Polytheism and monotheism

Does God exist? Is Allah God? Creation vs. evolution.
Is Religion needed? Logic vs. faith. Morality and ethics.
Idesigner
Posts: 1867
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 6:51 pm

Re: Polytheism and monotheism

Post by Idesigner »

Aksel Ankersen wrote:Having just read the thread, I would say polytheism is illogical, because multiple, diverse gods with different origins cannot establish a universal standard of morality. If you have read Plato's Eurythphro you will see that in a polytheistic system there cannot be a universal standard of right vs wrong and piety vs impiety when such things are defined according to the interests of various conflicting gods.

In later henotheistic systems each god represented an attribute or virtue of the One God that people strived for, sometime taken as a patron deity or spirit.
Dear A.A.,

You mean to say polytheism is not moral because of diverse standards and beliefss in many gods. Following morality ideas of many many gods.

Well one bad dictatorial, chauvinist monotheistic god can also make pretty absurd laws like a Hitler and make life miserable for his belivers. Take example of Mohemmed and Islam or Moses and his very angry god Yahwahe. See how Moses' god made life miserable for Egyptians as well his own people. Jews getting lost for some 12 years in desrt. :D

Explain me the morality of all so called monotheistic religions whose followers killed, destroyed and decimated many primitive tribes living on islands some 8000 mile away . Talk about morality of ancient jews who had no compunction killing pagan tribes who worshipped other gods. Of very moral Christians who forcefully converted and killed pagans in their new colonies.


Polytheists are lot more moral than monotheist. They respect gods of other people. They were not known for forcing their belief on others. . I dont know whether Romans or Greeks destroyed temples of other primitive people and forced them to worship their own gods.

ID

Yohan
Posts: 2272
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:27 pm

Re: Polytheism and monotheism

Post by Yohan »

Idesigner wrote:You mean to say polytheism is not moral because of diverse standards and beliefss in many gods. Following morality ideas of many many gods.

Well one bad dictatorial, chauvinist monotheistic god can also make pretty absurd laws like a Hitler and make life miserable for his belivers. Take example of Mohemmed and Islam or Moses and his very angry god Yahwahe. See how Moses' god made life miserable for Egyptians as well his own people. Jews getting lost for some 12 years in desrt. :D

Explain me the morality of all so called monotheistic religions whose followers killed, destroyed and decimated many primitive tribes living on islands some 8000 mile away . Talk about morality of ancient jews who had no compunction killing pagan tribes who worshipped other gods. Of very moral Christians who forcefully converted and killed pagans in their new colonies.

Polytheists are lot more moral than monotheist. They respect gods of other people. They were not known for forcing their belief on others. . I dont know whether Romans or Greeks destroyed temples of other primitive people and forced them to worship their own gods.
I have brought this topic of the morality advantage of monothiest religions earlier. (I consider Buddhism monotheist.) The replies to counter it have only mentioned exceptions in polytheist religions, and were not worth my reply. There are good and bad morality, but everything considered and balanced, Monotheist religions do have an advantage. Islam is an example of bad morality, neverthless it points to the hold of morality in monotheist religions.

Do not bringup the bad deeds of monotheists to disprove this point. That would be like bringing up Gandhi to prove polytheist religions have better morality.

I had also mentioned that Hinduism is the only living major polytheist religion, and its core belief is all men are NOT created equal. That means Hinduism can in no way claim any moral high ground. Neverthless it is a core moral belief in Hinduism and it does have a strong hold over it. Other now dead polytheistic religions had its own problems, mainly due to a lack of moral hold on the religions, which led to its demise.

In summary, moral hold in a religion and hence over its believers, whether they are good or bad, makes a religion last.
Last edited by Yohan on Fri Apr 10, 2009 6:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

crazymonkie_
Posts: 1899
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 7:01 am

Re: Polytheism and monotheism

Post by crazymonkie_ »

BlacKStaR wrote:[So you mean to say, that in this planet, rich with many diverse life forms, so sophisticated and complex in physical terms from the most tinniest to the largest..HAS NO CREATOR FOR IT????????????????????????? SO THESE LIFE FORMS CAME OUT FROM NOWHERE????????????????? :prop:
Ah, the watchmaker argument. How I missed thee.

