Religious ambiguity

[HououinKiyoma]

Hello! This is my first thread in this section!

Why do people of one religion voluntarily convert to another? Why is it propagated that each religion is different? Why is it said that each God is different? Why is it said that the message propagated by a different religion is different? Why do we need one anyway? Why cant the world have a unified religion?

All these questions arose in my mind when I bumped into a Chinese man who was telling me how Man was created in the image of God and how Man sinned and should ask for forgiveness. It was basically a gimmick to join a Bible class and eventually convert me I guess. When I go over what he said, I cant help but think that what he said is also contained in the Bhagavad Gita and it must be there in the Quoran, Zend Avesta, Guru Granth Sahib and all other religious texts. In my opinion, it doesnt even matter if you are atheist either because it all depends on personal judgement between whats right and wrong and how you treat the fellow inhabitants of this planet.

[Living For Love]

There is no right or wrong religions. There's just what you believe and that's it. Each religion is different because each religion is based in different principles and doctrines. And the same happens with God, as he's portrayed in different ways by different religions. Whether you "need" a religion or not is up to you.

[phuckphace]

I think religions can be judged on their own merit - what does a society that follows religion X look like?

in the case of Christianity, which the West was built on, we were given the world's highest quality of life that persisted for centuries and brought us all sorts of discoveries. our decline from greatness didn't begin until we cast off our heritage and embraced secularism.

Islamic societies are and always have been irrelevant backwaters except in cases where Muslims were able to conquer and coast off the success of other civilizations. they would all be desert nomads if the West didn't buy their oil.

Hinduism can be summed up in one word: shitrivers. I'm still unable to grasp why progressives are enamoured by eastern religions and "attaining Nirvana*" when Hinduism in particular features the existence of an ultraproletariat baked right in to its cosmology. the Dalit child dragging himself through the dirt with his ribcage showing? he fucked up in a previous life, deal with it. also their religious aesthetic is creepy as hell.

(*Translators' note: Nirvana means "typhoid")

[Judean Zealot]

Hello! This is my first thread in this section!

Welcome! :D

Why do people of one religion voluntarily convert to another? Could be for a number of reasons. The primary one is for convenience. Many times you'll see an American Christian converting to Judaism in order to marry a Jewish friend, or vice versa. Can't say I'm a tremendous fan of such conversions, and they are generally done by those who were kind of lukewarm before that.

Then there are "feelz" conversions, which happen when, say, some missionaries help a person get out of the dumps, and in gratitude he converts. We have many such conversions to Christianity here in Israel. Again, not a fan.

And then there are intellectual conversions, wherein a person who is intellectually uncomfortable with the dogmas of his original religion searches among the others to find the truth, and converts to the religion they think is the truest. This is the only sort of conversion that I can respect.

Why is it propagated that each religion is different? Why is it said that each God is different?
There's a distinction we ought to make here between differences of theology and differences in revelation. Take for example Judaism and Islam. Our God is the same God. YHVH is Allah and Allah is YHVH. They are just different names for the same being: the incorporeal, absolutely unified, Cause of all causes. The only difference between us is regarding revelation, that is, if Muhammad had a revelation that superceded the Mosaic revelation. Thus there are differences of belief regarding what God wants from us, but the essential nature of God is unchanged.

Not so with, say, Hinduism. While the concept of Brahman in certain schools of thought can dovetail with the above description of God, the numerous anthromorphic and pluralist representations of it is already sufficient (imo) to place within an entirely new category of theology. Theological difference usually stems from philosophical differences, thus the Platonic-Aristotelian religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Druze, and perhaps Baha'ii) generally agree theologically, even while disagreeing doctrinally (excepting, of course, the unfortunate theology of trinity).

Why is it said that the message propagated by a different religion is different?
Because oftentimes they are. Buddhism would tell you that the world sucks and you have to escape it, while others would tell you that you can't escape, but must work within it to perfect it, while yet others would tell you that the world is fundamentally good and one must live in harmony with it.

Why do we need one anyway? Why cant the world have a unified religion?

Ideally, that would be great. But which religion would that be? What influences? What laws?

