issue is completely dropped. But this spiritual aspect is important for the Eastern religions. I respect Buddhist religion as peaceful and relaxing. Their techniques for meditation are certainly wonderful and nice. And their notion that the All is something incomprehensible is certainly pretty rational if a God does exist. But they are ingrained with rituals and traditions that seem pretty silly and absurd within themselves. And I do not think that a man meditated under a tree and was absorbed into the universe. The story of Buddha sounds more like myth than anything even remotely real.

Those are the main human religions. And I have a problem with each one because none seem befitting as the pure interpretation of truth by God.

For a while I considered that maybe there might not be anything. And I don't mean life after death, I don't believe in that. But I came to the realization that God cannot be proven nor disproven, and the enigma of the big bang or other scientific creation theories is this point: how did existence appear? Why is there even anything?

In my personal opinion, there may be a God. If there is one, consider someone dipping a finger into a calm stream, and watching the slow ripples, without interrupting, until it is all over. But there is no way to understand such a God, nor begin to describe, so all thoughts concerning the subject are simply absurd.

It is more likely that everyone ever born who had an opinion about mortality and ultimate truth, myself including, was grossly incorrect.

Or you know, we're some 8th grader's science project.


One that got a D-....

The further you try to "understand" God, the farther away God will be. Don't try. It's no use.

well youre right to reject the doctrines of man.

the ways of God are not the ways men and vice versa.

Quoting Collodia:
Or you know, we're some 8th grader's science project.


One that got a D-....

I mistook your words, and I apologize. It seemed you were being rude, and I took it the wrong way.

Or maybe we are a test program for a strange simulation computer :P

I do not appreciate being referred to as an "8th grader". Please change what you said, as it is a personal attack. This has no place here. If you have something constructive to say, such as what you think, or an intelligent reply, go ahead.
...

You mistook me. I was jokingly referring to God.

Man I think I was just insulted. I was an 8th grade just two years ago. :(

I do not appreciate being referred to as an "8th grader". Please change what you said, as it is a personal attack. This has no place here. If you have something constructive to say, such as what you think, or an intelligent reply, go ahead.

I believe what he was trying to say is that, "We might be god's eigth grade science project.. one that almost failed." This means that Colodia is saying in a roundabout way that we are terrible abortions that just barely squeaked by.

I do not appreciate being referred to as an "8th grader". Please change what you said, as it is a personal attack. This has no place here. If you have something constructive to say, such as what you think, or an intelligent reply, go ahead.


I do believe that he was reffering not to you but to your concept of god. I would guess that he meant god is an 8th grader, and that we are the result of his poor quality project.

Please refer to my second post regarding my misinterpretation.

Please refer to my second post regarding my misinterpretation.
No problem, I don't like going to sleep knowing that someone out there in the world just got insulted by me. :D Kind of a freakish thought.

But speaking of what you said Collodia, it reminds me of Bertrand Russell. He said that he felt, in effect, why should he believe in a God because of arguments that the world is so complex it has to have been created by a God? He then proceeds to say that there is nothing really remarkable about it, and that if God really is all-powerful and all-knowing, why didn't God make something better? ;)

(Quoting the first post)

While I absolutely see where you're coming from on the first part of your debate, I think you're dismissing the eastern religions far too easily. Your core argument on Hinduism seems to be the cow, for one thing; the multiple incarnations of the divine can be very easily argued in favour for, and with the theory that the Big Bang's effects will eventually succumb to gravitation and fold in upon itself, the idea that the universe can be constantly destroyed and reformed is a very plausible one. Similarly, with the others, the fact that you can't see how a soul can exist is enough to reject them.

It can be explained with a sort of a physical model. You know how when people group together, they seem to share a sort of a group psyche? Psychologists often study the congregative effects on human personality, and Social Anthropologists make it their profession to study what could often be referred to as a Social Behavioral Consciousness; the idea that groups of people tend to be driven by combined behavioral patterns, and yet that the group itself has a degree of personality.

The spirit is, to immensely simplify it, the result of this congregation within the human body. That is, the result of the working together of the body's components that is greater than the sum of its parts. It's sort of like an unusual form of gravitation or kinematics (or even nuclear forces, I suppose); when organisms interact, there is a transfer of energy between them. The net result of this energy is what creates the sense of self that we all experience; though most of our emotions, thought processes and actions are entirely bodily, there is that extra little bit that, though dependent on the physical structure, is not part of it. That is what we call the soul.

Similarly, this could be taken a step further. If we map this behaviour of organisms onto a grander scale, it's not such a far leap to say that possibly, the interaction of humans creates a spirit in the same way that the interaction of cells creates the human spirit. This composition of life could go up, and up and up, but only to the very final boundary that we can thus say "Everything", which is ultimately what Hindus and Buddhists worship: The spirit generated by the congregation of existence. Hinduism and Buddhism vary in this aspect, of course, in that Hindus speculate the possibility of Gods lower down in the scale as being made in a similar way to our own spirits, whereas Buddhists like to just focus on the Everything without worrying about some of the lower levels.

Does that seem so totally alien? Maybe it does, I don't know. It seems, though, like it makes sense, if not exactly supported by any sort of physical evidence. I like, though, that it seems to allow for the ultimate God (if we look at the Net Existence Spirit and God as one and the same) to have a personality of his own just as humanity does. It also allows for the possibility that this God does, indeed, have an influence in our world rather like the mind does over the body, and that could, possibly, learn to love and interact with parts of himself. And, of course, it allows for a concept of bodily reincarnation rather like how dead cells can be absorbed into the body and parts of it used to create new cells.

