What separates your god from mine?

[Jolthig]

My God is the One and Only who revealed the Holy Quran to prophet Muhammad (saw), and then, sent huh is messiah, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (as) of Qadian, India to revive the faith of Muhammad (saw) during a time that darkness would penetrate all of the world.

He sends signs and true dreams to those who are righteous, and sincerely believe in Him.

But why is he better than Vishnu with Krishna ?

Well for one, he doesnt send himself in human form.

Two, he doesnt punish people with ridiculous reincarnation for who knows what since there is no reincarnation in Islam

[Heloin]

I don't really know. I think the church I go to has got it right, but I'm not to put off by the possibility I may be wrong.


They call themselves Muslims therefor they are.

Lolok. So if someone calls themselves a Muslim yet they believe in the trinity they're still Muslim?

Yes, for a group. You may be able to argue that they're not that great a being a Muslim but if a group of people still call themselves Muslims then what they are following is some sort of Islam. For a single individual, well I'm more inclined to agree with you.

[United Universal Union]

The only god is the King in Yellow and y'all are just confused.


Oh, I need to answe- I mean, I don't believe in a god simply because I find the idea quite... Silly, especially when it comes to Abrahamic gods, which is why I usually pretend to believe in Hastur, since it's a deity that doesn't exist, but, prove that, go on, prove something to not exist.

[The Emerald Legion]

I've seen many arguments for their religion ranging from Hindus to Christians, all of which claim that the universe was created by a deity and because the universe would be impossible without a deity, their is one named *Insert their religion here*. Now while I do believe they bring up some good points, something has always bugged me about it... the end. Why exactly does this intelligent deity need to be your god in particular?

For the record, this is not why you believe in a deity. I don't care about that. I'm questioning why you believe in the deity(ies). What separates your one particular religion from all the "false" ones?

I'm personally a Greek "Pagan" because... well... faith mostly. There was no great revelation where Zeus himself talked to me in a dream, or I prayed to Poseidon for my ship to not crash during a bad storm and the storm subsided (Though, the Gods really don't work like that, they're way more chaotic). I ask again though, what separates your god(s) from mine?

I'm a Norse Pagan, and our respective Pantheons are structurealy similar. But conceptually and culturaly they are different.

Uh. Wut.

How is Norse Paganism at all like Greek Paganism? The relationship between the gods and Humanity is entirely different, there are certain similarities, but not many.

[Hanafuridake]

Oh Buddhism and Tengrism are both super syncretic religions they mix with everything

...Tengri Buddhist Christianity is possible without being heresy?

No, it's really not, from either a Christian or Buddhist perspective. Buddhism rejects the concept of a creator god, believes in reincarnation, and sees heaven and hell as temporary rewards or punishments. Christians believe that there is One God who created the universe, that there is only one life in this world, and that one's stay in heaven or hell is eternal. It is a disservice to either of those religions to ignore the massive differences between them and pretend they're bridgeable. It's like the Asian version of Unitarian Universalism.

But why is he better than Vishnu with Krishna ?

Well for one, he doesnt send himself in human form.

Two, he doesnt punish people with ridiculous reincarnation for who knows what since there is no reincarnation in Islam

How either of those things are supposed to make Vishnu “inferior” is not very well stated, and betrays an ignorance about Vaishnavism. Hindus would assert that Krishna was not an incarnation in human form, but had a celestial body that appeared to be human because of maya (illusion) because in the Bhagavad Gita, the climax of the book comes when he reveals his absolute form (Vishvarupa) to Arjuna, who is unable to bear gazing upon it and begs Krishna to return to his form as four-armed Vishnu. Reincarnation is a far less painful punishment than eternal damnation, and the principle goal is to break the cycle and return to God.

The idea that one concept of God is “superior” or “inferior” to the other is completely naive and sounds more like a battle of the egos than a selfless pursuit of truth.