You've started from a conclusion and are working backward toward evidence. You're assuming that the complexity *needed* a creator. Abiogenesis is in its very early stages, so *right now* it's a mystery as to how it happened- but there have been some good starts. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8nYTJf62sE

Life forms didn't come from 'nowhere.'
Thats why you atheists are such losers in life. You dont think above your capabilities. While many many scientists are embracing religion today, atheists are becoming more threatened that their non existent intelligence too becoming extinct.
Ouch. An ad hominem, appeal to authority, ad hominem sandwich.
You know what Jacques Costeau once said??? " science risk running into error when it does not recognize miracles"

and

"If we were logical, the future would be bleak, indeed. But we are more than logical. We are human beings, and we have faith, and we have hope, and we can work. "


Think about it.
I don't need to think about it. It's an appeal to authority, and doesn't prove anything beyond that Cousteau didn't even grow or change beyond his cultural indoctrination when it comes to faith, miracles and logic.

crazymonkie_
Posts: 1899
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 7:01 am

Re: Polytheism and monotheism

Post by crazymonkie_ »

Yohan wrote:I have brought this topic of the morality advantage of monothiest religions earlier. (I consider Buddhism monotheist.)
Weird that you consider Buddhism monotheist, considering that, depending on the sect, there are many gods or none at all. It's a non-theistic religion; not monotheist, not polytheist, but something else.
The replies to counter it have only mentioned exceptions in polytheist religions, and were not worth my reply. There are good and bad morality, but everything considered and balanced, Monotheist religions do have an advantage. Islam is an example of bad morality, neverthless it points to the hold of morality in monotheist religions.
How exactly are monotheistic religions more moral? Monotheistic religions simply have hijacked the morality found in earlier religions- stolen it, really- and said either that other religions before them were from 'the Devil' or were put there by god to prepare the superior morality of their religion.

Which is bunk on both accounts. I cannot imagine how someone could say that Plato's or Aristotle's beliefs were less moral than montheists', especially considering that one of the monotheistic religions (Christianity) ripped off the morality of those two *whole cloth* and claimed they were making something entirely new.

Another poster also brought up how the Romans had a god for °each virtue*. That's just one example.
Do not bringup the bad deeds of monotheists to disprove this point. That would be like bringing up Gandhi to prove polytheist religions have better morality.
Fair enough. Though it does happen all the time, from all the sides. It really makes the case more that everyone's wrong and that gods are all made up, anyway, because if followers of any religious or philosophical system can be equally horrible to other human beings, it shows that god or the gods don't care, are indifferent, are malicious or don't exist. If any of the first three are the case, they *may* exist but aren't worthy of worship. If the last is the case, then it doesn't matter anyway.
I had also mentioned that Hinduism is the only living major polytheist religion, and its core belief is all men are NOT created equal. That means Hinduism can in no way claim any moral high ground. Other now dead polytheistic religions had its own problems, mainly due to a lack of moral hold on the religions, which led to its demise.
The core belief that all men are not created equal is not unique to Hinduism. Monotheistic religions may have paid lip service to the idea of human equality, but just looking at what many of the monotheistic religions did to other human beings belies that idea. They still had slaves- whether permanent or temporary, or even slaves with inherited status from their parents- and they still treated women horrendously. NOBODY got it right until very recently- then everybody decided to ride the coattails of social change and act like it had always been that way. Sort of like the Catholic Church and the mass enslavement of Africans in the New World.

'Moral hold,' BTW- strange term for 'autocratic control over doctrine.' That was and remains the *strength* of polytheistic religions- that they can actually consider philosophical questions without getting the bonfires ready for a burning or the horses ready for a drawing and quartering. What led to their demise was, in each case, a state (or horde, in the case of Islam) that accepted the monotheistic religions as their guiding force, then started attacking or massacring those in their way. That Islam's way was prepared by about 300 years of monotheism in most of the Middle East and the Roman Empire at the time goes unnoticed by most, but it's important to understand that the scutwork for the third monotheistic religion was already taken care of by those who outlawed and persecuted the polytheistic groups at the time (later 300s).

So again- it was by the sword. Not by any ideological supremacy.