But *Shrug*. I don't really get the Cow thing either. Just don't let that put you off what is otherwise a facinating train of thought.

Interesting point. My original post did dismiss the religions based upon things that seem like nonsense to me. They may seem interesting and realistic to you, but not to me. I am very aware of all those religions, I have studied, and I have known people that were members of almost every single one, so I feel lucky to at least know about those. I respect most of them. I have problems with each one, but for the most part, many people can be pleasant as they explain how they believe.

I do not believe in reincarnation because there is no proof of it, and that's my core argument. If there is no proof, then to me, blind faith is still blind faith, and it's still ignorance. Concerning the All worshipped by much of Asia, I simply do not share people's feelings concerning the divinity of the human race. I see nothing special or unnatural. We are animals that just happen to have conscious thought and advanced thinking skills. I can name a few gorillas that were recently shown to be able to use sign-language and express their own thoughts.

Interesting point. My original post did dismiss the religions based upon things that seem like nonsense to me. They may seem interesting and realistic to you, but not to me. I am very aware of all those religions, I have studied, and I have known people that were members of almost every single one, so I feel lucky to at least know about those. I respect most of them. I have problems with each one, but for the most part, many people can be pleasant as they explain how they believe.

I do not believe in reincarnation because there is no proof of it, and that's my core argument. If there is no proof, then to me, blind faith is still blind faith, and it's still ignorance. Concerning the All worshipped by much of Asia, I simply do not share people's feelings concerning the divinity of the human race. I see nothing special or unnatural. We are animals that just happen to have conscious thought and advanced thinking skills. I can name a few gorillas that were recently shown to be able to use sign-language and express their own thoughts.

To clarify as a start, I still don't know what my own feelings on this matter are. I just think it worth delving into possibilities, even if they seem nonsensical at first. That's not to say they won't remain that way even after you've analysed it, but don't let convention get in the way of your evaluation.

Well, on a little aside, the soul idea that I suggested earlier doesn't restrict spirits to humans. Far from that, it suggests that spirit is present wherever organic matter congregates. That some faiths focus particularly on the human aspect of that is simply a way of stating "We are like God", which is quite true in some respects. Though if you want to look at it another way, a Cow could be very nearly (if not identically) as divine as a Human is, as are Fish, Duck-billed Platypi and other complex organisms.

The structure of the All is very similar to the structure of the individual. The All just encompasses more, 'is all. Not quite sure if that sounded as I'd like it to, but whatever. ^^;

As for there being no proof of spiritual reincarnation, that's a fair enough point. I see no net purpose on really trying to persuade either of us - Incidentally, I'm playing more of a devil's advocate on this than a staunch proponant - because firstly there isn't evidence to support it or even anything (beyond thinking materially and going into the Circle of Life train of the recycling of organic matter, though that's probably hardly compelling, is it?) that might be considered such, and secondly regardless of its truth, it ultimately makes no difference whether we believe it or not.

And... well, what am I even trying to accomplish? Basically, the choice of where you want to park your ideals is up to you. I'm just making sure you're confident that you're happy to stay where you are for now. I mean, whenever you're deciding to move home and someone points out the cracks in the floorboards, the faults in the plumbing and the fact that the roof may be detachable in strong winds in any one particular house, you're going to seriously take all of that into consideration, as well as how accessible to the main work-places it is, how much freedom of space your garden has or how friendly and welcoming the neighbours are. There are other houses in other states of repair, and you'll certainly want to look around before settling on one.

Ultimately, of course, there's quite a degree of personal choice that factors into it, and nobody can pick a house for you that you wouldn't want to live in, but even if it's none of my business, I like to think that by pointing out both the flaws and strengths of a house I've lived in for a while, I can help prospective buyers get a better feel for whether or not this is the home for them.

So... yeah. If Atheism is your dream house, go for it! I hope it all goes well for you. However, you're less likely to be disappointed if you've had a thorough look around it and the alternatives before settling on it. Who knows: perhaps some of the more unorthodox houses may make for the most comfortable living?

EDIT: I'd like to apologise for any Cows who feel that my human bias has failed to mention the possibility of the Bovine Race being more complex and divine than Humanity. But, of course, I'm a human, and such fallacy is innate in us. =P

well youre right to reject the doctrines of man.

the ways of God are not the ways men and vice versa.
Including christianity from what I have seen
But of course you beleive you are above them

When it comes down to matters of logic or reason neither atheism nor any absolute belief in a god makes sense. From that stand point only agnosticism really makes sense. But I do believe it is easy to disprove certain religions, merely on the sheer obsurdity of their beliefs.

Certain hindus believe in the supremacy of Shiva over the other gods because he has a giant fiery phallus which is larger than the other gods.(I will go into detail only if someone asks)

But it can be said that no harm can come from faith in god itself, it only becomes problematic when absolute dogmas are laid down.

When it comes down to matters of logic or reason neither atheism nor any absolute belief in a god makes sense. From that stand point only agnosticism really makes sense. But I do believe it is easy to disprove certain religions, merely on the sheer obsurdity of their beliefs.