In my opinion, it doesnt even matter if you are atheist either because it all depends on personal judgement between whats right and wrong and how you treat the fellow inhabitants of this planet.

...Which is your own dogma, and as such you join the fun!


Islamic societies are and always have been irrelevant backwaters except in cases where Muslims were able to conquer and coast off the success of other civilizations. they would all be desert nomads if the West didn't buy their oil.

Al-Andalus was hardly "coasting off the success" of the Visigoths, don't you think?

Hinduism can be summed up in one word: shitrivers. I'm still unable to grasp why progressives are enamoured by eastern religions and "attaining Nirvana*" when Hinduism in particular features the existence of an ultraproletariat baked right in to its cosmology. the Dalit child dragging himself through the dirt with his ribcage showing? he fucked up in a previous life, deal with it. also their religious aesthetic is creepy as hell.

You're confusing and mixing Buddhism with Hinduism. Westerners are more into the meditative strains of Zen or Taoism.

[Hudor]

Why do people of one religion voluntarily convert to another? That is a personal choice. If a person identifies more with the beliefs of another religion than the one he might have been following, he/she can always convert to that.

Why is it propagated that each religion is different? Why is it said that each God is different? Why is it said that the message propagated by a different religion is different? It all depends on who you listen to. You week find people(political leaders mainly) who aim to benefit from divisional politics, making such statements. From my experience and on the basis of what people I know, who have read many religious texts, say all religions convey similar messages.
That being said, religions are different only because of the different customs associated with them.

I identify as a theist. I believe in the existence of God but not in which form He may exist in so I don't believe in the concept of each God of each religion being different.


Why do we need one anyway? Again it's a personal matter.
People that identify with some or the other religion, may be seeking security and obtaining a sense of peace and inner confidence from the belief that a supernatural entity is looking over them.
I don't think there's a we in this situation because while for some people, God and religion may have relevance, for some it may not.

Why can't the world have a unified religion? In theory, it's a good idea to an extent. But in practice,
1. People who benefit from divisive politics wouldn't let that happen.
2. Some religions have contradictory practices, the inclusion of which could create problems.

[HououinKiyoma]

I think religions can be judged on their own merit - what does a society that follows religion X look like?

in the case of Christianity, which the West was built on, we were given the world's highest quality of life that persisted for centuries and brought us all sorts of discoveries. our decline from greatness didn't begin until we cast off our heritage and embraced secularism.

Islamic societies are and always have been irrelevant backwaters except in cases where Muslims were able to conquer and coast off the success of other civilizations. they would all be desert nomads if the West didn't buy their oil.

Hinduism can be summed up in one word: shitrivers. I'm still unable to grasp why progressives are enamoured by eastern religions and "attaining Nirvana*" when Hinduism in particular features the existence of an ultraproletariat baked right in to its cosmology. the Dalit child dragging himself through the dirt with his ribcage showing? he fucked up in a previous life, deal with it. also their religious aesthetic is creepy as hell.

(*Translators' note: Nirvana means "typhoid")

The Arab Caliphate was waaaaaaaaay more advanced than Christian Europe which was still in the Dark Ages. Islam was the most progressive religion in almost every possible way. 'Al'gebra, 'al'cohol, 'al'chemy they all did it. Not to forget all the stars visible by the naked eye was documented by the Arabs. You must admit the exposure to the East during the Crusades led to the Renaissance.



The part of Hinduism which you are talking of (the cycle of rebirth based on actions) isnt too unlike western beliefs(As you sow, so shall you reap).

Initially though the caste system was non rigid and allowed people to change based on their profession. It turned rigid because of the monopolization of the upper class who wanted to keep their powers for themselves. The Church also had a lot of power for themselves until the Protestants came about if Im not wrong.

I'd also like to add that Indian civilization was much more advanced than the West admits. After all, 200 years of subjugation was all it took to destroy all that knowledge.

It depends on your interpretation, which is why it is so misinterpreted, which is why you must never take the medias word for it. Read the texts of religion for yourself and dont take anyones word for it!

What do you mean by "religious aesthetic is creepy as hell" by the way?