User avatar
BlacKStaR
Posts: 491
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 1:46 am

Re: Polytheism and monotheism

Post by BlacKStaR »

Aksel Ankersen wrote:
BlacKStaR wrote:So you mean to say, that in this planet, rich with many diverse life forms, so sophisticated and complex in physical terms from the most tinniest to the largest..HAS NO CREATOR FOR IT????????????????????????? SO THESE LIFE FORMS CAME OUT FROM NOWHERE????????????????? :prop:

Thats why you atheists are such losers in life. You dont think above your capabilities. While many many scientists are embracing religion today, atheists are becoming more threatened that their non existent intelligence too becoming extinct.
Could you make your point without insulting other members? This thread has been (unusually for FFI) civil so far.

Shutup Aksel.
/Islam. I am the chill in the air.

User avatar
BlacKStaR
Posts: 491
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 1:46 am

Re: Polytheism and monotheism

Post by BlacKStaR »

CuteCoot wrote:
Aksel Ankersen wrote:In later henotheistic systems each god represented an attribute or virtue of the One God that people strived for, sometime taken as a patron deity or spirit.
One could readily argue that the ninety-nine names of Allah represent 99 attributes, aspects, virtues or what might be seen metaphorically as 99 faces or persons within the One God. The Christians content themselves with three, but the Muslims go all the way to 99.

Just as a single person, just one individual, can be conflicted so too can God. One aspect may be at odds with another. For example, Allah is seen as both compassionate and powerful. In a given situation, it might be better, more moral or virtuous, to exercise one's power. In another, to exercise compassion. In most cases, there will be a conflict there. Some of Allah's attributes are even direct opposites, such as "The Abaser" and "The Exalter".

It may be more realistic to accept the basically conflictual nature of the human psyche and of the divine universe that has been imagined to represent it. Whether this acceptance takes the form of a strict polytheism or of a multi-faceted monotheism may not be too important.
Totally agreed. It is afterall not an issue here. Monotheists choose to believe a singular god while polytheists choose differently. The question what fits their beliefs totally depends on thier own reasoning and judgements and most importantly to which level of spirituality they lean towards to. Then again, there are enemies within such thoughts, where mohammedans enforce their own cowboy rules on polytheists while christians threaten HEll fire on idolaters. You cant find any of this in eastern philosophies. Unlike abrahmaic traditions, hindus have both monotheistic and polytheistic philosophies. BUT Monotheism is the very core of Hinduism.
/Islam. I am the chill in the air.

User avatar
gupsfu
Posts: 549
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 8:32 pm

Re: Polytheism and monotheism

Post by gupsfu »

So you mean to say, that in this planet, rich with many diverse life forms, so sophisticated and complex in physical terms from the most tinniest to the largest..HAS NO CREATOR FOR IT????????????????????????? SO THESE LIFE FORMS CAME OUT FROM NOWHERE?????????????????
SO THIS CREATOR CAME OUT FROM NOWHERE?????????????????

:lol:
"Is there anybody out there? Just nod if you can hear me." ~ Roger Waters

User avatar
BlacKStaR
Posts: 491
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 1:46 am

Re: Polytheism and monotheism

Post by BlacKStaR »

Brendalee wrote:
So you mean to say, that in this planet, rich with many diverse life forms, so sophisticated and complex in physical terms from the most tinniest to the largest..HAS NO CREATOR FOR IT????????????????????????? SO THESE LIFE FORMS CAME OUT FROM NOWHERE????????????????? :prop:
Because you cannot explain life and this planet, you simply ASSIGN a cause for it which has no empirical evidence for it whatsoever?

The lack of an explanation is not proof that some unsubstantiated theory must somehow be more correct than any other arbitrary random theory.

I
From a scientific point of view, you can estimate how many billion years life took to form on earth blah blah blah. As I told earlier, I TOTALLY AGREE ON THESE SCIENTIFIC VIEWS. I am not against it.

BUT , thats where it ends for spiritualists and scientists. Science does not have any kind of tools to measure the brilliance of the creator. NEITHER DOES Spirituality has any time to do scientific research. While we are still at it, spirituality most often indulges in the primal question of the self, who am i, what am i doing here, suffering, life etc etc, which atheists or science can never answer with their logic and also the quest to answer many things from the reason of existence to the universe.
Now can science answer all these questions?
/Islam. I am the chill in the air.