Certain hindus believe in the supremacy of Shiva over the other gods because he has a giant fiery phallus which is larger than the other gods.(I will go into detail only if someone asks)

But it can be said that no harm can come from faith in god itself, it only becomes problematic when absolute dogmas are laid down.
Well to be fair I have a feeling you are using more of an anti theism (or hard atheism) definition on declaration of “lack” of logic rather then the bigger group of soft atheists (or just atheists if you consider the “hard” atheists anti theists which is a little more correct of a definition)

I was raised both Lutheran and Mormon.
That explains it.
*pats*
Poor you.

Well to be fair I have a feeling you are using more of an anti theism (or hard atheism) definition on declaration of “lack” of logic rather then the bigger group of soft atheists (or just atheists if you consider the “hard” atheists anti theists which is a little more correct of a definition)

Well, If we were to use normal logic then neither atheism or religion does make sense. There is no absolute proof that there is a god, yet there is no absolute proof that there is not one. So going by this pattern of thinking the only viable belief system would be agnostcism, but the flaw of this is that it's not even a real answer to the question of a higher power. Of course the benefit to this is that at least it keeps an open mind.

Well, If we were to use normal logic then neither atheism or religion does make sense. There is no absolute proof that there is a god, yet there is no absolute proof that there is not one. So going by this pattern of thinking the only viable belief system would be agnostcism, but the flaw of this is that it's not even a real answer to the question of a higher power. Of course the benefit to this is that at least it keeps an open mind.
Like I said you are using anti-theism the belief in no god rather then a belief of no god which is more of a soft atheism

Meaning you would believe if you had the required proof for you but you don't so you choose not to believe without that proof.

Anti theism is the belief that there is for sure no god ... that is the “belief” that you find illogical (which I kind of agree with)

That explains it.
*pats*
Poor you.

I'm probably just not in a good mood right now, but I don't find this funny. If you don't agree with me, use logical argument. I just don't get horny off of quips.

......the belief in no god rather then a belief of no god .....

I apologize, but I am slightly confused.

Quoting UpwardThrust
Anti theism is the belief that there is for sure no god ... that is the “belief” that you find illogical (which I kind of agree with)

The way I see things, there's no possible way to disprove that there may or may not be a God/otherwise infinite being.

[QUOTE=Drzhen] I fail to see how we have souls
QUOTE]

A soul is truly something that can hardly be described in words. It's a part of your being that connects you with everything else in the universe. I was reading this thread and I came across this comment and now I wonder if you have ever had a spiritual moment, and my guess is no, judging by your lack of..."belief" (not trying to personally attack you)
Now, on a different note, I am a pagan girl, and my family practices a form of celtic wiccanism and I always went along with it, not truly knowing in my heart that it was..like a real thing, but doing it because my family was wiccan, and it was expected of me.
When I was 13, I had my coming of age ceremony (you know, where you are no longer a child, yata yata) and let me tell you... nothing had ever happened to me before that made me deeply look at myself and who I was. When I was in ritual, my priestesses were standing around me and I had to make some vows, and it's like a test, you have to keep your word, yata yata, but I won't go into that. Anyway, when they were standing around me, looking down at me, I looked into their faces and I didn't see the people I had grown up with, people I knew well and respected and loved. I saw something so deep, so old and far away, I can only describe it as... (not to be dramatic) The goddess. Honestly. Their faces were not their own, it was something so much more, it broke my heart. Making a promise to that face was the hardest thing I had ever had to do. It was like I was actually making a promise to the goddess, and I knew I couldn't lie, or break that promise...it's something that can hardly be explained.
And that's what God is. All the multiple gods and goddesses out there are, I think, just one divine being, that manifests in thousands of different ways to thousands of different people. Now I'm not a physco religious freak or anything, but I do believe that there is a divine source, or God, if you will, that is up there watching over us. Now whether or not that God has a personality, I couldn't say.

Now, think about this. Take your body, for example. Inside your body are millions upon millions of living organisms. Could you, maybe, be considered God to the beings that live inside you?

The way I see things, there's no possible way to disprove that there may or may not be a God/otherwise infinite being.
Me as well ... that is your agnostic side now you can be an agnostic soft atheist like me (don't believe it is possible to prove so choose to not say yes to a deity) or an agnostic deist (think that there may be a non specific god but he or she is not provable) so on and so forth

Certain hindus believe in the supremacy of Shiva over the other gods because he has a giant fiery phallus which is larger than the other gods.(I will go into detail only if someone asks)


Heh.

I never came across those "certain hindus". Please go into details. I am asking.

Have you read any authentic Shivapurana which makes such a claim? Do you even know that only Saivites and some other sects (who make up around 10% of Hindus) believe in the supremacy of Shiva ?

A soul is truely something that can hardly be described in words. It's a part of your being the connects you with everything else in the universe.

Actually, I read in an article that they believe they have found the physical form of a soul or consciuosness at least. I am a little shaky on the details, but it is known as a Bose-Einstein Condensate.

I read it briefly in an article on the concept of the soul from the Rotten Library.(http://www.rotten.com/library/religion/soul/) Enjoy.

Guessing you are about 15-16 from your 1989 in your username, I'll try and be as kindly as possible. And if I seem unkind, I am simply expressing myself bluntly. Keep an open mind.

A soul is truely something that can hardly be described in words. It's a part of your being the connects you with everything else in the universe. I was reading this thread and I came across this comment and now I wonder if you have ever had a spiritual moment, and my guess is no, judging by your lack of..."belief" (not trying to personally attack you)

You have no right to assume whether or not I had a religious experience in my life. If you want to know, then ask. The reason I am expressing defensive feelings over that, is because much of the rest of your post is based upon that assumption. You might feel that souls connect us with the rest of the universe, but since there is no proof of a soul, I refuse to jump into the faith bandwagon.

