the right religion

[1robin]

I would agree with such a statement beacuse I know it is false.There is no such thing as true Hinduism. I've repeated this over and over throughout this thread. There is one God in Hinduism but how he is viewed differs from sect to sect.

I will take a minute to point out just how confused you seem to be here.

1. You said you would agree because it is false. Does that make sense to you.
2. I said if you wish to state there is only one true Hinduism it can end this point. You said no that you would not say that but you keep telling me what "true" Hinduism is.
3. I gave you links, personal experience, and evidence that many Hindus believe in more than one deity. You even agreed with a statement I copied that specifically said this. Then you claim to not agree with it at a later point.
4. This point does not mater and I have tried several times to conclude it but you will not let it go. The only burden I have is for one Hindu to believe there are more than one deity which I have shown (actually vast numbers believe this). You however must show that every single Hindu on Earth and in history has believed only one God exists. Unless you can do this the matter is concluded.

I've tried my best to explain what these gods actually are. I've provided links, and I've even asked you to show me a sect of Hinduism which is polytheistic. Which sect of Hinduism says that there's more than one God?

I know very well what you said. That is only true for those Hindus that agree with it. It is not true with the Hindus that believe that multiple deities exist. Let me show you what you agreed with one more time.

Within Hinduism a large number of personal gods (Ishvaras) are worshipped as murtis. These beings are significantly powerful entities known as devas. The exact nature of belief in regards to each deity varies between differing Hindu denominations and philosophies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_deities

Notice it says Gods, not one God in many forms (though I agree some Hindus believe that). You agreed with this. Notice that it also says differing sect view these God's differently. This says exactly what I have claimed. I see no further need to discuss this.

I did not agree with you that there is more than one God. I agreed with you that there are multiple gods, notice the lower case lettering. There is only 1 supreme God in Hinduism. Idk what these people you debated with spoke about so I cannot speak about it. I see no further point in debating this with you when it's apparent that you've already made a conclusion.

Multiple God's and more than one God are identical no mater what case the letters exist in. I agree there has been no point to this for some time. You have dropped or ignored 95% of my claims and focused on this one alone for no reason I can see what ever.

 

[1robin]

So your argument is "of course we did these horrible things, but we were nicer about it than (insert straw man of choice)". You see the dark side of your religion exposed, and turn it into some sort of ******* contest to tally body counts. That's weak dude...

What kind of reasoning is this? I said Catholicism has done more damage to Christianity than any other group. It appears you are saying that unless Protestantism is perfect and without fault throughout all history I am not allowed to say what I did. Nice logic. No group containing mortal men is devoid of dark moments and missteps. Your logic demands then that none of them are allowed to point out the misdeeds of any other. However I imagine this bizarre rationale only applies to matters of faith since non-theists have absurdly different standards for religion versus everything else. I am sure you abandon this ludicrous rationale for every other area of life. If I find a Bible critic with consistent standards I will buy him a Daniel Webster cigar.

First of all, eradication of religion was not the all-encompassing motivation behind the atrocities committed by Stalin,

I knew that was coming. People who never read the Bible use a cross to kill a thousand Turks and my faith must take full responsibility for it. Stalin who was selected specifically for his hostility to faith and who operated within a system that is founded on opposition to and eradication of faith kills 20 million and atheism has nothing to do with it. Again why the double standards. If your world view removes any foundation for actual human worth, human dignity, the actual sanctity of life, and even human rights of any kind and instead substitutes a system that renders human life as merely a biological anomaly will obviously make the killing of these anomalies much less objectionable and therefore more common not to mention his hatred of anything theological. His last act on earth even in a comma was to raise his fist to heaven and shake it right before he died. Even if we said only half or a quarter of the deaths he caused had anything to do with his atheism is that much help? No, I imagine you will do anything necessary to claim that any death caused by anyone who ever mentioned God are the responsibility of anyone who has faith and no act by anyone who rejected God has anything to do with that rejection, but you will be incorrect.

but a rather small part of the bigger picture, which was all Marxist ideology (not that this fact takes away from what he did). During the Inquisitions, witch trials, crusades, various Islamic jihads, and other mass murders perpetrated by "holy" people, the only motivation behind these senseless attacks was the spread of their respective religions. Also I never mentioned race as a motivation for KKK murders, just the fact that they asserted that God was on their side. Can't we just agree that no group of people following any kind of ideal is better or more pious than another? It's human nature itself that breeds cruelty.

