I am merely saying that to not believe in god is to be atheist. That's not hostile at all. I'm not the one calling people liars, etc.

You defined yourself when you said you don't believe in God, sir.

They're not my definitions. But I don't see any problem in you leading yourself to your own conclusions and truths. I think we need more of that in the world.

Every dictionary from dictionary.com when you queue up "Atheism" has a definition pertaining to the effect of "a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods" (WordNet) along side the belief of "there is no god". Not all atheists subscribe to the latter.

I'm just wondering if you even paid attention. Sear also explained it.

Agnosticism deals with knowledge, while atheism deals with belief.

I consider myself an atheist because I do not believe in God. But I am also agnostic because I don't know if there is a god or not.

'Atheism' doesn't automatically connote 'strong atheist', just as "Christian" doesn't automatically connote evangelist. What you're doing is you're basing assumptions on an entire group of people according to the beliefs and actions of a few.

That rate isn't reflective of testosterone and wars but because women have primarily been excluded from positions of power. And when women were in power, history shows us that there's really no substantial difference in terms of aggression or the capability thereof. What you're saying isn't honest, it's sexist.

Yeah, in many cases religion has been used as a dividing factor among men. People reach those divisions through focusing on their differences in religions, also. Such a dividing factor in human history can't be a factor of unity in the future. Maybe to some moderates, but inevitably putting religion in the focus merely puts our differences in the focus. We can never unite under our differences.

This seems pretty naive to me. You seem to believe that under the surface of symbols there's a distinct commonality of spiritual meaning among all religions. This is false. Most religions differ widely in their spiritual interpretations of reality.

Really the only common hood I see pervading most religions is the parallelism behind the creation of their primary 'saviors' based off of astrology (the story of Jesus, Horus, Attis, Krishna, etc. all are concoctions of primarily the same astrological events). But even such literary parallelism doesn't mean spiritual interpretations are the same.

I totally agree. But we will never unite around what divides us (differences in religion). The idea that humans will unite around the supernatural and the invisible rather than the real and causes of humanity, that is what is a soft and flowery pipe dream.

How kind of you to assume. If you can describe this obvious difference in spiritual interpretation among Christians and yourself, and then describe how we can somehow at the same time unite with this spirituality as the primary factor of 'commonality', please go ahead. I would be very interested.

Eternal damnation isn't symbolic. And even if it originally was meant to be, it certainly isn't today under the current Christian interpretations of scripture. I think you're confusing hell with eternal damnation. I think you have an argument that hell could be symbolic, but there is always the threat of eternal damnation; whether that be 'separation from god', or actual physical punishment in a fiery place called hell, there is still the idea of damnation.

And such passages are in the actual scriptures of these religions; not mere religious laws back then. Meaning, the actual word of god is calling for a division among men, so to speak (as each of those three religions believe their text to be the revealed truth and word of god).

Hmmm, so first I'm ignorant, incapable of abstract thought, and now I'm goddamned narrow-minded? Hmmm, I can see religion uniting us already!

I don't think you're getting what I was trying to say. Religion posits a truth about the nature of our realities. It isn't just some opinion. It's supposed to be the undebatable truth about the ultimate truth of our very universe. Therefore, most religions are presupposing that it knows with certainty the nature of things. Hence faith; the commitment to something as completely true void of evidence! It's different than mere believing.

There is an obvious logical fallacy in your argument here. Just because something is popular doesn't mean it's true. The second most selling book of all time in the world (the first would be the Bible) is the quotations from Mao Tse-tung (otherwise known as "the little red book"). So, because so many people worshiped Mao, and now so many people in North Korea are worshiping Kim Jong-Il as a god-king, that there is an element of truth to it, rather than just mass delusion?

Do you know how utterly ridiculous that sounds?

The simple matter is that we, as humans, don't know the ultimate truth of our reality. Religions, a man-made phenomena, claim to know the ultimate truth. They're accepting a reality with full commitment all void of evidence (faith); hence, it is not lying but mass delusion.

No evidence? I've always found that hysterical too. Mechanism isn't cause.. and it sure as hell isn't an indicator that there's "no evidence" of an outside cause. What the hell ISN'T evidence?... that's my question.

Republicans that oppose a woman's right to choose, and Democrats that defend it, may each be called "Senator", "Congressman", or "politician".

Carrion.

Mytmouse, please from now on use the normal quote feature. It makes everyone's life much easier, thanks.

I agree that humanity can find unity in the golden rule, but religion is not the appropriate vehicle for this. Because while there are examples of the golden rule in most religions, there are also just as equally significant differences and contradictions between religions and how they see humanity as supposed to conduct their lives.