[Liberated Communist States]

I'm a Norse Pagan, and our respective Pantheons are structurealy similar. But conceptually and culturaly they are different.

Uh. Wut.

How is Norse Paganism at all like Greek Paganism? The relationship between the gods and Humanity is entirely different, there are certain similarities, but not many.

I meant the structure of the stories. But yes they obviously are quite different.

[Jolthig]

...Tengri Buddhist Christianity is possible without being heresy?

No, it's really not, from either a Christian or Buddhist perspective. Buddhism rejects the concept of a creator god, believes in reincarnation, and sees heaven and hell as temporary rewards or punishments. Christians believe that there is One God who created the universe, that there is only one life in this world, and that one's stay in heaven or hell is eternal. It is a disservice to either of those religions to ignore the massive differences between them and pretend they're bridgeable. It's like the Asian version of Unitarian Universalism.

Well for one, he doesnt send himself in human form.

Two, he doesnt punish people with ridiculous reincarnation for who knows what since there is no reincarnation in Islam

How either of those things are supposed to make Vishnu “inferior” is not very well stated, and betrays an ignorance about Vaishnavism. Hindus would assert that Krishna was not an incarnation in human form, but had a celestial body that appeared to be human because of maya (illusion) because in the Bhagavad Gita, the climax of the book comes when he reveals his absolute form (Vishvarupa) to Arjuna, who is unable to bear gazing upon it and begs Krishna to return to his form as four-armed Vishnu. Reincarnation is a far less painful punishment than eternal damnation, and the principle goal is to break the cycle and return to God.

The idea that one concept of God is “superior” or “inferior” to the other is completely naive and sounds more like a battle of the egos than a selfless pursuit of truth.

Not really. The views I got my information from comes from the Aryah Samajists. Sure, maybe, but I remember reading a passage where Krishna had affairs with his female disciples before they went back to their husbands. Don't remember the exact reference though. Also, I don't believe in eternal damnation, but rather, universal salvation after a period in hell for the sinners. Your point doesn't refute how pointless reincarnation is. To be given an animal's body or some alien's somewhere in the universe is ridiculous.

It's not about egotism. It's about what religion is alive. Islam argues that in order for a faith and god to be alive, one god must always be in communication with those who sincerely believe and follow Allah. Allah also gives signs to those who disbelieve. Whether in the form of a natural disaster or dreams/visions.

[Ridickistan]

I am a Jew and I believe in the G-d of my ancestors. I generally think that all people on Earth can benefit from having a religious belief, as long as it is one that encourages moral behavior; I would say that most of them do, in fact. The reason that I think it's right for me to believe in my G-d and for you to believe in yours, is because there's no sense in interfering with long-standing traditions that serve good purposes.

[Luziyca]

The fact that I am alive: as my God is myself, it is clear that alone separates my god from yours.

[Internationalist Bastard]

No, it’s actually really simple to combine them
He*l there was Tengri-Muslims with Buddhist and Manicheran aspects

Yeah, they weren't Muslim if that's true.

If you have problems with Muslims integrating local beliefs you have a lot of Muslims to yell at

[Internationalist Bastard]

No, it’s actually really simple to combine them
Hell there was Tengri-Muslims with Buddhist and Manicheran aspects

....

Tell me how.

I'm interested now.

Not maybe as converting, but the concept is fascinating.

Basic gist
Tengri is just a sky god so he goes with most religions
Buddhism is more philosophical than religious so it can be applied across religions. Note the many cases Olin Asia of Buddhist Syncretism

[Internationalist Bastard]

The only god is the King in Yellow and y'all are just confused.


Oh, I need to answe- I mean, I don't believe in a god simply because I find the idea quite... Silly, especially when it comes to Abrahamic gods, which is why I usually pretend to believe in Hastur, since it's a deity that doesn't exist, but, prove that, go on, prove something to not exist.

Calling the Emperor a King
Smh

[Hanafuridake]

....

Tell me how.

I'm interested now.

