God and the World, what do you think? [Does God Exist II]

[Ardoki]

Define god please.

The universe is my god, it is all-encompassing, infinite and omnipresent. I believe everything within it, is simply a manifestation of it.

[Vilatania]

Define god please.

For the purpose of the discussion a "God" is any deity worshipped by current and former religions. Particularly the Christian version.

Edit: I Should have said 'versions'. Cuz the Christians seem to have like 5 million different versions of him and can't agree on any particular one.

[The Archregimancy]

Define god please.

For the purpose of the discussion a "God" is any deity worshipped by current and former religions. Particularly the Christian version.

Only to the extent that Christians are the largest theistic community in this forum, and the forum's atheists also tend to come from nations that were historically majority Christian.

Realistically, discussion can address any theistic concept; it's just that discussion tends to be defined by Christianity for the reasons noted above. Discussion is naturally limited by the cultural contexts of our forum base.

If anyone really wants to discuss the role of Vishnu or Ahura Mazda in the modern world, there's nothing particularly stopping them; it's just that most people here aren't terribly familiar with Hinduism or Zoroastrianism.

[Ardoki]

Define god please.

For the purpose of the discussion a "God" is any deity worshipped by current and former religions. Particularly the Christian version.

Edit: I Should have said 'versions'. Cuz the Christians seem to have like 5 million different versions of him and can't agree on any particular one.

Would that include a pantheistic interpretation of god?

[Ardoki]

For the purpose of the discussion a "God" is any deity worshipped by current and former religions. Particularly the Christian version.

Only to the extent that Christians are the largest theistic community in this forum, and the forum's atheists also tend to come from nations that were historically majority Christian.

Realistically, discussion can address any theistic concept; it's just that discussion tends to be defined by Christianity for the reasons noted above. Discussion is naturally limited by the cultural contexts of our forum base.

If anyone really wants to discuss the role of Vishnu or Ahura Mazda in the modern world, there's nothing particularly stopping them; it's just that most people here aren't terribly familiar with Hinduism or Zoroastrianism.

My religious beliefs are quite similar to some Hindu beliefs. Some Hindus proclaim that the Brahman (which is like the universe) is the only god, and everything else is a manifestation of it. Hinduism has shaped my beliefs a lot actually, in other ways as well.

[Vilatania]

For the purpose of the discussion a "God" is any deity worshipped by current and former religions. Particularly the Christian version.

Edit: I Should have said 'versions'. Cuz the Christians seem to have like 5 million different versions of him and can't agree on any particular one.

Would that include a pantheistic interpretation of god?

I'm not well versed in Pantheism, I'm not sure I entirely understand the difference between it and regular theism.

[Vilatania]

Only to the extent that Christians are the largest theistic community in this forum, and the forum's atheists also tend to come from nations that were historically majority Christian.

Realistically, discussion can address any theistic concept; it's just that discussion tends to be defined by Christianity for the reasons noted above. Discussion is naturally limited by the cultural contexts of our forum base.

If anyone really wants to discuss the role of Vishnu or Ahura Mazda in the modern world, there's nothing particularly stopping them; it's just that most people here aren't terribly familiar with Hinduism or Zoroastrianism.

My religious beliefs are quite similar to some Hindu beliefs. Some Hindus proclaim that the Brahman (which is like the universe) is the only god, and everything else is a manifestation of it. Hinduism has shaped my beliefs a lot actually, in other ways as well.

Is Brahmen a being or just the universe?

[Ardoki]

Would that include a pantheistic interpretation of god?

I'm not well versed in Pantheism, I'm not sure I entirely understand the difference between it and regular theism.

Pantheism

My religious beliefs are quite similar to some Hindu beliefs. Some Hindus proclaim that the Brahman (which is like the universe) is the only god, and everything else is a manifestation of it. Hinduism has shaped my beliefs a lot actually, in other ways as well.

Is Brahmen a being or just the universe?

Brahman

It is not considered as a monotheistic god, some schools of Hinduism claim that it is the only thing with everything else being an expression of it.