I don't see why unity can't come out of a secular and humanistic cause. In fact it is my contention that only when humanity will move past petty differences and attachment to their blind faith will they begin to see what we all have in common.

The appropriate vehicle for this is humanism because we are all humans. Not God, because not everyone believes in god.

Ah, but dogma and mechanics are foundational composites that comprise religion. Without dogma it is no longer faith, but mere belief. Without mechanics, scripture, and ritual it is no longer a religious institution but just a philosophy.

If you want to see unity through the golden rule, wouldn't it be a lot easier just to unite under the golden rule alone?

The context under what I meant 'real' is practicality to the human condition. But even under the context to which you maintain, I would differ highly in such a philosophy, and so would Buddhism; a religion which you profess has a lot in common with others.

Allow me to illustrate a very fundamental difference between two major religious schools of thought; mainly the east and west illustrated here by Christianity and Buddhism.

You subscribe to the theory that only the spiritual is real. That, I'm assuming, as spirits there exists a phenomena (actually, a real 'being') separate from material existence. This is a highly fundamental divergence from Buddhism that I don't think can find any way around contradiction no matter how loud you yell "the golden rule".

One of the most fundamental philosophies behind Buddhism is the idea of "Sunyata" (or "emptiness" or "voidness") and impermanence. Even though, as a secular atheist, even I subscribe to this Buddhist ideal; because it is perhaps the only religious idea that is scientifically and logically sustainable. Or, like Albert Einstein said, (I'm paraphrasing) Buddhism will probably become the cosmic religion of the future, because it is the only religion able to cope with science and logic.

The idea of Sunyata is what many Buddhists call "the Middle Way". Roughly, it is a compromise between the materialist idea that things exist inherently (as you propose with a 'spirit') and between the nihilist (in the Indian context of the word) idea that things do not exist (similar to the western word solipsism). What you propose with a spiritual existence is that there exists a spirit within us, that is essentially a permanent (eternal) and therefore separate existence. The idea of the spirit (and God for that matter) is simply incompatible with this foundation of Buddhism. Being that, both theories of God and spirit propose that there can (and is) things existing inherently; completely self-sustaining and permanent from the rest of existence and from other life. This is a fundamentally flawed idea when applied to anything resembling logic.

First of all, how can something exist inherently? In order for separation, that would imply that two totalities of existences can somehow be separated by themselves? Tell me, what exactly separates these totalities? Nothingness? Non-existence can't separate two existences because there is literally nothing to separate them. That is, 'nothing' isn't some void or empty 'space'; it is actually the absence of space-time and therefore it is a theory completely incompatible with our understandings of logic, reason, and science (which you unabashedly profess points to an inherent existence [God]).

Likewise, how can God create existence (that is, a totality of all things existing)? That would obviously imply that God would have to be separate from 'all things existing' and therefore in the category of things 'not existing'. By the very nature of theism, God doesn't exist! And then theists will say, well God is his own existence; or, his own self-sustaining totality of things existing (and presumably this existence doesn't abide by the same physical laws as ours). And there we are with the problem of things existing inherently (and anyway, if God existed inherently like this theists' reply would suggest, God wouldn't be able to interact with his creation!). And likewise, the theist philosophy is that "something can't come from nothing". In this argument we essentially run into the same exact paradox. God is considered something correct? So he must have came from something? And that something from something? And so on ad infinitum. Unless, of course, God isn't something and doesn't exist; but that would explain a lot and well that's just godless atheism that has no chance of uniting according to our holy texts in the Bahá'í Faith!

I would read this here: The Buddhist Attitude to God

But anyway, sorry for my digression.

The idea behind the Buddhist conception of "Sunyata" is that things aren't inherently existing but all dependent-arising. That is, everything of existence is essentially one. Everything is dependent upon their real and material causes and conditions. Things exist but they don't exist inherently.

This is simply incompatible with other religious sentiments.

I am separated from God (as I don't believe in him and I believe that it is highly unlikely that he exists in the first place), and my life hasn't been better. In fact, it is much better than when I was under the false comfort of the God-concept. I must be in unpleasant and torturing separation from God!

So I'm a binary thinker like the religious fundies because I recognize that not all the religions are the same, fundamentally?

Wrong. Many other religions don't believe in a creator, and/or in fact their philosophies are completely contrary to the idea of a creator as I have pointed out about Buddhism above!

Even religions with a god(s) posit much more complex identities of the nature of the universe than just a creator-god.

If you truly believe that's what I'm saying then you haven't been paying attention at all. I am merely pointing out that no one knows the truth, I'm not positing the alleged superiority of my truth at all. And religions believe they have it figured out, and in the process of dogmatic faith, it is mass delusion.

