Post: #51

Just to say further about this simulation thing. So who created it? A being called by various names in various cultures.
Apparently, what Hindus call Brahman to be Supreme Reality, origin of all creation, spawned various planes of reality populated with beings that have power according to laws which govern these places. This isn't my theory, you can literally see it on wikipedia in chapters of Hindu cosmology.
Now supposedly there is set of "tools" which can spawn new worlds, but lesser in magnitude than the host lives in. There was a being who had belief that he can create better version world where the souls would incarnate, but he didn't want any trace of Brahman in it.
So he tricked "these guys above" a got a full permission with some loophole and this universe came to be. Interest souls have for this world is equated with "signing the contract" and immediate incarnation here, together with accepting everything that happens as your fault.
This being is called Sanat Kumara by theosophists, Peacock Angel by Yezidi's, Jesus talked about Prince of this world. I frequently see some spiritual Croats who use terms like King in their posts.

Here is good article by yogi I mentioned: https://www.danijel.org/blog/what-is-the...his-world/

Think about it what you will. It is very interesting theory to me, but I am no real firm believer as I cannot say for sure it is true. But then again, does it make it so much different than various almost accepted theories of multiverses and what not.

Post: #52

(05-15-2017 11:49 PM)Truth Teller Wrote:  Again, Odin and the Norse gods are completely ontologically different from the God of classical theism, so your attempts to compare them don't work.

I think intelligent people can hold to atheism or a religious faith, adhering to one doesn't make one more (or less) intelligent than another.

No, they are both supernatural religious deities that were worshiped absolutely by humans at a certain time/place in human culture. They are identical and exactly comparable.

If this was 3000 years ago, you would be worshiping a completely different god/deity, based on a random chance of your time and place of birth.

If you are "intellectually honest" about this mind experiment, you would have to concede that the danger of "faith" is that you end up believing in something random. This proves that religions are the work of human imagination and culture rather than a real thing.

Having "faith" means rejecting or ignoring the lack of evidence to believe in something. That to me is the opposite end of a scale of intelligence and reasonableness. Sorry, not trying to be insulting. Its an identical mechanism to a child's willingness to believe in the Easter bunny or Santa.

Post: #53

(05-15-2017 09:58 PM)The Gooz Boos Wrote:  Do you see that this is a circular argument? The only reason why I would accept this idea is if I already agreed with you that my religion is false. Otherwise, Christianity is based on real things God did.

Philosophy gives me reason not to believe in the gods of the other religions. Pagan gods are physical beings and are subject to change and death. Even Ahura Mazda (the zoroastrian Iranian titan of wisdom) is subject to change and death, and zoroastrianism is monotheistic. Philosophy does not give me reason to doubt the Christian God.

No, I don't see how it's a circular argument, explain how? It's a logical argument, illustrating the difficult position you get put in when you let Faith take over from reason and inquiry.

"All the other gods are not like my one true god" isn't a convincing argument either. All the other religions, deities and supernatural creations of the human imagination have just as much evidence and legitimacy as your chosen poison. (ie none)

The specific one you have chosen is all because of the random chance of your time and place of birth.

You ability to reject all the others and not have faith in them gives me hope you can just go one god more

Post: #54

It's a lot easier to explain agnosticism reasonably if you define it in terms of probability.

Impossible (Pr = 0): This cannot happen at all, ever, and anyone who believes it can is an idiot. Example: 2+2=5, square circles, pi expressed as a ratio of two integers.

Possible (Pr > 0): Stuff that can happen, and has either been observed to happen or can reasonably be assumed will happen within the lifetime of the universe. Example: I'm going to take a dump at some point in the future.

Negligibly Possible (Pr > 0 AND Pr < 1/(2^n)), where n is the information content of that event in bits: Stuff that can happen, but the odds of it are so bad that it's unlikely to happen in trillions of years of rolling dice. Example: I beat my head on a keyboard and crack the public key encryption to a bank and transfer a billion dollars to myself. A perfect copy of myself except with a devil beard and twirly mustache spontaneously appears next to me.

When theists pigeonhole atheists as being equally irrational, they're insisting that atheists are demanding that God or any sort of intelligent agent beyond our existence is impossible when in general atheists accept the possibility of God with negligible probability.