[Judean Zealot]

'Al'gebra, 'al'cohol, 'al'chemy they all did it. Not to forget all the stars visible by the naked eye was documented by the Arabs.

Just to quibble a few points, it was actually Ptolemy (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemy) who documented the paths of the stars. True, the Arabs spread it, but let's give credit where credit is due.

You must admit the exposure to the East during the Crusades led to the Renaissance.

Nah, the renaissance didn't get going until a century or two later- the result of a burgeoning middle class in the Italian City States.

[HououinKiyoma]

Just to quibble a few points, it was actually Ptolemy (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemy) who documented the paths of the stars. True, the Arabs spread it, but let's give credit where credit is due.


I guess you're right there.


Nah, the renaissance didn't get going until a century or two later- the result of a burgeoning middle class in the Italian City States.

I think I'll disagree a tiny little bit there. Yes, it wasn't a direct cause but the wonders of the East have always made the Westerners scratch their heads. This is a good answer I think. https://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090204085108AAtc4kx

[Judean Zealot]

Yes, it wasn't a direct cause but the wonders of the East have always made the Westerners scratch their heads. This is a good answer I think. https://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090204085108AAtc4kx

I won't argue that the Crusades brought about conditions that facilitated the later renaissance, but it's quite a stretch to say that the renaissance was an outgrowth of Islam. Bear in mind that, contrary to popular belief, the high medieval era in Europe had quite a culture of it's own- it's not like they were cavemen prior to the renaissance. That view of the medieval world is an unfortunate distortion encouraged by the later humanists, such as Locke and Voltaire, to justify their rejection of Aristotelian philosophy.

[sqishy]

Alright - seems like there are viewpoints which greatly misunderstand other religions, and/or don't like them at all.

[Judean Zealot]

Alright - seems like there are viewpoints which greatly misunderstand other religions, and/or don't like them at all.

Surprised? :P

[sqishy]

Surprised? :P

No, honestly.
Just pointing it out (maybe for not much use, yes).

Ah well.

[Arkansasguy]

Hello! This is my first thread in this section!

Why do people of one religion voluntarily convert to another? Why is it propagated that each religion is different? Why is it said that each God is different? Why is it said that the message propagated by a different religion is different? Why do we need one anyway? Why cant the world have a unified religion?

All these questions arose in my mind when I bumped into a Chinese man who was telling me how Man was created in the image of God and how Man sinned and should ask for forgiveness. It was basically a gimmick to join a Bible class and eventually convert me I guess. When I go over what he said, I cant help but think that what he said is also contained in the Bhagavad Gita and it must be there in the Quoran, Zend Avesta, Guru Granth Sahib and all other religious texts. In my opinion, it doesnt even matter if you are atheist either because it all depends on personal judgement between whats right and wrong and how you treat the fellow inhabitants of this planet.

People convert to other religions because they believe those other religions are true. Religions are different because they preach different doctrines.

The Abrahamic religions preach a different view of God from the eastern ones, because the eastern religions do not conceive of God as being omnipotent and separate from creation, thus they are not worshipping the real God, but rather are worshipping ideas falling short of God. Just as one has a duty of piety toward one's parents, one has an even greater duty towards God, since he is the creator. God sent his Son into the world in order to bring salvation to humans, and he established the Catholic Church to be the vehicle through which his message would be propagated, and in which men should worship him. For that reason, it is important to us to convert those of other religions, so that they will worship God as he desires to be worshipped.

[sqishy]

The Abrahamic religions preach a different view of God from the eastern ones, because the eastern religions do not conceive of God as being omnipotent and separate from creation, thus they are not worshipping the real God, but rather are worshipping ideas falling short of God. Just as one has a duty of piety toward one's parents, one has an even greater duty towards God, since he is the creator. God sent his Son into the world in order to bring salvation to humans, and he established the Catholic Church to be the vehicle through which his message would be propagated, and in which men should worship him. For that reason, it is important to us to convert those of other religions, so that they will worship God as he desires to be worshipped.