Hell, now that I found out you're Bahá'í Faith it becomes all clear to me. I thought you were attempting to make a rationalized debate about how religions are all united; but now it's clear that this is simply an idea that was professed to you in church and you soaked it up without question or inquiry because it is your faith.

There are many elements of truth in Mao's little red book. I would personally say a multitude more truth than the first most popular selling book the bible!

But we now know that much of that was lies. That is, even though there is some truth and falsehoods in Mao's book; Mao never practiced what he wrote, and perhaps he didn't even believe it himself! Like many instances of religion, communism was MIS-used, as you say, to control the masses. But unlike religion, communism's truth value is invested in the real material conditions of human reality and recognized the true common-hood of humanity and that is us as a species-being (as Marx says).

He didn't last very long because his legacy was destroyed by propaganda means, just like numerous other 'prophets' before and after Jesus. The story of Jesus wasn't squashed by the powers that be but eventually taken up and forced upon the masses. It's been a missionary religion ever since. Hardly a religion tolerant of other religions' beliefs, and hardly a source of unity!

Ah, well, I think I've realized that you're merely a puddle in a hole (if I may borrow the analogy from the late great Douglas Adams). You look at the hole you're in and you say, "well, this hole fits me quite perfectly; it seems as if all of nature is here to support me and for me to use, this must be evidence that someone (or something) created it!"

I'm just wondering if you believe the shape of a banana is evidence of God because allegedly it fits the human hand perfectly!

When in actuality, nature points directly away from the idea of a God. It points right toward the idea that everything is one and dependent upon each other and not existing inherently. That things formed and are forming due to natural selection and eons of material causes and conditions.

"Hell, now that I found out you're Bahá'í Faith it becomes all clear to me. I thought you were attempting to make a rationalized debate about how religions are all united; but now it's clear that this is simply an idea that was professed to you in church and you soaked it up without question or inquiry because it is your faith."


Hmmm, a lot of assumption there on your part. First of all, there is no Baha'i "church" where things are preached to us by clergy. The Baha'i Faith HAS no clergy.

As to your assertions about Buddhism, well there are theistic Buddhists. It is one religion I don't know enough about to be comforatable commenting on. You might want to see if you can find a Baha'i from a Buddhist background to address your arguments/issues/questions.

One book I intend to read, if I can ever find it, is called "The God of Buddah." -- which I understand was written by just such a person -- a Baha'i who came from a Buddhist background.

I soaked it up without question or inquiry?
Just exacly HOW ignorant are you of the Baha'i Faith? An independant investigation of the truth is one of the religion's KEY doctrines. Did you simply not know that?

Did you NOT read or check out the link, from one of the faith's central figures, on the essential harmony of science/reason and religion? (Another CENTRAL doctrine of the Baha'i Faith.)

Do you know ANYTHING about how/why I became Baha'i? Or do you just assume I was born into it and had these ideas "soaked" into me as a sat, as a child, in a Baha'i "church?"

Dude, I come from the background of being first a Christian, then an Atheist/Agnostic (who thought not so differently than you do now) and then studied the Baha'i Faith for damn near two years (I was in my mid-20s by then) before deciding to join.

Seriously, I'd rather not debate my religon on these boards (see my comments on the "Lutherans" thread in the "Gay Marriage" forum as to why.)

But honestly, when you say stuff like that, it only adverstises your own ignorance. DO NOT make such assumptions about people.

And Baha'is are FAR from the only people who find comminality in the religions. Many scholars have found a common thread. One I can name off the top of my head is Joseph Campbell. MANY throughout history have noted the religions all seem to point to the same source, and have therefore been saddend by the tragedy when people use them as an excuse to divide.

Yes, I'm familiar with all your arguments about how God can't be logical or exist without having come from somewhere. They all share the same flaw. They assume:

Mechanism is cause, or evidence of self-cause.
A creator would have to be subject to the same laws of that which he created.

"Ah, well, I think I've realized that you're merely a puddle in a hole (if I may borrow the analogy from the late great Douglas Adams). You look at the hole you're in and you say, "well, this hole fits me quite perfectly; it seems as if all of nature is here to support me and for me to use, this must be evidence that someone (or something) created it!""

Yes, if I saw my own material existance here as an end in and of itself, rather than a means to an end, that would make sense. But apparenlty many atheists, like Mr. Adams (may his soul be embraced by God) just don't GET that.
God didn't put me here to make me comforatable, or for it to be "perfect" for me.

"I'm just wondering if you believe the shape of a banana is evidence of God because allegedly it fits the human hand perfectly!"

I'm just wondering what sort of other assinine assumptions you make about people. You've already shown yourself to be hysterically ignorant of my religion.