Not maybe as converting, but the concept is fascinating.

Basic gist
Tengri is just a sky god so he goes with most religions
Buddhism is more philosophical than religious so it can be applied across religions. Note the many cases Olin Asia of Buddhist Syncretism

The distinction between philosophical and religious is an arbitrary construction: Buddhist philosophy is religious philosophy. It's not secular or agnostic, and has religious elements which makes it incompatible with other religions, or even other sects (just look at the fierce rivalries between Gelugpa and Nyingma over “philosophical” issues). Your statement isn't based on any tenet or text from Buddhism, but instead on an appeal to common practice.

[United Universal Union]

The only god is the King in Yellow and y'all are just confused.


Oh, I need to answe- I mean, I don't believe in a god simply because I find the idea quite... Silly, especially when it comes to Abrahamic gods, which is why I usually pretend to believe in Hastur, since it's a deity that doesn't exist, but, prove that, go on, prove something to not exist.

Calling the Emperor a King
Smh

The King needs not pathetic titles like Emperor, for they are the King in Yellow!

[Seangoli]

Yeah, they weren't Muslim if that's true.

If you have problems with Muslims integrating local beliefs you have a lot of Muslims to yell at

Yeah... one of the defining characteristics of Islam, particularly during its expansion, was allowong syncretic systems to exist that allowed the incorporation of local beliefs into Islam proper.

[Trumptonium1]

My god created the greatest civilisation on earth - what did yours do?

[The Emerald Legion]

My god created the greatest civilisation on earth - what did yours do?

You worship the founding fathers?

[Kubra]

Mine is like yours, but with hookers and blackjack

[Valrifell]

My god created the greatest civilisation on earth - what did yours do?

You worship the founding fathers?

No I think he means Romulus. Or Megas Alexandros. Or Augustus Caesar. Or Lady Brittania.

Wow, a lot of great statesmen and nations were deified.

[The World Capitalist Confederation]

My god created the greatest civilisation on earth - what did yours do?

Ahh, worshipping Vladimir Lenin, I see? Nah, jk. You're actually worshipping...er....Durruti? *Throws a copy of Homage to Catalonia at you*

[Ithreland]

I believe this God(Christian) has the most historical evidence.

I believe it more realistic than Islam as well, based on how it seems to be warped and very different. Christianity seemed like a Liberal version of Judaism, or something, an evolution.


Islam, seems so different that it's like a spin-off that seems to be so alien. While I recognize this is how Jews felt about Christians, the Christian from Judaism evolution felt natural and more like how Protestants evolved from Catholics(By the way in my word evolve I don't mean any are right or wrong, just useful phrase). Islam felt like a bizarre alien thing that was totally detached from the Abrahamic religions in all but name and loose connections, and doesn't have nearly as much evidence to satisfy me.


It's hard to explain, I may have explained poorly, but I just feel my religion is the most realistic and most historically likely and has the most evidence and of many religions's prophecies, it is the one with the most fulfilled,personally. (Barring prophecies that were fulfilled while at the writing of the predictions and fulfillments, else that's just cheating, then you can write as many fulfilled prophecies as you want while writing so-and-so made those prophecies long before.)

^

[Old Tyrannia]

This is an interesting question, certainly more original than the by-now rather clichéd "why do you believe in God?" Nonetheless, I feel that the latter must be answered before one can adequately answer the question posed by the OP. I am an Anglican Christian, and I believe in God not because of any overwhelmingly compelling evidence I see for His existence, but because the existence of God is an unprovable axiom on which my worldview is predicated and therefore one which I must take on faith alone. Any consistent values system must, in my opinion, be at least partially predicated on at least one axiom that is unprovable and therefore demands faith; a philosophy that rejects any belief that cannot be rationalised is, as I see it, inherently unstable and unviable. Whether there is or is not an ontologically real deity, I find faith a necessary aspect of human existence. Since it's a predetermined outcome that I will take a "leap of faith," then, it is rational that I would choose as the object of my faith God as conceptualised by Christianity for a couple of reasons.