I can agree hat all groups have made dreadful errors. I do not believe that is the only distinction that maters as apparently you do. Most of us (Christians being the most common exception) claim we are good people. By your logic we are either all good or we are all bad. However you would not allow this to be in for your self. If asked outside the context of a debate you like 90% of people would say you were a good person even though you make mistakes. Why are you using one criteria for faith and one for everything else. It makes no sense to claim that unless a faith is perfect it must not be claimed to be good or better than anything else. You can't claim everything is Hot unless it is at absolute zero. Things are made in comparison every day exactly as I did. Some things are mostly bad, some mostly good. I claim Christianity unlike Communism or even atheism to a lesser extent does not have the amount of corresponding good in comparison to evil that Christianity does. It would be hard to prove, it is just too large but the comparison is valid even if you disagree with my conclusion. We have all failed God. Some of us admit it and do better and some of us deny he exists to get rid of our failure and then do even worse in many cases. These days not even what is right is agreed upon. When almost a billion unborn children have been killed as a sacred right defended by secularism and challenged by theism, then no we are not all in the same boat even though we both may jay walk from time to time.

 

[1robin]

Perhaps that is because you like many others take people's claims out of context as well. But here Ii am clearly not doing such a thing. You are frustrated that your words are bordering frustrated absurd claims and not reading as witty comebacks.

That was almost incoherent but I think I got it. I took nothing out of context. It was not a witty comeback because it was a logical impossibility. Witty things are witty because their analogies work not because they are a jab at something you dislike. His comment was given as a humorous jab. Mine was a humorous statement meant to point out the lack of accuracy in the joke. Jokes are good if they are based in truth not when they are based on nothing.

The religion can indeed be no religion. Doth take note of the OP....

There is nothing religious about a lack of religion and no OP is going to help that.

The lack of religion qualifies as a path in this context so I successfully answered the OP while you did not.

I agree it is a path. Unfortunately for your claims however the definition of a religion is not a path. The definition of religion is this: The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, a personal God or gods. The service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance.
Religion - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
You tell me how a lack of religion meets those standards if actual standards are not such a shock to your system that reply is beyond your capacity. The lack of something is never the best something.

I shall take this moment of conceitedness and recommend I be applauded shan't you find another otiose remonstrance perpetuated from your grievances of your lack of argument.

Even allowing that my level of articulation may not have identified every word you used, that was still incoherent.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

What kind of reasoning is this? I said Catholicism has done more damage to Christianity than any other group. It appears you are saying that unless Protestantism is perfect and without fault throughout all history I am not allowed to say what I did. Nice logic. No group containing mortal men is devoid of dark moments and missteps. Your logic demands then that none of them are allowed to point out the misdeeds of any other. However I imagine this bizarre rationale only applies to matters of faith since non-theists have absurdly different standards for religion versus everything else. I am sure you abandon this ludicrous rationale for every other area of life. If I find a Bible critic with consistent standards I will buy him a Daniel Webster cigar.

You aren't allowed to say you're any more right than a Catholic because less people have been killed in the name of your religion... I'm not telling you I'm better than you, just to stop calling the kettle black. I don't claim any school of thought is the right one because I know nobody's perfect. You can point out the misdeeds of any group you please, just don't put yours above it, because like you said we are all mortal and capable of terrible things. And yes, your faith DOES have to be perfect for you to call any other one wrong.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

And for the record, I don't believe in "good" or "bad". People are as they are and we have to accept the whole picture. I also don't "deny god because I can't admit my failure"... I deny the existence of god because it makes no sense to me.

 

[Philomath]

I will take a minute to point out just how confused you seem to be here.

1. You said you would agree because it is false. Does that make sense to you.
2. I said if you wish to state there is only one true Hinduism it can end this point. You said no that you would not say that but you keep telling me what "true" Hinduism is.
3. I gave you links, personal experience, and evidence that many Hindus believe in more than one deity. You even agreed with a statement I copied that specifically said this. Then you claim to not agree with it at a later point.
4. This point does not mater and I have tried several times to conclude it but you will not let it go. The only burden I have is for one Hindu to believe there are more than one deity which I have shown (actually vast numbers believe this). You however must show that every single Hindu on Earth and in history has believed only one God exists. Unless you can do this the matter is concluded.