Now, on a different note, I am a pagan girl, and my family practices a form of celtic wiccanism and I always went along with it, not truely knowing in my heart that it was..like a real thing, but doing it because my family was wiccan, and it was expected of me.

Okay. I was raised Mormon and Lutheran before I rejected both.

When I was 13, I had my coming of age ceremony (you know, where you are no longer a child, yata yata) and let me tell you... nothing had ever happened to me before that made me deeply look at myself and who I was. When I was in ritual, my priestesses were standing around me and I had to make some vows, and it's like a test, you have to keep your word, yata yata, but I won't go into that. Anyway, when they were standing around me, looking down at me, I looked into their faces and I didn't see the people I had grown up with, people I knew well and respected and loved. I saw something so deep, so old and far away, I can only describe it as... (not to be dramatic) The goddess. Honestly. Their faces were not their own, it was something so much more, it broke my heart. Making a promise to that face was the hardest thing I had ever had to do. It was like I was actually making a promise to the goddess, and I knew I couldn't lie, or break that promise...it's something that can hardly be explained.

You were 13. You don't think that perhaps you were just succeptible at that young age to seeing what your mind wanted you to see? Children do it all the time. And, am I right in guessing that 1989 is the year of your birth?

And that's what God is. All the multiple gods and goddesses out there are, I think, just one divine being, that manifests in thousands of different ways to thousands of different people. Now I'm not a physco religious freak or anything, but I do believe that there is a divine source, or God, if you will, that is up there watching over us. Now whether or not that God has a personality, I couldn't say.

That's what God is TO YOU. Please don't try and preach to me, I've experienced plenty. What makes you believe in a God, simply because you had a ceremony when you were 13 and imagined you saw a Goddess?

Now, think about this. Take your body, for example. Inside your body are millions upon millions of living organisms. Could you, maybe, be considered God to the beings that live inside you?

I hope this was just facetious rhetoric. Of course not, cells can't think.

When people say things like "they found this or that", it sounds like a silly conspiracy theory. Please reword yourself if you want to sound serious.

Heh.

I never came across those "certain hindus". Please go into details. I am asking.

Have you read any authentic Shivapurana which makes such a claim? Do you even know that only Saivites and some other sects (who make up around 10% of Hindus) believe in the supremacy of Shiva ?

The story goes something like this:
Brahma and Vishnu were disputing whom was the prime creator and thus the most worthy of reverence.Back and forth their arguments went, as each countered the other. But finally they were silenced when, suddenly, a vast fiery pillar reared up before them on the all encompassing primal waters.

Vishnu and Brahma were astonished by the pillars vast size and the brilliance of it's flames, and they agreed that they must find it's source. Brahma transformed into a swan and flew upwards along the column for a thousand years, while Vishnu transformed into a bore and plunged into the waters, traveling downwards for the same period. Neither found the end and they returned, aching and speechless with weariness to their starting point. Then Shiva appeared to them from inside the pillar, and they realized the the awesome column was Shiva's lingham or life giving sacred phallus. From that day Brahma and Shiva accepted that Shiva was without equal among the gods. They had come from him and must therefore pay him homage.

As to the source, I am a bit of a mythology buf and have read form numerous sources the exact same tale, and yes I am aware that Shiavites are only a portion of hindus, but this is one tale that I particularly scoff at for it's sheer obsurdity.

And this isn't just limited to Christianity. Although Islam promotes the idea that non-converts can eventually redeem themselves in Hell after suffering enough to accept Allah, it is still as harsh and cruel as the Christian concept of redemption and damnation.

No no no no no no no no NO!

Only the truly evil and murderers have a place in Hell. Even non-believers have a place in Paradise with Allah. Non-believers may redeem themselves by living good lives while here on Earth.

Once you're in Hell, that's it. Permanent. Game over, man.

Guessing you are about 15-16 from your 1989 in your username, I'll try and be as kindly as possible. And if I seem unkind, I am simply expressing myself bluntly. Keep an open mind.



You have no right to assume whether or not I had a religious experience in my life. If you want to know, then ask. The reason I am expressing defensive feelings over that, is because much of the rest of your post is based upon that assumption. You might feel that souls connect us with the rest of the universe, but since there is no proof of a soul, I refuse to jump into the faith bandwagon.



Okay. I was raised Mormon and Lutheran before I rejected both.



You were 13. You don't think that perhaps you were just succeptible at that young age to seeing what your mind wanted you to see? Children do it all the time. And, am I right in guessing that 1989 is the year of your birth?



That's what God is TO YOU. Please don't try and preach to me, I've experienced plenty. What makes you believe in a God, simply because you had a ceremony when you were 13 and imagined you saw a Goddess?



I hope this was just facetious rhetoric. Of course not, cells can't think.

Wow. Okay, I'll start from the top. You are perfectly right in saying I have no right in assuming anything about your personal religious experiences, number one. That wasn't my place, and not my business. Sorry.
Number two. Just wondering, but how old were you when you rejected your religion? The age I was wasn't exactly the age where I could say "Hey mom, I know our family has been wiccan since we came over from Ireland, but I am going to break family tradition, not become a certified priestess and try something new of my own." So I went along with it.
Number three. Yes, that is the year of my birth, I am 16. You may be older then me, but please. Don't patronize me. 13, while still young, is not a little child. I am quite sure my mind did not make up what I saw, if you were there, you would know. I am pretty sure however, that you don't know what it is like to be in a real pagan ritual, (by real I mean not your stereotypical, naked, orgasmic, satanic ritual) but I won't make the mistake of assuming again, so I'll ask you instead. Have you?
Number four. What makes you think there is no God? People experience things like that all the time. Just because you maybe didn't see what I did doesn't mean what I saw was a figment of my imagination. There are serveral reasons I belive in God.
Number 5. no comment.