From what you are saying, the Abrahamic religons are presupposing that the 'Eastern' theistic religions have an incorrect interpretation of God/etc. For example, some could argue that Zen Buddhism is worshipping change, the transience of things, and the present moment. In your terms, all of these are separate from creation, and 'omnipotent' in that they determine everything else.

[Porpoise101]

Hinduism can be summed up in one word: shitrivers. I'm still unable to grasp why progressives are enamoured by eastern religions and "attaining Nirvana*" when Hinduism in particular features the existence of an ultraproletariat baked right in to its cosmology. the Dalit child dragging himself through the dirt with his ribcage showing? he fucked up in a previous life, deal with it. also their religious aesthetic is creepy as hell.
Maybe it's because Hindu ritual doesn't mesh so well with the Western way of life. My family and the people of my region tend to not be so enamored by the ritual and mysticism so it's much more tame and modest. This leads to better outcomes to society and the people there turn out with better morals. It's less chaotic and more orderly. It's not supposed to be a mess like it is in the cities. After all, it was at its spiritual zenith back when things were rural and agricultural. Even the great cities of the Ganges and Indus had better sewage systems than an industrializing Europe by the way

To answer the question above, the difference is in your culture and the lifestyle impact you want. For example, an alcoholic won't convert to Islam anytime unless they are brought up that way or if it reveals a new aspect of God that they appreciate and understand.

[Arkansasguy]

From what you are saying, the Abrahamic religons are presupposing that the 'Eastern' theistic religions have an incorrect interpretation of God/etc. For example, some could argue that Zen Buddhism is worshipping change, the transience of things, and the present moment. In your terms, all of these are separate from creation, and 'omnipotent' in that they determine everything else.

"change" is not a being.

[sqishy]

"change" is not a being.

From a pantheistic (or similar, like from Spinoza) perspective, there is no reason why it isn't.

Leaving that aside, there's still the present moment, and overall transience.

What defines a being in your view?

[Uniquemind]

I should write my own religious tenants that reads like a boring list, that actually is specific and avoids all vague language and just spells it out like what is expected.

There are many issues as to why religions have some overlapping principles or ideals, but then cannot be mixed or fused with other religions, and it lies within the exclusive details that go beyond what can be scientifically quantifiable like (spiritual world afterlife concepts).

So one religion defines what one must do in the present life, to affect a certain outcome in the afterlife or to even have a chance at attaining that outcome.

So that's where issues arise, especially when you get some radical interpretations of some faiths, to justify actions of civil unrest.

The world is a total mess, and any talk about global unification is also sour talk because those who are the richest are corrupt thinking about money, and power politics first, versus crafting a really good, fair, and just ideal society.

It also doesn't help that in Christianity, Revelation isn't studied or talked about enough, and when it is there are many lines of scripture that are very anti-globalization and anti-
one world religion.

So when any talk or movement about "coming together as one" happens, they react in a very vitriolic and adverse way, because they're afraid of slippery slopes in sociology and therefore law and politics and therefore there freedom (some here have pointed out this is very libertarianistic thinking).

[Judean Zealot]

From a pantheistic (or similar, like from Spinoza) perspective, there is no reason why it isn't.

Leaving that aside, there's still the present moment, and overall transience.

What defines a being in your view?

Spinoza is more of what we call a panentheist, which differs quite a bit from the sort of pantheism/atheism/naturalism/whatever that you've mentioned. Pantheism is that God is the cosmos themselves, and God Himself is predicated in nature, whilst panentheism would tell us that God is essentially transcendental, yet all of the cosmos are grounded in His will, and are as such all equal manifestations of divinity.

To the Spinozist, it would be unthinkable to ascribe divinity to any particular aspect of the cosmos independent of the others. Perhaps we can ascribe a unique divinity to the harmony and essential unity of all the seemingly contradictory causes and phenomena- but than we can just be referring to the Abrahamic God by His name Zeba'oth, something that has rich roots in all three Abrahamic religions.

A being is a vacuous word- anything that can be described positively is a being, considering as it is. A being need not be sensual, mathematical entities, causal connections, and all such things are beings as well, insofar as they may be ontological constructions.