Post: #55

I actually see my Atheist position very much consistent with old Indo European pagan religiousity. I mean things like Greek Mythology, Norse Mythology, Vedic Religion etc. Infact, my personal identification is as a Pagan, taking primary influence from the work of the Vedic Bards, publicly I refer to myself as an Atheist. Reason being public understanding of religion is unfortunately based on a (mostly semitic) Monotheistic viewpoint, so saying I am Pagan wouldnt make much sense to them, or likely anyone on this forum.

Quote:Rta is the ultimate foundation of everything; it is "the supreme", although this is not to be understood in a static sense [...] It is the expression of the primordial dynamism that is inherent in everything...."

From wikipedia

Rta is supreme, not the Gods, and the Gods are not primary in these traditions. Yet even people on this forum assume god must be primary and central to every type of religion e.g Pantheism is where God is the Universe. This is not correct. Rta is primary and Rta also means Existence ie the Universe and all its Laws and Truths.

When Pantheists say the Universe is divine they assume these are two separate things. But this is a consequence of semitic thinking, and they are unknowingly allowing the Semitic Religions to define language and rules of play.

This is coming from someone who knows. A Pantheist is someone who describes/perceives their position from an Abrahamic perspective. Otherwise such a person is an Atheist.

I had read a quote from an academic where he decribed he Vedic Religion as Atheistic and I had agreed with him.

I consider Atheism, Paganism and Pantheism to be interrchangeable terms all in contrasts to Abrahamic Monotheism. The difference being one group considers the rigid belief in a specific god as primary and one does not.

Post: #56

(05-16-2017 05:26 PM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  No, they are both supernatural religious deities that were worshiped absolutely by humans at a certain time/place in human culture. They are identical and exactly comparable.

If this was 3000 years ago, you would be worshiping a completely different god/deity, based on a random chance of your time and place of birth.

If you are "intellectually honest" about this mind experiment, you would have to concede that the danger of "faith" is that you end up believing in something random. This proves that religions are the work of human imagination and culture rather than a real thing.

Having "faith" means rejecting or ignoring the lack of evidence to believe in something. That to me is the opposite end of a scale of intelligence and reasonableness. Sorry, not trying to be insulting. Its an identical mechanism to a child's willingness to believe in the Easter bunny or Santa.

I forgot, you're a fundy atheist. You deeply misunderstand the definition of faith and caricature it as belief in spite of strong contradictory evidence.

Of course, that's not what great theologians and philosophers have defined faith as, but why attack them when a straw man does just as well?

Post: #57

So Rta is Brahman I mentioned. In my opinion gods are powerful beings that originate from other planes of existence and throughout history maybe they had contact with various groups of people but through dreams and visions, not literally talking to them.

Post: #58

(05-17-2017 12:36 AM)Truth Teller Wrote:  You deeply misunderstand the definition of faith and caricature it as belief in spite of strong contradictory evidence.

Of course, that's not what great theologians and philosophers have defined faith as, but why attack them when a straw man does just as well?

Dictionary definition of faith :

"strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof."

No strawman, just an inconvenient fact that you find hard to face.

Post: #59

^ I love it, "proof"

buzzwords for the forensic age

Post: #60

Why believe in a God? What's the rational behind it? Serious question (I'm not being flippant).

Is it to simplify the answer to all of life's hardships and unexplainable events/happenings?

Post: #61

(05-18-2017 11:22 AM)[email protected] Wrote:  Why believe in a God? What's the rational behind it? Serious question (I'm not being flippant).

Is it to simplify the answer to all of life's hardships and unexplainable events/happenings?

The rational reason behind it is if you honestly try to figure out the true nature of reality, and you find out that God exists, you would be a hypocrite not to act on that information.

Despite what Pascal says, faith is not just a way of hedging your bets.

Even St. Paul says that faith is pointless if it isn't faith in something real:

Quote:If I fought wild beasts in Ephesus with no more than human hopes, what have I gained? If the dead are not raised, "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die."

Post: #62

(05-18-2017 10:27 AM)Kid Twist Wrote:  ^ I love it, "proof"

buzzwords for the forensic age

Rational, evidence based logical thinking based on proof/experiment/observation is the mechanism by which grown ups wisely don't believe in the easter bunny/santa and kids do.

Not a way of thinking that should be dismissed and poo-pooed

Post: #63

I think these discussion wont get anywhere.