Fionna, was it? Anyway, interesting artical, thanks.

I feel that all of reality is subjective, besides empiricism (mathematics, laws of physics). Beyond those, everything is an opinion. There is no universal law saying that killing is wrong, or that domination is evil. I enjoy controlling in a safe and sane way. And I would probably commit murder if someone I loved was killed.

Now, you're 16, and were 13 when you had the ceremony. You fail to understand that children imagine and see things that do not exist, and that us adults do the same damn things? Everyone does. Everyone imagines things. As you experience more and more events in your life, maybe you might think differently, or think the same. I'm simply saying that when I was 16, I believed in a lot of strange things that were simply not rational, sensible, and idealistic in a very real world.

And yes, I have had "religious" experiences. But I know how powerful the mind can be, so I find it much more logical to say that it was imagined rather than real. Understand my position?

like most adults and even young'uns, i have struggled at times with the concept of God, life after death, and religion. I have at times felt like 'whats the point' why are we here, there is no meaning, and even denounced His existance, etc.

i can honestly say now, while in my mid 30's and actually for almost the last 10 years as a Christian, that i may not have a better understanding of what or who God is, but i have a better understanding of why I am personally here. The reseasons i do and will always believe in God, Jesus and their message is simply looking back at my own life and those around me. I believe in free will, but i also believe that God puts us in THE position which WE have to use our judgement and make descions that will either bring us closer to Him or further away.

I know some say God and religion is just a crutch or an 'opiate of the masses, or anther form of positive thinking, but for me, having God in my life has been the best thing that has ever happened. I went from homeless in Long Beach Ca, to being married, 'successful' in my business and having a beautifull child to call my son. To me, my life is my own testimonial of why i believe.

and thats all i need.

i pray that all could know that which i do.(not trying to sound all knowing here, but my faith is what hold me together and what makes IT all make sence)

I feel that all of reality is subjective, besides empiricism (mathematics, laws of physics). Beyond those, everything is an opinion. There is no universal law saying that killing is wrong, or that domination is evil. I enjoy controlling in a safe and sane way. And I would probably commit murder if someone I loved was killed.

Now, you're 16, and were 13 when you had the ceremony. You fail to understand that children imagine and see things that do not exist, and that us adults do the same damn things? Everyone does. Everyone imagines things. As you experience more and more events in your life, maybe you might think differently, or think the same. I'm simply saying that when I was 16, I believed in a lot of strange things that were simply not rational, sensible, and idealistic in a very real world.

And yes, I have had "religious" experiences. But I know how powerful the mind can be, so I find it much more logical to say that it was imagined rather than real. Understand my position?

I am not the kind of person that believes in all kinds of unrational things. Is God so unrational? The body is alive and all life is an expression of the divine. That's all I'm saying. There is God-power in the body and in the earth, just as there is in mind and spirit. With love and will, we use our minds to link these aspects of divinity together. To some people the idea of God and the divine is unpratical, or simply... unreal. There is no correct method of invoking the God or Goddess, or seeing them in your every day life, but that doesn't make them less real or less important.

I stopped when you wrote that Hinduism was the largest polytheistic religion existing today.

Why?

Because you're dead wrong. And it seems like you think you know a lot about these religions, without really knowing anything. Hinduism is not polytheistic because while there are many gods they are all aspects of the same divinity. Ultimate Reality is a diamond and gods are just its many facets.

Then you went out to talk about Buddhism and the concept of a soul. Guess what. Buddhists don't believe in souls, they believe in karma. Once you get rid of your karma, you cease to exist. All you are is a floating mass of past actions that continues to get born in a new body; you have no immortal soul. Even when Buddhists talk about going to Pure Lands, its only a stopping point inbetween going back to Earth or achieving final enlightenment and ceasing to exist.

Finally, your very weak grasps on these religions could be used against science as well. I've never seen an atom before, therefore it must not exist. That doesn't work, does it? Scientists tell me they've seen an atom, I don't know why they would lie to me and it doesn't necessarily conflict with my perception of the universe, so I believe it. Don't dismiss cosmologies you have such a weak grasp of.

Well as a Catholic who doesn't believe in God, I can safely say you're not alone. Even my Preist admited in Confession (when I confessed to my lack of belief) that it was not uncommon for those raised religious to not follow in their parents beliefs.

Finally, your very weak grasps on these religions could be used against science as well. I've never seen an atom before, therefore it must not exist. That doesn't work, does it? Scientists tell me they've seen an atom, I don't know why they would lie to me and it doesn't necessarily conflict with my perception of the universe, so I believe it. Don't dismiss cosmologies you have such a weak grasp of.

Science can not be so easily compared to religion. Science is based in logic and immediate fact where as religion is based on solely in faith. Just because you can't see something of doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but it must be proven or disproven through other means of measurement and study.

I stopped when you wrote that Hinduism was the largest polytheistic religion existing today.

Why?