User avatar
gupsfu
Posts: 549
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 8:32 pm

Re: Polytheism and monotheism

Post by gupsfu »

BlacKStaR wrote:Now can science answer all these questions?
No, but neither can religion.

There are all kinds of religions out there providing all kinds of answers. Unfortunately, not a single one of those "answers" comes with evidence.

It's better to admit we don't know than to arbitrarily believing an unproven "answer".
"Is there anybody out there? Just nod if you can hear me." ~ Roger Waters

User avatar
BlacKStaR
Posts: 491
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 1:46 am

Re: Polytheism and monotheism

Post by BlacKStaR »

gupsfu wrote:
So you mean to say, that in this planet, rich with many diverse life forms, so sophisticated and complex in physical terms from the most tinniest to the largest..HAS NO CREATOR FOR IT????????????????????????? SO THESE LIFE FORMS CAME OUT FROM NOWHERE?????????????????
SO THIS CREATOR CAME OUT FROM NOWHERE?????????????????

:lol:
You want the answer???

Leave the abhramaic human like gods alone. They are human afterall.

Lets look at the eastern philosophy, for eq, hinduism. Vedic scriptures, for eg, Manu smirti, says very very clearly, before anything existed, only the Cosmic energy existed. Cosmic energy is not the same as the abrahamaic gods. It is an energy that existed infinitely. It has all the characteristics known to us now and at the same time a potential to know about it more. At a certain point of time, the cosmic energy reproduced itself.

Read below the translations of the text by G. Buhler - http://hinduism.about.com/library/weekl ... fmanu1.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; :-

3. 'For thou, O Lord, alone knowest the purport, (i.e.) the rites, and the knowledge of the soul, (taught) in this whole ordinance of the Self-existent (Svayambhu), which is unknowable and unfathomable.'

4. He, whose power is measureless, being thus asked by the high-minded great sages, duly honoured them, and answered, 'Listen!'

5. This (universe) existed in the shape of Darkness, unperceived, destitute of distinctive marks, unattainable by reasoning, unknowable, wholly immersed, as it were, in deep sleep.

6. Then the divine Self-existent (Svayambhu, himself) indiscernible, (but) making (all) this, the great elements and the rest, discernible, appeared with irresistible (creative) power, dispelling the darkness.

7. He who can be perceived by the internal organ (alone), who is subtile, indiscernible, and eternal, who contains all created beings and is inconceivable, shone forth of his own (will).

8. He, desiring to produce beings of many kinds from his own body, first with a thought created the waters, and placed his seed in them.

9. That (seed) became a golden egg, in brilliancy equal to the sun; in that (egg) he himself was born as Brahman, the progenitor of the whole world.

10. The waters are called narah, (for) the waters are, indeed, the offspring of Nara; as they were his first residence (ayana), he thence is named Narayana.

11. From that (first) cause, which is indiscernible, eternal, and both real and unreal, was produced that male (Purusha), who is famed in this world (under the appellation of) Brahman.

12. The divine one resided in that egg during a whole year, then he himself by his thought (alone) divided it into two halves;

13. And out of those two halves he formed heaven and earth, between them the middle sphere, the eight points of the horizon, and the eternal abode of the waters.

14. From himself (atmanah) he also drew forth the mind, which is both real and unreal, likewise from the mind egoism, which possesses the function of self-consciousness (and is) lordly;

15. Moreover, the great one, the soul, and all (products) affected by the three qualities, and, in their order, the five organs which perceive the objects of sensation.

16. But, joining minute particles even of those six, which possess measureless power, with particles of himself, he created all beings.

17. Because those six (kinds of) minute particles, which form the (creator's) frame, enter (a-sri) these (creatures), therefore the wise call his frame sarira, (the body.)

18. That the great elements enter, together with their functions and the mind, through its minute parts the framer of all beings, the imperishable one.

19. But from minute body (-framing) particles of these seven very powerful Purushas springs this (world), the perishable from the imperishable.

20. Among them each succeeding (element) acquires the quality of the preceding one, and whatever place (in the sequence) each of them occupies, even so many qualities it is declared to possess.

21. But in the beginning he assigned their several names, actions, and conditions to all (created beings), even according to the words of the Veda.