The fact is there is something rather sad about our fate as a species. Thousands of years ago we were all roaming around in our little groups raising cattle and being rather free. At some point we had to settle down into these permanent settlements and lost much of our freedom. With large diverse people living together came the need to bring everyone together into one unifying moral code.

If you look at Monotheism it does seem to have developed with these large 'states'. First the Zoroastrians who spread their religion far and wide. Then some changes in Judaism making it too Monotheistic. Christianity has a massive effect after surviving it's early years and then, once in power, persecuting all other religions until it alone remained in the West. Islam has a similar history, coming from a plularist and tolerant background, once it had gained momentum destroying any and all diversity in it's path.

None of these forthcoming religions added anything of value to Zoroaster's original philosophy. It is just about re-working an existing idea that plays on peoples fears and insecurities, promising much in the afterlife but delivering little where it matters. One King under One God and all that, it is quite simply about Authority and control of masses. This is the story of Civilization, which is nothing but the enslavement of the few free men by the many who are weak and desire security over freedom.

It is almost unbelievable that so many Christians and Muslims can be so passionate about their belief system, yet dont know the most basic thing that it is all based on a MAJOR world religion that preceeded them all, and can quite easily be researched online.

I mean a Christian could so easily say to himself "hmm..interesting, this religion I was told to believe, is actually EXACTLY the same as a MAJOR religion that is much older, maybe I look into that a bit more" instead they're all "It's a revelation from God, Amen".

At the end of the day, theres Christians out there and theres Muslims out there. The thing is, dont expect us to take it seriously, and dont try and question us when we OUTRIGHT reject your second-hand, unoriginal account of reality. I dont expect someone living in tiny cult to expect everyone else to respect his belief in God(x) so too the Christians and Muslims out there need to get that they need to take their belief and keep it to themselves.

I challenge anyone here to thinks they know more about the development of religion to debate me. The fact is there is no historical justification for the idea that Monotheism is not a new idea. Nor is there is any scientific (by scientific I mean observation based, normal knowledge, not what some Jew went round telling everyone 2k years ago) justification for it.

Apologies for the rant, I'm just sick and tired of the monotony of it all, the lack of diversity and unoriginal thought. Theres just something really wrong with Monotheist because I dont see anything similar coming from adherents of other world-views. An exchange like the few posts above will never occur between an Atheists and a Hindu/Sikh/Buddhist/Pantheist, it's just always the Christians and Muslims.

Post: #64

(05-18-2017 07:02 PM)kavi Wrote:  I mean a Christian could so easily say to himself "hmm..interesting, this religion I was told to believe, is actually EXACTLY the same as a MAJOR religion that is much older, maybe I look into that a bit more" instead they're all "It's a revelation from God, Amen".

But they don't know this, do they?

Tell a Christian that Allah is the same God as the Christian God and then watch their heads explode. The Koran has the same stories about the Great Flood and Jesus and all the same exact bullshit Biblical fairytales. But the Christians despise Muslims because their religion must be wrong because their preacher told them so.

Many atheists are former believers that just decided one day to read the Bible from cover to cover and then learned the truth. Most Christians have never read the thing. They go sit in church for an hour a week and listen to a man lie to them and then pass around a plate for money.

Post: #65

Sorry - to blast on it again, but Islam was peaceful only for 12 years. Mohammed had 140 followers then. Then it went on a war-path, first only plundering caravans and then converting by force - within 10 years 70.000 followers.

Christianity grew by idea and yea it became less tolerant of other belief systems, but that happened mostly 800 years later when power and Christian church became one. The persecution by the way was never on the same level that Islam is.

Also Islam simply copied Jewish and Christian texts which explains why it sounds similar at times. But the ideology is utterly alien. Also the God of Christianity and Allah are not the same. Allah says that all unbelievers must be either killed, converted and beaten into submission. Jesus has an utterly different perception of God. It is actually more the followers who tried to interpret it as the only path.

But be it as it may - if there is a God then it is absolute. Allah in my opinion is the negative force - cannot get clearer than that and Salman Rushdie is right - those are satanic verses - Muslim God is Satan if there is ever one to begin with.