Because you're dead wrong. And it seems like you think you know a lot about these religions, without really knowing anything. Hinduism is not polytheistic because while there are many gods they are all aspects of the same divinity. Ultimate Reality is a diamond and gods are just its many facets.

That's certainly how you interpret it. There are many Hindus who would say something differently. And since a religion with many gods, even if those gods are one in the same, is definitely not monotheistic. Thus, polytheistic.

Then you went out to talk about Buddhism and the concept of a soul. Guess what. Buddhists don't believe in souls, they believe in karma. Once you get rid of your karma, you cease to exist. All you are is a floating mass of past actions that continues to get born in a new body; you have no immortal soul. Even when Buddhists talk about going to Pure Lands, its only a stopping point inbetween going back to Earth or achieving final enlightenment and ceasing to exist.

The soul was included in my dismissal of Eastern religions because of their special emphasis on spirituality. You should read something more carefully before saying things about it. Concerning karma, most people know about karma. Don't act like an asshole.

Finally, your very weak grasps on these religions could be used against science as well. I've never seen an atom before, therefore it must not exist. That doesn't work, does it? Scientists tell me they've seen an atom, I don't know why they would lie to me and it doesn't necessarily conflict with my perception of the universe, so I believe it. Don't dismiss cosmologies you have such a weak grasp of.

Might as well say that air doesn't exist. But since atoms have certain charges, properties, etc., which one learns in basic chemistry, I would rather support the scientific notions.

I can dismiss "cosmologies" as often as I please. You shouldn't write such obvious posts without taking the time to analyze.

Many have difficulties finding the divine in everyday lives. Lots of people become... trapped in the idea that God is the smoke and mirror of todays social trappings. However, the continuous presence of the divine, though hard from some to find, will always effect everyone on the Earth, whether you believe it's divine intervention or not. If your on the Earth, you are with the divine, and of course what I mean by the divine is the being or source that some call God.

And Earth isn't represented by the Gods, but is a part of "Him" The energy of something greater is in us and everywhere, whether you choose to recognize it or not.

I believe in myself and that is enough.

I believe that we have souls, or some other thing like a soul that makes us alive, and who we are. One cannot simply gather human body parts, put them together and expect it to live. However, that's a side note.

I believe in a god, though I make no pretense of knowing anything about him/her/it. I believe that this deity is benevolent, but has no real power in the physical world, only in that of our spirits. However, I could just as easily be wrong, but if I am, I lose nothing.

The story goes something like this:

It is a STORY. A concocted purana which has no basis in scriptures like Padmapurana, Vedas, Upanishads, Gita or any other recognised scripture , even recognised Shivapuranas.

Try and find the exact verse in any authentic purana / scripture in which it is said like that? You cannot.

That's certainly how you interpret it. There are many Hindus who would say something differently. And since a religion with many gods, even if those gods are one in the same, is definitely not monotheistic. Thus, polytheistic.



Obviously you know NOTHING about hinduism. You see all these exotic images and customs and some websites and stories and hey presto, you figured out hinduism.

Let the hindus decide if their religion in monotheistic or not.

Almost 70% of Hindus are Vaishnavites, meaning, beleive in ONE supreme personality of Godhead called Krishna, from whom everything came, Brahma, Siva and all the demi Gods.

By recognising ONE supreme personality who created everything , including the other demi Gods and souls, all the Vaishnavas are indeed "monotheistic".

The rest are made up by Saivites who believe that it is Siva from whom everything came, including other Gods like Vishnu, Brahma etc and then advaitins (mayavadis) and others make up the rest where they claim an impersonal Godhead and the rest as illusions/maya.

Just because there is a significant portion of Hindus who are ignorant and pray to any God that they are brought up to pray, it does not mean that hinduism , per se, is polytheistic.

Just because the Vaishnavas and Saivites and Advaitins do not kill each other shouting "Hare Krishna" or "Om Namasivaya" and blow up temples, it does not mean that they all have a commonly agreed upon central tenets and beleifs called "hinduism".

Precisely the reason why ISKCON (the Hare Krishna movement) has distanced itself from the label "hindu" many times in the past due to the nonsensical beliefs about hinduism that has become rooted in the minds of many leading to prejudging hinduism without exploring what it is.

Here is an explanation of what Vaishnavites believe in. Tell me if it is "polytheistic".

http://www.iskcon.com/about/philosophy.html

The hierarchy of incarnations.

http://www.harekrsna.com/philosophy/incarnations/hierarchy.htm

Row, row, row your boat,
Gently down the stream.
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily,
Life is but a dream. :)

Obviously you know NOTHING about hinduism. You see all these exotic images and customs and some websites and stories and hey presto, you figured out hinduism.

Let the hindus decide if their religion in monotheistic or not.

Almost 70% of Hindus are Vaishnavites, meaning, beleive in ONE supreme personality of Godhead called Krishna, from whom everything came, Brahma, Siva and all the demi Gods.

By recognising ONE supreme personality who created everything , including the other demi Gods and souls, all the Vaishnavas are indeed "monotheistic".

The rest are made up by Saivites who believe that it is Siva from whom everything came, including other Gods like Vishnu, Brahma etc and then advaitins (mayavadis) and others make up the rest where they claim an impersonal Godhead and the rest as illusions/maya.

Just because there is a significant portion of Hindus who are ignorant and pray to any God that they are brought up to pray, it does not mean that hinduism , per se, is polytheistic.

Just because the Vaishnavas and Saivites and Advaitins do not kill each other shouting "Hare Krishna" or "Om Namasivaya" and blow up temples, it does not mean that they all have a commonly agreed upon central tenets and beleifs called "hinduism".