"When in actuality, nature points directly away from the idea of a God. It points right toward the idea that everything is one and dependent upon each other and not existing inherently. That things formed and are forming due to natural selection and eons of material causes and conditions."

Yeah.. everything IS dependent upon everthing else. Nature is in a total state of UTTER DEPENDENCE. Hmmmmm... think about that... just for a minute....

This is quite a decent thread to watch. Makes me glad I really don't have a horse in this discussion. The entire concept of Religion is such a huge question mark, why even bother? Either you believe or you don't. There's no defined "proof" either way.

What I meant by 'preached' isn't necessarily a clergy but teachings of the faith. You do recognize that there is actually something about the Baha'i faith that is to be 'taught' do you not?

There is a cannon to it; a system of beliefs, faith, and teachings. That is what I was talking about. Or do you just want to assume?

While admittedly I don't know a lot about the Bahá'í Faith, Buddhism is something I have studied.

And, Buddhism is a truly subtle idea that it can be adapted almost as a 'tool'; it's more of a philosophy than a religion because it doesn't attempt to instill upon other cultures a set cannon of ideas. However, that doesn't mean you can make what ever you want of it.

"Theistic-Buddhism" is a contradiction. There are theistic-like figures in some regional schools of Buddhism in Asia, but none of them belong to the concept of a creator-God. None. The closest you get to a god in Buddhism are figures who allegedly broke free from cyclic existence and permanence. The Buddha himself was paraphrased in saying that some of the descriptions of such almost deity-like figures are more poetic expressions of complex concepts than anything in an attempt to describe them to an ignorant people: after all, Buddhism is one of the world's oldest major religions.

If I were to consult someone on Buddhism, I would consult someone from the Buddhist religion (or, in my opinion, "philosophy"), and not get a biased opinion from a Baha'i. Perhaps you go to that one source for your outlook on the world's religions, but I tend to want to get multiple sources.

I have, and will continue to read books on Buddhism from Buddhists, if I desire to get an accurate description of the religion.

Haha, from the looks of it it's perhaps an independent investigation within the confines of Baha'i ideology!

I too, emphasize independent investigation. But perhaps the difference between you and I is that I don't rely on the unseen and faith in a cannon. Buddhism or even a UU church seems to be a better place for independent investigation.

There's an old Buddhist saying, "If you meet the Buddha on the Road, Kill him!"

No, I was not given such a link. Perhaps you could supply me with it.

I never assumed such a thing about how you became Baha'i. I do know, however, that you're not being very open minded or open to unbiased personal investigation to any other idea than the concept that the great Bahá'u'lláh is the redeemer and prophet of the world's major religions and that he will inevitably create an age of unity and spread his magical pixie dust in the new age of peace through all the world's religions! Ahhh *blushes*

Now you are making assumptions about what I think.

Ah, okay. But could it be perhaps because every time religion is on the table for debate, it inevitably ends up in bitter argument and confrontation? After all, that phenomena doesn't really support your dogmatic truth of Bahá'u'lláh bring unity through religion does it? But, I guess I'm assuming now.

Ditto.

Like I said, the major commonality I personally recognize in many of the world's major religions (not all though), is their story of their savior (Jesus, Horus [Egypt], Attis [Greece], etc.,etc.) following the parallel literary story that has old astrology and pagan myth at it's source. Not god. Well, unless you consider the sun to be god.

But, even with this common link and the common link of the gold rule, there is way more to contradict than to unite.

Mechanism as cause (in the context of things manifest only through their material causes and conditions, correct?) isn't an unfounded presupposition because it's based on real observation and empiricism; in other words, what we know to be scientifically true. But even this being so doesn't connote self-cause, I never said that; it could perhaps connote infinity also.

The idea that things are manifest from the invisible and intangible spiritual realm, however, is a completely unfounded presupposition with so many assumptions and contradictions that would make William of Ockham have a coronary (see Occam's razor).

Your latter argument is tired. I accounted for that in my thesis above (that God's own self-containing existence would be unbound by the same laws as our existence). However, it's still a totality of things existing. Unless of course you're making the assertion that God can at once both exist and not exist at the same time simply because the theory of God is so beyond our logic and reason (even though, ironically, it was a theory developed by that very human logic and reason); which is one of the largest leaps of unmitigated illogical and unreasonable faith that assuming it's truth (let alone committing it fully) would count as a mental delusion.

I'd rather not believe there is an invisible pink unicorn three times the size of the universe living inside my pinky (while at the same time not existing and the creator of existence!); why? Because it's bloody retarded that's why. Our real and scientific understanding dictates the impossibility (or very high improbability, rather) of such an existence.

Oh no, mytmouse is arrogant enough to claim that there is proof, or evidence rather, of God all around us...and somehow science points to it!