And you don't need to listen to a preacher - read up yourself: http://www.koran-at-a-glance.com/

Post: #66

Allah is what I call tribal god, or even a village demon. Being, either benevolent or malevolent that latches to a particular group that worships it. I actually believe both Allah and Yahweh exist, and that they are erroneously equated to be one and the same.
Jewish Kabbalah system has pretty good explanation of Yahweh an they actually regard it as a manifestation of the Ein Sof (something akin to Hindu term Brahman) after the Creation begun.

Zohar (fundamental Kabbalah script) explains:

Quote:Before He gave any shape to the world, before He produced any form, He was alone, without form and without resemblance to anything else. Who then can comprehend how He was before the Creation? Hence it is forbidden to lend Him any form or similitude, or even to call Him by His sacred name, or to indicate Him by a single letter or a single point... But after He created the form of the Heavenly Man, He used him as a chariot wherein to descend, and He wishes to be called after His form, which is the sacred name "YHWH".

I think of a Allah as malevolent being, but not being a prince of darkness, i.e. "Satan" or "Lucifer".

Post: #67

Let us judge the leaders of each faith by their fruits.

Jesus
-Lived a pious, holy life
-Practiced what he preached
-Forgave the sinners, performed miracles
-Did what God asked him to do
-Died for our sins

Muhammed
-Began life as a piece of shit refugee, became a warlord
-Preached peace when the Muslims were few, preached death to the infidel when they were many
-Ran a train on the entire Middle East and converted many to Islam at the point of a sword. Those who refused were slain.
-God did what Muhammed asked him to do
-Died of poisoning at the hands of a Jewess, in a town of Jews that he pillaged and burned to the ground, in the manner that he said he would if he was lying (the poison severed his aorta).

Post: #68

Kavi, I'm curious. Earlier, you said that a lot of your family are muslim. Now you are holding Zoroastrianism in high regard. Are you of Iranian descent? If so, that'd make two of us.
Also, you made vague reference to the myth that Christianity is copied from Zoroastrianism. If you would do me the pleasure, could you outline the talking points which have you believing this? I could try to debunk them.






RatInTheWoods,

(05-16-2017 05:34 PM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  No, I don't see how it's a circular argument, explain how? It's a logical argument, illustrating the difficult position you get put in when you let Faith take over from reason and inquiry.

It's a circular argument because you assume that Christianity is a product of cultural origin rather than divine origin, and through this assumption, you conclude that Christianity is untrue. You used the conclusion to prove itself, which is both circular and question-begging.

(05-16-2017 05:34 PM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  "All the other gods are not like my one true god" isn't a convincing argument either. All the other religions, deities and supernatural creations of the human imagination have just as much evidence and legitimacy as your chosen poison. (ie none)

That's a distortion of my argument. What I said was that through philosophical argumentation, the existence of a God with specific attributes (such as necessity) can be supported. These properties coincide with the properties of the Christian God. Pagan gods are not necessary beings, nor are they maximally great. They fall into a different category completely and aren't comparable. Monotheistic religions that believe in a necessary being believe in the same God that I do (the one that created the universe), but ascribe to this God different attributes and to the world different histories. So it can't be said that I deny the existence of Allah or Ahura Mazda. It can be said that I deny the views Muslims and Zoroastrians have of Allah and Ahura Mazda.

(05-16-2017 05:34 PM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  The specific one you have chosen is all because of the random chance of your time and place of birth.

I assume you mean to say that I only chose Christianity because of where/when I was born. I'll grant you that this is the case for many people. My heritage includes Zoroastrianism, Islam, and Christianity. All of the family within proximity of me are muslim. Christian family is thousands of miles away. Your assertion is not descriptive of me, because if it was, I would be a muslim.

(05-16-2017 05:34 PM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  You ability to reject all the others and not have faith in them gives me hope you can just go one god more

God (big G, singular) is a different concept entirely from gods (small g). A god or pantheon of gods is not comparable to a God. Rejecting a god isn't comparable to rejecting a God. It can be said that I don't believe in gods, but it cannot be said that there is any God that I deny. There's also what I said earlier about ascribing attributes and whatnot.

Post: #69

RatInTheWoods Wrote:...just as much evidence and legitimacy as your chosen poison. (ie none)

When I make arguments, those arguments are evidence. To say there is no evidence, my arguments would have to be defeated. So there is philosophical/metaphysical evidence. There is also the historical evidence, medical evidence, teleological evidence, digital physics evidence, and the rest of it. In order to say there is no evidence, you must ignore all of these things.