Precisely the reason why ISKCON (the Hare Krishna movement) has distanced itself from the label "hindu" many times in the past due to the nonsensical beliefs about hinduism that has become rooted in the minds of many leading to prejudging hinduism without exploring what it is.

Here is an explanation of what Vaishnavites believe in. Tell me if it is "polytheistic".

Interesting links, considering each Hindu I have spoken with seems to say that the gods represented in their religion are independent of one another, but the links are pretty interesting in themselves. However, considering there are temples devoted to most aspects of the Divinity, the gods, it is still "polytheistic" in form. After all, Christians do not worship the Holy Ghost, and most only revere Jesus Christ. Knowledge comes from experience, and I wasn't fully aware of the aspect of the gods in Hindu mythology. Yet at the same time, if they are considered part of one Divinity, then it is also monotheistic. So, I guess it could be called a mixture of the two in practice and belief.

And regarding the first sentence, I DO know about Hinduism. I have just never known anyone who described the gods as aspects of one Divinity. Rudeness isn't appreciated, if you want people to take seriously what you say without becoming offended, how about being unpersonal in responses? I was glad you posted to give links to a definitive explanation of Hinduism, but I was of course unglad to see rudeness for no realistic reason.

Interesting links, considering each Hindu I have spoken with seems to say that the gods represented in their religion are independent of one another, but the links are pretty interesting in themselves. However, considering there are temples devoted to most aspects of the Divinity, the gods, it is still "polytheistic" in form. After all, Christians do not worship the Holy Ghost, and most only revere Jesus Christ. Knowledge comes from experience, and I wasn't fully aware of the aspect of the gods in Hindu mythology. Yet at the same time, if they are considered part of one Divinity, then it is also monotheistic. So, I guess it could be called a mixture of the two in practice and belief.

"Hindus" are a billion and "hinduism" being a highly decentralised religion meaning no pope-like central authority defining what is and what is not hinduism, it is actually possible for you to encounter hindus of one sect and never come into contact with another or even if contacted, cannot discern the difference. Add to this the gross misrepresentation in popular movies like the Indiana Jones - Temple of Doom. The movie was utter crap !

Frankly it does not matter what others define as monotheism. For me, my (and close to 70 % Hindus ) belief is monotheistic since there is only ONE supreme Godhead from whom everything else came from , the material universe, the spiritual universe, the demigods, everything.

If that is not monotheism, I dunno what is.

I have no business commenting about christianity but a belief system based on a "Father", "Son" and a "Holy Ghost" is monotheistic but a belief system which clearly speaks of ONE supreme Godhead and from whom everything else came (including other "Gods") is not monotheistic , just because some ignorant hindus pray to these other Gods ?

I know of some Indian christians who pray to Jesus along with Krishna ! what would that make him...LOL.


And regarding the first sentence, I DO know about Hinduism. I have just never known anyone who described the gods as aspects of one Divinity. Rudeness isn't appreciated, if you want people to take seriously what you say without becoming offended, how about being unpersonal in responses? I was glad you posted to give links to a definitive explanation of Hinduism, but I was of course unglad to see rudeness for no realistic reason.

It is rude to misrepresent my faith especially when you are not following it. I hope you understand. Apologies since I should not have been harsh on you. :)

Again, that site is not a definitive explanation of "hinduism" but an explanation of the majority sect of Vaishnavism which in itself has several schools (not much difference in theology, but about practices to attain liberation and the founder acharya of the schools etc).

An outsider makes the common mistake of clubbing all these innumerous schools of contradicting and complementary belief systems / philosophies as "hinduism" and then extend his understanding of one sect to other sects and then pronounce grand statements like "hindus are blah blah"...""hinduism is blah blah".. which is demeaning to hindus and is a disservice to all sects of hinduism.

I refuse to believe that God has a human personality, and can become angry, jealous, wrathful.

Single question here: Why? I can think of various ways to come up with the concept - ignoring religion. There's, for example, a simple extension of, let's see, was it Plato? The bit where we are, metaphorically, sitting with our backs to a fire, and all the so-called 'real' objects are simply shadows? So every table is a three-dimensional shadow of the one Table, ditto for chairs, etc etc... except he stopped before including humans. If you /do/, you end up stating that there must be one elemental Human who we are all shadows, three-dimensional lesser images, of. That sounds like God to me, and the theory was, as far as I recall, by an Ancient Greek. Not a monotheist.

But that's a random side-thread. The original question is: Why do you refuse to believe in a human-like god?

As I said, it was interesting. And, as I said, in my personal experience, I hadn't known that Hindus believe in "aspects", or at least Divinity.

I refuse to believe in a human-like god because if such a god existed, it would be utterly illogical to say the least, that the being who created Existence is as capable of being immature and pathetic as all of us. If such a god really did exist, I would be compelled to accept him, but I would give it no respect. I do not respect dictators who create grand structures in the name of Glory.

Perhaps I might be more accepting of a Solaris-type god (read the book). But in the moment, I would only give respect to a logical entity.

I refuse to believe in a human-like god because if such a god existed, it would be utterly illogical to say the least, that the being who created Existence is as capable of being immature and pathetic as all of us. If such a god really did exist, I would be compelled to accept him, but I would give it no respect. I do not respect dictators who create grand structures in the name of Glory.

Perhaps I might be more accepting of a Solaris-type god (read the book). But in the moment, I would only give respect to a logical entity.