[Vilatania]

I'm not well versed in Pantheism, I'm not sure I entirely understand the difference between it and regular theism.

Pantheism

Is Brahmen a being or just the universe?

Brahman

It is not considered as a monotheistic god, some schools of Hinduism claim that it is the only thing with everything else being an expression of it.

I read a little bit in to this and I do not believe that Brahman falls into the category of God that we(Atheists) are debating against. I think I'm understanding that Brahman is basically a single descriptive word for everything that exists within the universe tangible or otherwise. Am I on target with that at all?

[Ardoki]

Pantheism


Brahman

It is not considered as a monotheistic god, some schools of Hinduism claim that it is the only thing with everything else being an expression of it.

I read a little bit in to this and I do not believe that Brahman falls into the category of God that we(Atheists) are debating against. I think I'm understanding that Brahman is basically a single descriptive word for everything that exists within the universe tangible or otherwise. Am I on target with that at all?

That is what I believe, and so do a lot of Hindus believe of it.

This is an interesting little video on how it is worshipped through idols: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPCGixTpa6E

[The V O I D]

... So, I was doing research on the various religions. Turns out, Unitarian Universalism is a thing.
So... uh. Yeah. A summary of that page is basically, UU-ists believe that any or all Gods could be correct, and thus all scriptures could be acceptable, from any religion.
Not sure if Pantheist or not, but it looks Pantheist.

[Ardoki]

... So, I was doing research on the various religions. Turns out, Unitarian Universalism is a thing.
So... uh. Yeah. A summary of that page is basically, UU-ists believe that any or all Gods could be correct, and thus all scriptures could be acceptable, from any religion.
Not sure if Pantheist or not, but it looks Pantheist.

Definitely not pantheist.

Pantheists believe that the universe and god are identical. To us, the universe (that means everything in existence, including us) is god.

[Vilatania]

... So, I was doing research on the various religions. Turns out, Unitarian Universalism is a thing.
So... uh. Yeah. A summary of that page is basically, UU-ists believe that any or all Gods could be correct, and thus all scriptures could be acceptable, from any religion.
Not sure if Pantheist or not, but it looks Pantheist.

Religious Liberalism. I think it's basically saying that if you believe that a pack of gum is God and it created the Earth with the help of talking goldfish then it's true. For you, and no one else. So when you die, your going to spend eternity with a bunch of Gold fish. Because that's what you believed would happen.

[The Creepoc Infinite]

... So, I was doing research on the various religions. Turns out, Unitarian Universalism is a thing.
So... uh. Yeah. A summary of that page is basically, UU-ists believe that any or all Gods could be correct, and thus all scriptures could be acceptable, from any religion.
Not sure if Pantheist or not, but it looks Pantheist.

Sounds ridiculous.

[Vilatania]

... So, I was doing research on the various religions. Turns out, Unitarian Universalism is a thing.
So... uh. Yeah. A summary of that page is basically, UU-ists believe that any or all Gods could be correct, and thus all scriptures could be acceptable, from any religion.
Not sure if Pantheist or not, but it looks Pantheist.

Sounds ridiculous.

Not entirely. We know very little about death. Obviously it's illogical to come to the conclusion that such a place magically becomes actually real, but it's "possible" the consciousness is more than it appears to be and we ascend in some way and the illusion of such a place is experienced.

[Sociobiology]

wow wonderful strawman when did ever claim any of that happened.

None, at all, so more reason to doubt the fuss that religion starts all wars.

which again I never claimed

minor he says.
of course during other times they also killed you if you belonged to the wrong religion making it hard to build up the numbers for a war.
its true that east Asia had few religious wars during that time, but you can find religiously peaceful times in other places as well, just because they did most of their religious wars earlier or later does not mean they did not happen, And of course this is only true you say India and China is not part of east Asia. I mean different Buddhist sects loved going to war with each other.

Definitely, but definitely minor. I am well aware of Buddhist insurrections in Japan called the "sohei" or warrior monks?

I wasn't talking about Buddhists in japan, but the infighting in Chinese sects.