[Arkansasguy]

From a pantheistic (or similar, like from Spinoza) perspective, there is no reason why it isn't.

Leaving that aside, there's still the present moment, and overall transience.

What defines a being in your view?

I'm sure it is, but saying X is Y in a nonsensical worldview means very little.

A being in the relevant sense is some thing. A computer is a being. A person is a being. A box is a being. Gravity is not a being.

[Judean Zealot]

Gravity is not a being.

You're falling into a classic materialist error- that something that exists beyond direct sensory grasp cannot be said to really be. I'm not sure if I'm understanding you right, but do explain, please.

[HououinKiyoma]

People convert to other religions because they believe those other religions are true. Religions are different because they preach different doctrines.

The Abrahamic religions preach a different view of God from the eastern ones, because the eastern religions do not conceive of God as being omnipotent and separate from creation, thus they are not worshipping the real God, but rather are worshipping ideas falling short of God. Just as one has a duty of piety toward one's parents, one has an even greater duty towards God, since he is the creator. God sent his Son into the world in order to bring salvation to humans, and he established the Catholic Church to be the vehicle through which his message would be propagated, and in which men should worship him. For that reason, it is important to us to convert those of other religions, so that they will worship God as he desires to be worshipped.

Hinduism does believe that God created the Universe and yes Hindu Gods are omnipotent in their own way.

So if I'm right, you are saying that the Abrahamic religions are superior?

Isn't that a very relative statement? Everyone can prove their religions superiority. Like a Hindu may argue that the roots of Hinduism lie in the Indus Valley civilization. So then it is way older than most other religions and thus the root religion of Humanity, if one can say such a religion even exists.

[Porpoise101]

Like a Hindu may argue that the roots of Hinduism lie in the Indus Valley civilization. So then it is way older than most other religions and thus the root religion of Humanity, if one can say such a religion even exists.
Hinduism may have been by brought by Aryans to India (where it syncretized and developed). Since these people are also the last migrated people to leave a massive cultural imprint on Europe (except for the Turks in Asia Minor), it could also be called the original Eurasian religion.

[sqishy]

Spinoza is more of what we call a panentheist, which differs quite a bit from the sort of pantheism/atheism/naturalism/whatever that you've mentioned. Pantheism is that God is the cosmos themselves, and God Himself is predicated in nature, whilst panentheism would tell us that God is essentially transcendental, yet all of the cosmos are grounded in His will, and are as such all equal manifestations of divinity.

To the Spinozist, it would be unthinkable to ascribe divinity to any particular aspect of the cosmos independent of the others. Perhaps we can ascribe a unique divinity to the harmony and essential unity of all the seemingly contradictory causes and phenomena- but than we can just be referring to the Abrahamic God by His name Zeba'oth, something that has rich roots in all three Abrahamic religions.

A being is a vacuous word- anything that can be described positively is a being, considering as it is. A being need not be sensual, mathematical entities, causal connections, and all such things are beings as well, insofar as they may be ontological constructions.

From what I know, and from my definition of pantheism, I would see Spinoza as a pantheist. God/etc is present as the world, not external to it.


I'm sure it is, but saying X is Y in a nonsensical worldview means very little.

I'm not sure what you mean here.

A being in the relevant sense is some thing. A computer is a being. A person is a being. A box is a being. Gravity is not a being.

By your definition, gravity is not a thing. Nor is change. If I extend from that with your definition, then electricity, sound, or any process that does not have any apparent solid tactile presence to you, is not a being.
From your definition, there is nothing to say that gravity, electricity, happiness etc does not exist at all, as they are not beings.

[Judean Zealot]

From what I know, and from my definition of pantheism, I would see Spinoza as a pantheist. God/etc is present as the world, not external to it.

The world=God
God=/= The world.

All the world partakes in God's divinity, but God definitely seems to be transcendent. At least that's how I read Spinoza.

[sqishy]

The world=God
God=/= The world.

All the world partakes in God's divinity, but God definitely seems to be transcendent. At least that's how I read Spinoza.


I suppose we have interpreted him differently. From my view, Spinoza's world is God.