The first and probably most easily critiqued reason for choosing Anglicanism is that it is the historically dominant form of theist belief in my home country. It's therefore the one most accessible to me and most compatible with my cultural background and traditions. It goes a little deeper than that, however. Part of the appeal of Anglicanism is that it is a major influence- if not the major influence- on the development of the society in which I live. Because I value the institutions and values of British society, which are rooted in the Anglican and Presbyterian traditions of the Christian faith, I naturally view Anglicanism as a positive social and cultural force, and it's therefore rational for me to prefer it. This is the sort of line of thinking that atheists and occasionally religious believers advocating for another faith tradition often critique as "belief in belief-" that is, the belief that a belief itself is beneficial to individuals or societies. Obviously, this in itself not an argument for the veracity of that belief, and arguments from this perspective are easily perceived as evidence of insincerity of belief on the part of the arguer. However, I would contend that it is not irrational to consider the kind of society that proceeds from the implementation of a religious value system as a test of that religion's truth. After all, if implementing the commands of a supposedly all-loving god results in a society that seems harsh, cruel and unstable, then that ought to constitute a challenge to either the veracity of that religion or the character of its god. To put it another way, as Dostoevsky puts it in his book Demons, each great nation has its own particular god, or conception of God, and is driven by the belief that their god is the true god and by that god's power they will be ultimately triumphant. As a patriotic Briton and Englishman, it is quite logical that I should place my faith in the God of the English.

Secondly, as I have detailed previously on this forum, I am drawn to Christianity on a personal level because of the sublime beauty of its central idea, which is the Incarnation. In no other belief system I have studied has the supreme being of the universe volunteered to be born into the world as an ordinary human being, and to suffer and die as a human being, out of the love of humanity and a desire to heal a rift between mankind and God. It's the beauty of this central doctrine that elevates Christianity above the cacophony of rivalling religious perspectives for me. Besides this, the indirect nature of Christ's teachings- the way He offered moral guidance not in the form of legalistic commands in the manner of the Old Testament God but through parables that offered examples for Christians to follow, alongside His own life and ministry as the greatest of all moral examples- gives Christianity a moral depth that I perceive as absent in the more legalistic traditions of Islam and Judaism or the amoral conduct of the old pagan deities.

That having been said, I don't claim that my particular religious tradition has a monopoly on divine truth. In fact, I am perfectly open to the possibility of the divine reaching followers of other faiths through different channels, and indeed I pray that it has. As I understand it, religions act as vehicles to bring humanity closer to the divine, both on an individual and a societal level. It's possible that the different vehicles may be approaching a common destination, with each religious tradition possessing a slightly distorted understanding of the ultimate truth. I wouldn't feel totally confident in stating that my own faith tradition is perfectly accurate in its conception of God; I certainly can't claim to fully understand Him, and indeed, I think most traditional Christian thinkers would deny that it is possible for any human to do so. I think it is quite possible to identify common, universal values between the world's major religious traditions, and that it is possible to learn from the beliefs of others without compromising the integrity of one's faith. My thinking here is most strongly influenced by the Anglican theologian and existentialist philosopher, John Macquarrie, and his book Mediators Between Human and Divine: From Moses to Muhammad. I appreciate that I depart here from the traditionally exclusivist position of Christianity, and I'm sure that will get me in trouble with my fellow Christians in this thread, but alas I can only believe what I believe, with the fervence and conviction that is available to me. Ultimately, I must put my faith in the absolute benevolence of God, and have confidence that He would never permit one who earnestly seeks Him to be lost to the darkness.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

So how is an atheist supposed to go about answering this question?

[Hammer Britannia]

So how is an atheist supposed to go about answering this question?

You cannot

[LiberNovusAmericae]

So how is an atheist supposed to go about answering this question?

Just say "unlike yours, mine doesn't exist" or something to that affect.