Link - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C5%8Dhei#Founding_and_feuds. Though most of the warfare there are political in origin.

on could argue most religious wars were political in origin, wars rarely have one cause.

There is very little and negligible religious war in East Asia overall. China is part of East Asia, but India is not. India more accurately belongs to the South Asian geographical category.

so 5/6 or 6/6 locations then.

And lol, study your history here. I am well aware of religious persecution in East Asia (If East Asia is what we're talking about) but overall, it's not that severe as in the Islamic world.

and?

Most of martyrdom only arose when Christians came in China, Japan and Korea.

but in every case it was the non-Christians doing the persecution.

And warring Buddhist sects? Where did you get your info on that?

the Sukhothai, Pagan, Polonnaruwa, and other Sri Lankan Wars

here I for once agree the mongols were weird partially because there religion did not encourage or really allow conversion.
And of course he did believe his gods helped him gain victory.

No reason to blame religion here.

which I never did, I said I agreed the mongols did not engage in religious war, I even described why.

Every general might as well have believed in his God.

which is part of the problem, especially when they think their god approves of what they do.

wow that's not a blatantly racist assumption or anything.
cognitive dissonance much

What race is Islam? What race?

sorry you are right, blatant prejudice then.
so how is that better?

then you are not looking into them their were plenty of religious wars, they just tended to be smaller because the societies involved were smaller, also I notice you switched from conflict to conquest, tribal cultures engage in less conquest but more conflict, coincidence?

What made you assume that the only war tribal societies engage in are of a religious nature?

again with the strawman, I never said anything of the sort.

because they were replaced by European religions which had there own wars.
also I notice you left out Africa and its several pre-colonial religious wars.
So 3/4* places in which large powerful states arise you have large religious wars.
* Africa, Central America, west Asian, excluding east Asia, and only if you exclude India from east Asia.

Europeans? Sure, the Spanish and the Portuguese's colonizations might have religious overtones such as the "Reconquista" but if they're not busy spreading Catholicism, they're mostly colonizing for gold, spices, slaves, you know, the real stuff that matters. I exclude mostly wars done mostly by Muslims because I believe I've made my point clear that few religions ever lead to such horrible war of any kind.

when did I say anything about colonization being religious?
can you read what I say before you reply.

actually it looks like religion plus the capabilities to wage large scale war tends to lead to religious war.

And, now, no. You know do me a favor -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_1000%E2%80%931499
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_1000%E2%80%931499

Read these lists and count all religious wars. How many religious wars could be there? Hmm. 5? 10? 15? 20? Please, do that.

and you don't see that any number of wars based on superstition is too many?

I might have not done a good way of saying what I'm trying to say in my previous statement, but few religions have led to warfare in any kind and that not all warfare is caused by religion.

which I never debated.

[The Third Nova Terra of Scrin]

on could argue most religious wars were political in origin, wars rarely have one cause.

You know, Sociobiology, you have a unique tone of language that makes you difficult to converse with, and I doubt we'll ever gain anything if we're going to attempt to refute each other by quoting every sentence and phrase. I admit that my knowledge of history and society is not sufficient enough to traverse the whole world and be able to investigate every single war, military campaign or machete done and know the cause (I think you also are unable to do that).

So, to let us get started, put our discussion more sensible and to try to point and just to make our conversation simpler, yes, I agree that many wars in history have some religious overtones, but I'm going to ask you, if you assert that wars rarely have one cause, why are you pointing out religion as the cause of several wars in history without even trying to point out the other contributing factors?

[The Third Nova Terra of Scrin]

I think somewhere along the line someone didn't bother paying attention to what I actually said. Many posts arguing against my point that religion causes war have said something along the lines that I was claiming that religion was the cause of ALL wars. I never said this, and if you would go back and re-read what I said you 'might' be able to understand.

I'm saying that religion has caused 'many' wars. I think that anyone with any sense can agree that 1 war is 1 war too many. You cant justify one cause of war just because there are other causes of war. Each religious war has cost many lives, lives that did not need to be lost and were lost because of an unjustified belief system. Lives that would not have been lost in that war if religion wasn't around to cause it.