Anyhow, offtopic, I know.

[Arkansasguy]

You're falling into a classic materialist error- that something that exists beyond direct sensory grasp cannot be said to really be. I'm not sure if I'm understanding you right, but do explain, please.

Gravity exists. But Gravity is not an entity, in the way that God, people, pencils, and atoms are. Gravity is a quality of matter, but it is not a thing in itself, either physical or spiritual.

Hinduism does believe that God created the Universe and yes Hindu Gods are omnipotent in their own way.

So if I'm right, you are saying that the Abrahamic religions are superior?

Isn't that a very relative statement? Everyone can prove their religions superiority. Like a Hindu may argue that the roots of Hinduism lie in the Indus Valley civilization. So then it is way older than most other religions and thus the root religion of Humanity, if one can say such a religion even exists.

I'm sure people were practicing Hinduism before Abraham lived. But that says nothing as to what is true. The Abrahamic religions are superior because of their theological beliefs. And to say that the Hindu gods are omnipotent shows the inherent logical contradiction of Hinduism, there cannot be multiple omnipotent beings, for pretty straightforward reasons.

[sqishy]

Gravity exists. But Gravity is not an entity, in the way that God, people, pencils, and atoms are. Gravity is a quality of matter, but it is not a thing in itself, either physical or spiritual.


Gravity is a quality of matter and energy. Gravity is present with every physical object, so in some sense, it describes more of what a physical object is, than mere labelling of physical objects (like pencils, people and so on) do.

What qualifies something to be matter? I would say that gravity does that.

Also, there is a misconception that gravity only happens with matter. It happens with matter and energy, as I said before, because matter and energy are two aspects of the same thing.

I know I'm going into physics, but I want to clear up some views on what gravity is (and is not).

[Judean Zealot]

Gravity exists. But Gravity is not an entity, in the way that God, people, pencils, and atoms are. Gravity is a quality of matter, but it is not a thing in itself, either physical or spiritual.


Question: are mathematical entities 'beings'?

[Vlerchan]

Introduction to religion-style question:

What qualities does god share with objects in the universe that indicates he's an entity?

If the various people here could also define the qualities of entities that would be useful.

Thank you.

[Judean Zealot]

Introduction to religion-style question:

What qualities does god share with objects in the universe that indicates he's an entity?

If the various people here could also define the qualities of entities that would be useful.

Thank you.

Existence.

Now, strictly speaking 'existence' is not a quality, but I would posit that neither is 'being', as anything that can be described exists and is subsumed in being, whether as matter or an ontological construction. Thus I see this entire conversation as an absurd sophistry.

[Vlerchan]

Existence.
Does this include, or exclude, existence dependent on the human mind.

Edit: I realise from the edit it probably does.

[sqishy]

Existence.

Now, strictly speaking 'existence' is not a quality, but I would posit that neither is 'being', as anything that can be described exists and is subsumed in being, whether as matter or an ontological construction. Thus I see this entire conversation as an absurd sophistry.


What would be the view if there existed an object X, such that X did not interact with anything in the world (physical or otherwise) at all?

I feel interaction is relevant to defining existence, least with the view of what defines a being.

[Judean Zealot]

What would be the view if there existed an object X, such that X did not interact with anything in the world (physical or otherwise) at all?

I feel interaction is relevant to defining existence, least with the view of what defines a being.

I disagree. While something which is in no way interactive with anything might not be discernible, it still has the 'quality' of being in regards to itself (ie it's own plane of existence).

[Porpoise101]

I'm sure people were practicing Hinduism before Abraham lived. But that says nothing as to what is true. The Abrahamic religions are superior because of their theological beliefs. And to say that the Hindu gods are omnipotent shows the inherent logical contradiction of Hinduism, there cannot be multiple omnipotent beings, for pretty straightforward reasons.

In Hinduism, the gods are a reflection of a single spiritual force, they are only an incarnation of God and the universe as everyone is to some extent. So yes, they are omnipotent as they are technically the same being.

[Judean Zealot]

In Hinduism, the gods are a reflection of a single spiritual force, they are only an incarnation of God and the universe as everyone is to some extent. So yes, they are omnipotent as they are technically the same being.