22. He, the Lord, also created the class of the gods, who are endowed with life, and whose nature is action; and the subtile class of the Sadhyas, and the eternal sacrifice.

23. But from fire, wind, and the sun he drew forth the threefold eternal Veda, called Rik, Yagus, and Saman, for the due performance of the sacrifice.

24. Time and the divisions of time, the lunar mansions and the planets, the rivers, the oceans, the mountains, plains, and uneven ground.

25. Austerity, speech, pleasure, desire, and anger, this whole creation he likewise produced, as he desired to call these beings into existence.

26. Moreover, in order to distinguish actions, he separated merit from demerit, and he caused the creatures to be affected by the pairs (of opposites), such as pain and pleasure.

27. But with the minute perishable particles of the five (elements) which have been mentioned, this whole (world) is framed in due order.

28. But to whatever course of action the Lord at first appointed each (kind of beings), that alone it has spontaneously adopted in each succeeding creation.

29. Whatever he assigned to each at the (first) creation, noxiousness or harmlessness, gentleness or ferocity, virtue or sin, truth or falsehood, that clung (afterwards) spontaneously to it.

30. As at the change of the seasons each season of its own accord assumes its distinctive marks, even so corporeal beings (resume in new births) their (appointed) course of action.


You can read the entire law of Manu at the hyperlink provided. From this you can tell, that the major difference between spiritualists and non believers is like the chicken and the duck.
/Islam. I am the chill in the air.

User avatar
BlacKStaR
Posts: 491
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 1:46 am

Re: Polytheism and monotheism

Post by BlacKStaR »

gupsfu wrote:
BlacKStaR wrote:Now can science answer all these questions?
No, but neither can religion.

There are all kinds of religions out there providing all kinds of answers. Unfortunately, not a single one of those "answers" comes with evidence.

It's better to admit we don't know than to arbitrarily believing an unproven "answer".
Speak for yourself. Spiritualist have their own views. Like it or not, we have our own opinions on this. You are an atheist afterall, spirituality is hardly a matter of concern for you.
It's better to admit we don't know than to arbitrarily believing an unproven "answer"
Admit that for yourself. Dont include Spiritualists into your childish equations.
/Islam. I am the chill in the air.

crazymonkie_
Posts: 1899
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 7:01 am

Re: Polytheism and monotheism

Post by crazymonkie_ »

BlacKStaR wrote:Science does not have any kind of tools to measure the brilliance of the creator. NEITHER DOES Spirituality has any time to do scientific research.
Though oddly enough, spirituality doesn't have any kind of tools to measure the brilliance of the 'creator' either.
While we are still at it, spirituality most often indulges in the primal question of the self, who am i, what am i doing here, suffering, life etc etc, which atheists or science can never answer with their logic and also the quest to answer many things from the reason of existence to the universe.
Now can science answer all these questions?
As gupsfu said, no, science can't. Those are a mish-mash of cosmological and ethical questions; science can test the veracity of these assertions, but not all of them. For instance: If one defines god as 'a being that lives in a supernatural realm, that is alone, and which created (and perhaps sustained) the universe,' then there are several unprovable assertions in that statement. 'Supernatural', for instance: The supernatural is, by definition, that which cannot be observed, measured or interacted with- not directly, not indirectly. Meaning, for all intents and purposes, it's imaginary. That some *believe* it's there is irrelevant.

'Primal questions of the self' actually *can* be answered by science. The solipism that some post-modern theorists indulged (such as Foucalt) indulged in, reviving the 'problem' of induction, was demolished about a decade ago. Strangely enough, Descarte's "Cogito ergo sum" actually ended up being pretty solid. Though we today have to add a few qualifiers 'I experience things that I wouldn't know about or be able to create in detail ahead of time, and everything around me seems real enough- and empirical evidence backs this up- so therefore, "I think, therefore I am."'

So, bleh.

'What am I doing here?' There is no over-arching purpose to life, in the sense of something that ALL humans should be doing according to some being or beings outside of reality. Beyond just living and doing what comes naturally, of course. Life seems awesome enough to me without having to tack on some pointless concern about what we're doing, REALLY doing maaaaan....