It doesn't even MATTER if the crusades were caused more by political concerns(which btw I disagree with) because religion made them possible in the first place. Saying "oh well something else would have caused them" is ignorant. You have no idea what would or wouldn't happen with religion out of the picture.

And the war on terror isn't a religious war? Not officially, and I never said it was. I said that people treat it like one. That alone means people are out there killing each other in the name of their God. And you wanna get technical? Al Qaeda declared Jihad. Jihad is a religious holy war like the crusades. We're fighting against a Jihad.

The problem with religion causing wars is not that it's the religion itself that causes wars, it's us humans using religion to start wars. Humans are dicks and can skillfully find out any excuse to start a war.

Just, look at the Crusades, Jesus Christ taught against violence, but the Crusaders went anyway fighting and going on to massacre people. Note that it's not the Christian religion that actually caused the war as Christ preached against violence but that it's the Western Europeans' interpretation of Christianity that led to war. Any belief system and ideological system can be made to be violent, even environmentalism. Eco-terrorists exist, even though they're a fringe. You get my point.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

Define god please.

A supernaturally powerful being with the ability to dramatically alter the universe at will, possessing intelligence and purpose.

May or may not be omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, etc.

[Vilatania]

I think somewhere along the line someone didn't bother paying attention to what I actually said. Many posts arguing against my point that religion causes war have said something along the lines that I was claiming that religion was the cause of ALL wars. I never said this, and if you would go back and re-read what I said you 'might' be able to understand.

I'm saying that religion has caused 'many' wars. I think that anyone with any sense can agree that 1 war is 1 war too many. You cant justify one cause of war just because there are other causes of war. Each religious war has cost many lives, lives that did not need to be lost and were lost because of an unjustified belief system. Lives that would not have been lost in that war if religion wasn't around to cause it.

It doesn't even MATTER if the crusades were caused more by political concerns(which btw I disagree with) because religion made them possible in the first place. Saying "oh well something else would have caused them" is ignorant. You have no idea what would or wouldn't happen with religion out of the picture.

And the war on terror isn't a religious war? Not officially, and I never said it was. I said that people treat it like one. That alone means people are out there killing each other in the name of their God. And you wanna get technical? Al Qaeda declared Jihad. Jihad is a religious holy war like the crusades. We're fighting against a Jihad.

The problem with religion causing wars is not that it's the religion itself that causes wars, it's us humans using religion to start wars. Humans are dicks and can skillfully find out any excuse to start a war.

Just, look at the Crusades, Jesus Christ taught against violence, but the Crusaders went anyway fighting and going on to massacre people. Note that it's not the Christian religion that actually caused the war as Christ preached against violence but that it's the Western Europeans' interpretation of Christianity that led to war. Any belief system and ideological system can be made to be violent, even environmentalism. Eco-terrorists exist, even though they're a fringe. You get my point.

Seems that you haven't read your religions holy book. It endorses violence. And Slavery. Have you read the Book of Deuteronomy?

Deuteronomy 20:16: However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy[a] them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you. 18 Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the Lord your God.

Just because it contradicts itself like with passages such as Genesis 9:6 and Jesus talking about non violence doesn't mean people aren't going to read other parts of the bible and come to the opposite conclusion about what God wants from his followers.

It sounds like God says "Don't commit violence, unless I want you to".

If Religion is the justification for the war, then it is a religious war. One that would not have been justified without religion. There would have been NO Crusades or Jihads if there was no Christianity or Islam. It doesn't matter what it is or isn't supposed to endorse. The only thing that matters is that a significant amount of the followers believe that it calls for them to kill each other in their God's name and they act upon it.

Sure you Christians who aren't killing people should be innocent right? Doesn't matter, your/they aren't doing anything to put a stop to the actions of the ones that are, to put a stop to the misunderstandings of YOUR holy book. Instead you bicker and argue with each other about the right way to worship Jesus, accomplishing NOTHING.

[Ardoki]

Define god please.