1. Excuse that one that was a typo I meant to say wouldn't agree.
2. I'm not telling you what true Hinduism is because there is no such thing. I'm telling you what Hindu's believe. What Hindu denomination is polytheistic?
3. I've posted from two Hindu websites stating what Hindus believe about these gods but it appears you've skipped over that.
4. I've asked you over and over to tell me which Hindu denomination is polytheistic? Name one. If you can do so you'll win this argument.

I know very well what you said. That is only true for those Hindus that agree with it. It is not true with the Hindus that believe that multiple deities exist. Let me show you what you agreed with one more time.

Within Hinduism a large number of personal gods (Ishvaras) are worshipped as murtis. These beings are significantly powerful entities known as devas. The exact nature of belief in regards to each deity varies between differing Hindu denominations and philosophies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_deities

Notice it says Gods, not one God in many forms (though I agree some Hindus believe that). You agreed with this. Notice that it also says differing sect view these God's differently. This says exactly what I have claimed. I see no further need to discuss this.

And once again I will post this...please take some time and read this link. FAQs - Hinduism

Multiple God's and more than one God are identical no mater what case the letters exist in. I agree there has been no point to this for some time. You have dropped or ignored 95% of my claims and focused on this one alone for no reason I can see what ever.

I've done my best to explain as well as I can. You already have a concluded view of Hinduism and nothing I say,post or link from actual Hindu websites will be able to change that. Which of your claims have I ignored?

 

[1robin]

1. Excuse that one that was a typo I meant to say wouldn't agree.

No problem.

2. I'm not telling you what true Hinduism is because there is no such thing. I'm telling you what Hindu's believe. What Hindu denomination is polytheistic?

I know exactly what your claiming. I have stated just what you said above many times over. My point was even though you state you do not believe there is one true Hinduism your argumentation assumes there is because there are many Hindus that believe there are more than one God.

3. I've posted from two Hindu websites stating what Hindus believe about these gods but it appears you've skipped over that.

No, I agree that many Hindus do believe there is only one God. I have given sites to prove this. Does your sites that state what one section of Hinduism believe s mean the sites that state what other sections believe do not exist.

4. I've asked you over and over to tell me which Hindu denomination is polytheistic? Name one. If you can do so you'll win this argument.

I do not remember you ever doing so however my memory has never been perfect. I believe the site I have posted 4 times at least states this. If not I will look into it.

And once again I will post this...please take some time and read this link. FAQs - Hinduism.I've done my best to explain as well as I can. You already have a concluded view of Hinduism and nothing I say,post or link from actual Hindu websites will be able to change that. Which of your claims have I ignored?

When I have more Hindus claim to believe in multiple God's than one in my past debates, sites that claim more than one God, and my own research that says the same thing I can only conclude that it is an actual belief of many Hindus. I will try and review your site if I ever get caught up. BTW explaining how some Hindus reconcile many God's into one does nothing to show others reconcile them into many God's as I have shown. I know what you have said and it has no effect on what I have. My version of the Transubstantiation does not mean the Catholics do not have a different one so explaining why I think the way I do (or a site that does so) does not affect the Catholic view.

 

[1robin]

You aren't allowed to say you're any more right than a Catholic because less people have been killed in the name of your religion... I'm not telling you I'm better than you, just to stop calling the kettle black. I don't claim any school of thought is the right one because I know nobody's perfect. You can point out the misdeeds of any group you please, just don't put yours above it, because like you said we are all mortal and capable of terrible things. And yes, your faith DOES have to be perfect for you to call any other one wrong.