'Suffering.' Too easy. We live on a planet with finite resources. Every single other open mouth on the planet has to compete for these finite resources. Someone must suffer lest the biosphere collapse. It sucks, but until human beings can grow up and figure out how to implement population control measures (my theory- make mandatory parenting classes, like driving classes in high school; if you need a license to drive something that could potentially kill someone if you're not careful, you should need more than a working vagina and penis to make a baby) we're stuck with a great deal of suffering.

So science, as I said, *can* answer some of these questions. Empirical evidence is the key. Science can answer questions, and spirituality cannot (it can only put forth assertions based on what people believe to be true) because of empirical evidence.

User avatar
gupsfu
Posts: 549
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 8:32 pm

Re: Polytheism and monotheism

Post by gupsfu »

BlacKStaR wrote:
gupsfu wrote:
BlacKStaR wrote:Now can science answer all these questions?
No, but neither can religion.

There are all kinds of religions out there providing all kinds of answers. Unfortunately, not a single one of those "answers" comes with evidence.

It's better to admit we don't know than to arbitrarily believing an unproven "answer".
Speak for yourself. Spiritualist have their own views. Like it or not, we have our own opinions on this. You are an atheist afterall, spirituality is hardly a matter of concern for you.
Then don't tell us you can answer questions that even science can't.
BlacKStaR wrote:
It's better to admit we don't know than to arbitrarily believing an unproven "answer".

Admit that for yourself. Dont include Spiritualists into your childish equations.
Most people would agree it's childish to pretend that you know everything.
Last edited by gupsfu on Sat Apr 11, 2009 3:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Is there anybody out there? Just nod if you can hear me." ~ Roger Waters

crazymonkie_
Posts: 1899
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 7:01 am

Re: Polytheism and monotheism

Post by crazymonkie_ »

I wouldn't say 'childish.' I would say 'pretentious' or 'foolish.' Or if there was a word that encapsulated both, I'd use that word.

User avatar
BlacKStaR
Posts: 491
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 1:46 am

Re: Polytheism and monotheism

Post by BlacKStaR »

BlacKStaR wrote:
It's better to admit we don't know than to arbitrarily believing an unproven "answer".

Admit that for yourself. Dont include Spiritualists into your childish equations.
Most people would agree it's childish to pretend that you know everything.[/quote]

Childish reverse arguments dont work on me. Try it on someone else. I have extended the spiritualist reasonings of things, if you dont want to accept it, who can we both blame??? It is not going to make me alot more smarter than you and at the same time vice versa!
/Islam. I am the chill in the air.

crazymonkie_
Posts: 1899
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 7:01 am

Re: Polytheism and monotheism

Post by crazymonkie_ »

Blackstar, just give me this answer: Is there anything else besides that which is 'spiritual' that cannot be measured or experienced, directly or indirectly? And as a follow-up: Does it seem likely that it may just be made-up, if that's the case?

User avatar
gupsfu
Posts: 549
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 8:32 pm

Re: Polytheism and monotheism

Post by gupsfu »

crazymonkie_ wrote:I wouldn't say 'childish.' I would say 'pretentious' or 'foolish.' Or if there was a word that encapsulated both, I'd use that word.
Well may be I was wrong to use the word "pretend" in the first place.
He's not pretending if he really thinks he has all the answers. He's just ... lol
"Is there anybody out there? Just nod if you can hear me." ~ Roger Waters

User avatar
gupsfu
Posts: 549
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 8:32 pm

Re: Polytheism and monotheism

Post by gupsfu »

BlacKStaR wrote:Childish reverse arguments dont work on me. Try it on someone else. I have extended the spiritualist reasonings of things, if you dont want to accept it, who can we both blame??? It is not going to make me alot more smarter than you and at the same time vice versa!
Not trying anything on you, and it's not about who's smarter, at least for me.

I'm only disputing a couple of things you said:
1. Everything needs to be created (but not the creator himself).
2. Religion can answer what science can't.

There's no need to get upset or anything.
"Is there anybody out there? Just nod if you can hear me." ~ Roger Waters

User avatar
BlacKStaR
Posts: 491
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 1:46 am

Re: Polytheism and monotheism

Post by BlacKStaR »

Though oddly enough, spirituality doesn't have any kind of tools to measure the brilliance of the 'creator' either.
:roflmao: What would you know??? Have you tried the simlest tool of them all? its called Meditation.