Well, taking a look around, I see a lot of things that speak of immaturity... but I see your point. Any human-like God couldn't be /too/ human, or we'd all be dead.

However. How about a human-like being with the ability to know the exact results of its actions, down to the last grain of sand? To know exactly what would happen, and exactly what every single person on Earth would do, when it acted? But then, of course, why should it care? Why should it stick to a course that keeps us alive, in a fairly good world, and (presumably) having a chance at whatever its version of Heaven may be?

And that's the point at which, on top of all the other human emotions, you need to give it Love. Complete, all-consuming love for humanity, on a scale we can't even begin to imagine. Even when we are the most horribly irritating things imaginable, it would still have to love us and want the best outcome for us - the maximum number of us to reach Heaven-equivalent.

If you accept that there can be a god with that Love, the universe as it is falls into place. If you /don't/ accept that, then accepting a human-analogue God is impossible, because it would have gotten angry and wiped us all out by now. At this point, there's not much more I can say. /I/ don't know whether that Love exists - nor do you, nor does anyone. We just have to choose which we're going to believe. (Yes, the not-Love path then splits further, with 'Machine-analogue God', 'No God', and 'Less powerful God' being three options that spring to mind, but I'm focussing on one division) The Love-branch seems to cover most of the Monotheistic religions. Are they right? I haven't the foggiest.

Did I just make a point? Possibly, but it's so tangled up that I can't extract it. Just consider it something to ponder. And, final point, respecting a God who /could/ do something awful to us for the mess we've made, but /doesn't/... I find that easy. You may not.

The Eagle of Darkness, I enjoyed that post very much. I strongly urge you to read Solaris, and take a look at the conversation between Snow and Kelvin nearing the end, on the concept of a human-god.

Perhaps there is a God. Maybe it is human-like. But I can only accept, in my mind, a machine-God. If that term makes sense.

The Eagle of Darkness, I enjoyed that post very much. I strongly urge you to read Solaris, and take a look at the conversation between Snow and Kelvin nearing the end, on the concept of a human-god.

I'll try and hunt it down. Who's it by?

Perhaps there is a God. Maybe it is human-like. But I can only accept, in my mind, a machine-God. If that term makes sense.

The term makes sense (or at least, I understand it, which may not be the same thing). A machine-like, unemotional, logical God is certainly easier to live with - there's no chance of it acting unpredictably. You know that it'll act logically, you don't have to trust that it'll ignore its feeling for the greater good, because, of course, it won't have any. With a human-like God, with all the emotions and conflicts inherent in that, you don't have that reassurance. It could go insane and turn the air into acid (provided we don't get there first) at any moment. You just have to hope. Which is great for corrupt religious leaders, because they can say 'Hey, we know how to influence God - just do this or that and it'll probably let you live'. Used to happen a lot, that. Still does, I guess. But then, it's possible that they're telling the truth - that the doctrines and suchlike are, in fact, divine commands, or notes from God's secretary on how to keep it happy (Presumably, this is the secretary who files prayers away for later attention). It's... difficult. Machine-gods are easier. More logical.

Whether the logic is right, however, we can't say. Even if the air /does/ turn to acid, we can think in our last moments that, perhaps, it was the most logical move.

Going by your own argument though, if the air did turn into acid, or if something on that type of a level did deliberately occur by a god, then it would certainly not be logical, but insane irrationality.

The book is by Stanislaw Lem. The new copies have an image from the latest movie, which was far inferior to the original Russian movie. However, ignore the image. The book is the book, not a copy of a screenplay.

Going by your own argument though, if the air did turn into acid, or if something on that type of a level did deliberately occur by a god, then it would certainly not be logical, but insane irrationality.

The book is by Stanislaw Lem. The new copies have an image from the latest movie, which was far inferior to the original Russian movie. However, ignore the image. The book is the book, not a copy of a screenplay.

Not necessarily. Humanity could reach a stage where the most logical course of action was to wipe it out and start over. We could be deemed corrupted beyond repair and, like a ruined computer file, overwritten.

And thank you. I'll look it up.

Not necessarily. Humanity could reach a stage where the most logical course of action was to wipe it out and start over. We could be deemed corrupted beyond repair and, like a ruined computer file, overwritten.

And thank you. I'll look it up.

We're already at that stage of worldwide corruption, and have been for all of history. The fact that the earth still exists today proves that there is a merciful God. (For you atheists, IF there is a God, He must be merciful.)

The flood mentioned in Genesis was originally intended to cleanse the world of sin, because only a righteous few were saved. God promised to never again destroy the earth WITH WATER. However, immediately after Noah set foot on dry land, he got drunk with wine and his son tried to sleep with him. The inherent human corruption immediately began manifesting itself again.

The New Testament says that the next time God destroys the world, it will be by "a fervent heat that melts the elements." Try riding that one out in an Ark.

I refuse to believe in a human-like god because if such a god existed, it would be utterly illogical to say the least, that the being who created Existence is as capable of being immature and pathetic as all of us. If such a god really did exist, I would be compelled to accept him, but I would give it no respect. I do not respect dictators who create grand structures in the name of Glory.

Perhaps I might be more accepting of a Solaris-type god (read the book). But in the moment, I would only give respect to a logical entity.

Will you please explain what a "logical" entity is? Your refusal to believe that something could be bigger than you or more "logical" than you are puts yourself in a dangerous position of being grossly misinformed or misunderstanding.