I did not say I was more right. I said Catholicism has caused more damage. I have not addressed the theological problems because you have commented on the moral ones. I will give you just a couple of examples of the theological difference between the two. They have at many times sold salvation on an industrial scale. They have kept for hundreds of years the Bible from being translated into a language that 95% of the population could understand. They do not get more damaging than this. Protestantism not only never has done anything like this but arose to stop them from doing it. In a thousand ways just like this it is easily shown that Catholicism has been a far far more destructive force in Christianity than Protestantism has (though neither are perfect). I can give you examples far longer than you will feel like evaluating them. Your argument is like saying both Ted Bundy and Robert Ford killed people so they are equally bad. No one killed, tortured, and ate innocent teenagers and Robert Ford killed Jessie James the murderer because if he did not Jessie would have killed him. However not even Catholicism could go along with the secular immaculate right to kill unborn children by the hundreds of millions. I will call a kettle black just as long as it is black even if my kettle is grey.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

I did not say I was more right. I said Catholicism has caused more damage. I have not addressed the theological problems because you have commented on the moral ones. I will give you just a couple of examples of the theological difference between the two. They have at many times sold salvation on an industrial scale. They have kept for hundreds of years the Bible from being translated into a language that 95% of the population could understand. They do not get more damaging than this. Protestantism not only never has done anything like this but arose to stop them from doing it. In a thousand ways just like this it is easily shown that Catholicism has been a far far more destructive force in Christianity than Protestantism has (though neither are perfect). I can give you examples far longer than you will feel like evaluating them. Your argument is like saying both Ted Bundy and Robert Ford killed people so they are equally bad. No one killed, tortured, and ate innocent teenagers and Robert Ford killed Jessie James the murderer because if he did not Jessie would have killed him. However not even Catholicism could go along with the secular immaculate right to kill unborn children by the hundreds of millions. I will call a kettle black just as long as it is black even if my kettle is grey.

1)Televangelists sell salvation on a daily basis every time someone buys one of their megachurch dvds
2)Protestant Christians are just as guilty of misinterpreting the Bible to shift people to their point of view, as evidenced by the outcry against equality for gay Americans
3)Abortion is only "murder" if you consider a fetus to be a person, which many people, myself included, do not.
4)No human being is more "good" or "bad" than any other. All people have the potential to commit violence, some just use more of it than others.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

4)No human being is more "good" or "bad" than any other. All people have the potential to commit violence, some just use more of it than others.

And "using more (violence) than others" would be... you guessed it... Being "more bad". Oops.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

And "using more (violence) than others" would be... you guessed it... Being "more bad". Oops.

It doesn't make them either good or bad. Good and bad are a matter of opinion, not definite classifications. While you may think violence is inherently "bad", someone else may not.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

It doesn't make them either good or bad.

Um, using violence in situations that do not call for it is "bad" more or less by definition.

Good and bad are a matter of opinion

No, moral evaluations like good/bad, right/wrong, moral/immoral and so on are conventions, not "matters of opinion" like whether someone happens to like Coke or Pepsi.

That violence in situations which do not require it (self-defense and so on) is bad is a matter of convention, just as "Bishops move diagonally" is a convention and not a "matter of opinion".

While you may think violence is inherently "bad", someone else may not.

I don't know what the word "inherently" is doing here, but otherwise the "someone else" would likely just be mistaken, depending on the societal context in which they find themself.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

No, moral evaluations like good/bad, right/wrong, moral/immoral and so on are conventions, not "matters of opinion" like whether someone happens to like Coke or Pepsi.

That violence in situations which do not require it (self-defense and so on) is bad is a matter of convention, just as "Bishops move diagonally" is a convention and not a "matter of opinion".

Good and bad are not conventions, they are concepts left to the interpretation of the individual. There is no one thing everyone agrees is good or bad, violence included. Whether or not violence is necessary in a situation is completely up to the opinion of the person in that situation, and those around while it is happening will decide for themselves whether they think it was a "good" use of violence or not. Saying "bishops move diagonally" is not the same as saying "Bush was a bad president". Bishops moving diagonally is not up for debate, that's the way chess is played, and if they moved in any other direction you wouldn't be playing chess. But the statement that Bush was a bad president can be disputed according to the personal opinions of the people involved of the conversation. You can say "then you're wrong" but that would be your opinion.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Good and bad are not conventions, they are concepts left to the interpretation of the individual.

They are concepts, and their application is dictated by convention. Morals judgments are applications of norms, which are a function of societal needs, are established by convention, and perform specific evolutionary functions, particularly encouraging cooperation within in-groups and exposing cheaters/non-altruists.