As gupsfu said, no, science can't. Those are a mish-mash of cosmological and ethical questions; science can test the veracity of these assertions, but not all of them. For instance: If one defines god as 'a being that lives in a supernatural realm, that is alone, and which created (and perhaps sustained) the universe,' then there are several unprovable assertions in that statement. 'Supernatural', for instance: The supernatural is, by definition, that which cannot be observed, measured or interacted with- not directly, not indirectly. Meaning, for all intents and purposes, it's imaginary. That some *believe* it's there is irrelevant.
Read my posting from the manu smirti. The first 10 lines. Hindus dont define god to a " Limited Finite" being.
'Primal questions of the self' actually *can* be answered by science. The solipism that some post-modern theorists indulged (such as Foucalt) indulged in, reviving the 'problem' of induction, was demolished about a decade ago. Strangely enough, Descarte's "Cogito ergo sum" actually ended up being pretty solid. Though we today have to add a few qualifiers 'I experience things that I wouldn't know about or be able to create in detail ahead of time, and everything around me seems real enough- and empirical evidence backs this up- so therefore, "I think, therefore I am."'

So, bleh.
Not good enough. You suffer, therefore you are.and so forth all beings in the cycle of life. You thoughts are not important to the extent until you say " I think, therefore I am". I am least interested on your personal thoughts.

'
What am I doing here?' There is no over-arching purpose to life, in the sense of something that ALL humans should be doing according to some being or beings outside of reality. Beyond just living and doing what comes naturally, of course. Life seems awesome enough to me without having to tack on some pointless concern about what we're doing, REALLY doing maaaaan....
What is pointless to your small unimportant meaningless existence is a great quest of spiritualists.Hindu sages seek to answer these questions in the most acceptable manner.I would suggest you to start reading the ancient vedic texts. Perhaps your world view would spell a small change.
'Suffering.' Too easy. We live on a planet with finite resources. Every single other open mouth on the planet has to compete for these finite resources. Someone must suffer lest the biosphere collapse. It sucks, but until human beings can grow up and figure out how to implement population control measures (my theory- make mandatory parenting classes, like driving classes in high school; if you need a license to drive something that could potentially kill someone if you're not careful, you should need more than a working vagina and penis to make a baby) we're stuck with a great deal of suffering.
Study buddhism. It addresses suffering perfectly. Your idea of penis and vagina is superficial. The thoughts and makings of a perfect mohammedan. Where if you dont procreate, allah will punish you in his eternal oven.
So science, as I said, *can* answer some of these questions. Empirical evidence is the key. Science can answer questions, and spirituality cannot (it can only put forth assertions based on what people believe to be true) because of empirical evidence.
Science is limited to its own category. Spirituality and mysticism is a completely different ballgame. Dont make the fundamental mistake of including science into the equation. Spiritualists do not use your scientific findings in their equations. They dont have the time to do so.
/Islam. I am the chill in the air.

User avatar
BlacKStaR
Posts: 491
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 1:46 am

Re: Polytheism and monotheism

Post by BlacKStaR »

gupsfu wrote:
BlacKStaR wrote:Childish reverse arguments dont work on me. Try it on someone else. I have extended the spiritualist reasonings of things, if you dont want to accept it, who can we both blame??? It is not going to make me alot more smarter than you and at the same time vice versa!
Not trying anything on you, and it's not about who's smarter, at least for me.

I'm only disputing a couple of things you said:
1. Everything needs to be created (but not the creator himself).
2. Religion can answer what science can't.

There's no need to get upset or anything.

Why do you still dispute things? I already told you, Spirituality thinks differently. You cant dispute who is right or wrong. I already told you I am pro science. BUT at the same time i am also a spiritualist.

You go on again and again asking the same question.
Read the line from the manu smirti that i posted just before this. The creator wished it. Potential energy changed at its own will. This happens even in our own existence. I cant stop YOU from carrying out your wishes! Who am i to do that???

Spirituality " thinks" the way science cant. It doesnt use any physical tools to measure anything. No labrats or syringes or microscopes. Spirituality delves deep into the "mind" of the self. The personal being and its potentiality. It is by no means a scientific matter.
/Islam. I am the chill in the air.

Post Reply