A supernaturally powerful being with the ability to dramatically alter the universe at will, possessing intelligence and purpose.

May or may not be omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, etc.

I find that a very narrow and Abrahamic-centric interpretation of god.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

A supernaturally powerful being with the ability to dramatically alter the universe at will, possessing intelligence and purpose.

May or may not be omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, etc.

I find that a very narrow and Abrahamic-centric interpretation of god.

I really don't think it's that abrahamic-centric. It easily applies to the Norse pantheon, the Greek pantheon, the Kami of Shinto, the Hindu gods, etc.

Frankly, expanding the definition beyond that waters it down to the point of uselessness.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

I think somewhere along the line someone didn't bother paying attention to what I actually said. Many posts arguing against my point that religion causes war have said something along the lines that I was claiming that religion was the cause of ALL wars. I never said this, and if you would go back and re-read what I said you 'might' be able to understand.

I'm saying that religion has caused 'many' wars. I think that anyone with any sense can agree that 1 war is 1 war too many. You cant justify one cause of war just because there are other causes of war. Each religious war has cost many lives, lives that did not need to be lost and were lost because of an unjustified belief system. Lives that would not have been lost in that war if religion wasn't around to cause it.

It doesn't even MATTER if the crusades were caused more by political concerns(which btw I disagree with) because religion made them possible in the first place. Saying "oh well something else would have caused them" is ignorant. You have no idea what would or wouldn't happen with religion out of the picture.

And the war on terror isn't a religious war? Not officially, and I never said it was. I said that people treat it like one. That alone means people are out there killing each other in the name of their God. And you wanna get technical? Al Qaeda declared Jihad. Jihad is a religious holy war like the crusades. We're fighting against a Jihad.

How did religion make the Crusades possible in the first place? Because Catholics?

The First Crusade started when the Byzantine Empire asked the Pope to send aid to beat back the Turks.

[Ardoki]

I find that a very narrow and Abrahamic-centric interpretation of god.

I really don't think it's that abrahamic-centric. It easily applies to the Norse pantheon, the Greek pantheon, the Kami of Shinto, the Hindu gods, etc.

Frankly, expanding the definition beyond that waters it down to the point of uselessness.

You're wrong about Hinduism.

http://www.hinduwebsite.com/brahmanmain.asp

http://www.hinduwebsite.com/hinduism/h_polytheism.asp

Brahman is basically very similar to a pantheistic interpretation of god, you could easily argue it is in fact one. Everything else is just a manifestation of Brahman (humans, animals, plants, rocks, etc), and Brahman is worshipped through the devas and other deities as kind of idols. The reason I like Hinduism is it is quite similar to my pantheistic beliefs on some ways.

[Vilatania]

I think somewhere along the line someone didn't bother paying attention to what I actually said. Many posts arguing against my point that religion causes war have said something along the lines that I was claiming that religion was the cause of ALL wars. I never said this, and if you would go back and re-read what I said you 'might' be able to understand.

I'm saying that religion has caused 'many' wars. I think that anyone with any sense can agree that 1 war is 1 war too many. You cant justify one cause of war just because there are other causes of war. Each religious war has cost many lives, lives that did not need to be lost and were lost because of an unjustified belief system. Lives that would not have been lost in that war if religion wasn't around to cause it.

It doesn't even MATTER if the crusades were caused more by political concerns(which btw I disagree with) because religion made them possible in the first place. Saying "oh well something else would have caused them" is ignorant. You have no idea what would or wouldn't happen with religion out of the picture.

And the war on terror isn't a religious war? Not officially, and I never said it was. I said that people treat it like one. That alone means people are out there killing each other in the name of their God. And you wanna get technical? Al Qaeda declared Jihad. Jihad is a religious holy war like the crusades. We're fighting against a Jihad.

How did religion make the Crusades possible in the first place? Because Catholics?

The First Crusade started when the Byzantine Empire asked the Pope to send aid to beat back the Turks.

And why exactly would the Pope be interested in committing to war? If he had a non-religious reason for committing to war, why would European armies march over there for the popes political concerns? Cuz Religion.