There is no one thing everyone agrees is good or bad, violence included.

Murder... Child molestation... Rape... And within particular socio-cultural traditions, which determine moral norms, there is indeed a vast consensus about what constitutes good/bad, right/wrong.

Whether or not violence is necessary in a situation is completely up to the opinion of the person in that situation

No, whether it is "necessary" is a function of the appropriate norm; in most Western cultures nowadays, this is simply self-defense; but it varies.

Saying "bishops move diagonally" is not the same as saying "Bush was a bad president".

"Bush was a bad president" is not a moral judgment, but a judgment about his job performance... You're saying he performed poorly, not that he was "bad" in a moral sense. (although you may think that, in addition)

Bishops moving diagonally is not up for debate, that's the way chess is played, and if they moved in any other direction you wouldn't be playing chess.

Similarly with ethical norms. That murder is wrong is true with respect to many particular systems of morals/values is comparable to that bishops move diagonally with respect to a particular set of rules (i.e. those of chess).

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Similarly with ethical norms. That murder is wrong is true with respect to many particular systems of morals/values is comparable to that bishops move diagonally with respect to a particular set of rules (i.e. those of chess).

The fact that there are many systems of morals/values and not just one shows you morality is not as objective as you say it is. Had that been the case there would only be one code of morals that people follow, as there is only one way to play chess.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

And for my good/bad analogy let's change it to "Christianity is a bad religion". Is everyone that says Christianity is bad wrong? Or everyone that says it's good right?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

The fact that there are many systems of morals/values and not just one shows you morality is not as objective as you say it is.

When did I say morality is "objective" in the relevant sense? And that different systems of ethics disagree wouldn't necessarily show that morality is not objective- it could just as easily be the case that one or more ethical system is right and the others wrong.

Disagreement doesn't imply there is no fact of the matter.

But morality is only objective in the sense that, relative to a given code or system of norms, moral judgments are not simply a matter of taste, but are dictated by societal conventions. "Murder is wrong" is true, not only in some absolute sense, but in the sense that, according to this particular code of norms, murder is indeed wrong.

Had that been the case there would only be one code of morals that people follow.

Not necessarily. Some of us could have gotten wrong.

 

[Philomath]

I know exactly what your claiming. I have stated just what you said above many times over. My point was even though you state you do not believe there is one true Hinduism your argumentation assumes there is because there are many Hindus that believe there are more than one God.

I understand what your claiming also. I've been continuously asking what denomination of Hinduism posits that there's more than one God?

No, I agree that many Hindus do believe there is only one God. I have given sites to prove this. Does your sites that state what one section of Hinduism believe s mean the sites that state what other sections believe do not exist.

The belief in one God, one Ultimate Reality is a core belief in Hinduism. The different denominations may disagree on a lot of things but that is not one that I know of.

I do not remember you ever doing so however my memory has never been perfect. I believe the site I have posted 4 times at least states this. If not I will look into it.

Wikipedia states that, and Wikipedia is not always reliable. I've posted from various Hindu websites about it.

When I have more Hindus claim to believe in multiple God's than one in my past debates, sites that claim more than one God, and my own research that says the same thing I can only conclude that it is an actual belief of many Hindus. I will try and review your site if I ever get caught up. BTW explaining how some Hindus reconcile many God's into one does nothing to show others reconcile them into many God's as I have shown. I know what you have said and it has no effect on what I have. My version of the Transubstantiation does not mean the Catholics do not have a different one so explaining why I think the way I do (or a site that does so) does not affect the Catholic view.

Alright. Please take a look at the website, and going to the Hinduism DIR would also help in your understanding of Hinduism. I really think there is a large misunderstanding going on here. I have no idea what Transubstantiation is.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

When did I say morality is "objective" in the relevant sense? And that different systems of ethics disagree wouldn't necessarily show that morality is not objective- it could just as easily be the case that one or more ethical system is right and the others wrong.

Who are you to tell somebody that their system of ethics is right or wrong? It seems to me that people are only right when they agree with you, which is a matter of opinion and not based in fact of any kind.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Also, you said morality was objective when you said everyone agrees murder, rape, etc. are wrong