I've always found the closest comparison to the Hindu Pantheon to be the Trinity. Obviously, there are several distinctions, but I still consider them to be the same principle- that of God's relation to Himself.

[sqishy]

I disagree. While something which is in no way interactive with anything might not be discernible, it still has the 'quality' of being in regards to itself (ie it's own plane of existence).

I somewhat agree with this - I was looking at existence from an external POV. I think 'external' existence is what is relevant here, with God and such.

[Judean Zealot]

I somewhat agree with this - I was looking at existence from an external POV. I think 'external' existence is what is relevant here, with God and such.

I am wary of such trains of thought, because they often lead to sophistry: "Since God's qualities are not discernible to contingents, God's qualities cannot be said to exist".

[thegreatgatz]

Hello! This is my first thread in this section!

Why do people of one religion voluntarily convert to another? Why is it propagated that each religion is different? Why is it said that each God is different? Why is it said that the message propagated by a different religion is different? Why do we need one anyway? Why cant the world have a unified religion?

To answer your first question, people often find fulfillment to their own personal longings and questions they have about who they are, what their purpose is, how they exist, etc. To the second, all religions are different, but most are essentially good. Catholics have mass, Jews have synagogue, etc. They all worship in different ways

[sqishy]

I am wary of such trains of thought, because they often lead to sophistry: "Since God's qualities are not discernible to contingents, God's qualities cannot be said to exist".

So am I - some think that things that cannot be seen, do not exist. In a sense they do not to us, but there is generalisation made that 'to us' means 'in all totality'.

[phuckphace]

Al-Andalus was hardly "coasting off the success" of the Visigoths, don't you think?

point taken. I'm referring more to those e-Muslims we've all encountered at some point or another who will tell you with a straight face that Ibn al-Whoever was the true inventor of the Big Bang theory, the germ theory of disease, etc. etc. etc. and the West just showed up and ripped it off.

You're confusing and mixing Buddhism with Hinduism. Westerners are more into the meditative strains of Zen or Taoism.

ask these folks about India and they'll likely tell you it's a spiritual Eden where everyone lives in harmony with the gods and nature and blah blah. the few who have actually been there are quickly cured of this mindset the second they step off the plane and take a big breath. or as soon as they encounter cannibals pulling rotting corpses out of the Ganges.

what you should take away from this post is that India's current arrangements are literally making them stupider. (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/15/world/asia/poor-sanitation-in-india-may-afflict-well-fed-children-with-malnutrition.html?_r=1) it's worth noting that the pic in the article makes the Ganges look much cleaner than it really is - I've seen pics where it's brown-yellow like coffee with tons of creamer added.

[Porpoise101]

ask these folks about India and they'll likely tell you it's a spiritual Eden where everyone lives in harmony with the gods and nature and blah blah.
Well there is a reason literally every major religion except for Shintos have found a place. Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, and Jainism started there and Muslims, Christians, and Jews have lived there for centuries. Nowadays you are right; people are prizing rapid economic growth more than public health and it's hurting everything and everyone. But if you go to the mountains or the last large forests, you will see it how it was: beautiful, wild, and refreshing.

[Uniquemind]

Well there is a reason literally every major religion except for Shintos have found a place. Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, and Jainism started there and Muslims, Christians, and Jews have lived there for centuries. Nowadays you are right; people are prizing rapid economic growth more than public health and it's hurting everything and everyone. But if you go to the mountains or the last large forests, you will see it how it was: beautiful, wild, and refreshing.


Unless you have allergies and asthma, which is a large portion of society now.

Sorry can't resist the buzzkill comment, it's too humorous to pass up. Of course I still understand your main point.

[Hudor]

Unless you have allergies and asthma, which is a large portion of society now.


If you're talking about India, that's not true. It's usually advisable not to present something exclusive and widely varying as an inclusive state of the majority.

[Uniquemind]

If you're talking about India, that's not true. It's usually advisable not to present something exclusive and widely varying as an inclusive state of the majority.

I wasn't talking about India.