Chakaara said: Immahnoob said: That's wrong, agnosticism can be either agnostic atheism or agnostic theism. Agnostic would mean that you do not have the knowledge to acknowledge a god or not, but that does not work as something either exists or doesn't, so agnostic atheist believes that we do not have knowledge to acknowledge gods or not but he believes they do not exist and agnostic theist believes that we do not have the knowledge to acknowledge gods or not but he believes that they do exist. TL;DC Read it slowly. I don't know if that is true, but if it is, my philosophy teacher told me nothing but lies all year and I most certainly did fail my exam. You certainly failed your exam and your teacher is a fucking retard. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
Immahnoob said: Chakaara said: Immahnoob said: That's wrong, agnosticism can be either agnostic atheism or agnostic theism. Agnostic would mean that you do not have the knowledge to acknowledge a god or not, but that does not work as something either exists or doesn't, so agnostic atheist believes that we do not have knowledge to acknowledge gods or not but he believes they do not exist and agnostic theist believes that we do not have the knowledge to acknowledge gods or not but he believes that they do exist. TL;DC Read it slowly. I don't know if that is true, but if it is, my philosophy teacher told me nothing but lies all year and I most certainly did fail my exam. You certainly failed your exam and your teacher is a fucking retard. Changed my mind, my teacher's still a retard but I didn't fail, I probably going to pass with exceeds expectations. (Harry Potter reference) |
 |
| I was raised Christian, and while I identified as Christian, the idea of Heaven always seemed silly to me. I started identifying as "Atheist" around 14, then Agnostic Atheist around 17. My family are still Christians, although my step dad is Atheist, so it isn't exactly much of a problem. Not being from America also helps. |
Do you believe in the religion your family taught you? Yes, but my family wasn't really qualified to teach me properly. I learned about my religion on my own. |
  |
lupadim said: What I think about religions in general: Atheists Oh, hey, look, I am an atheist! You are christian? Or, your little brain-washed stupid kid! Hahaha! Look at my, I am so cool, I am atheist! Hahahahaha! Agnostic I do think that God exists but in my opinion God doesn't exists is anyone getting what I am saying? Muslim Hey, we have a fair religion, we are fair with everyone, our religion is the most fair one in the world, women are treated like shit in our country but hey Not real christians Hey, we are christians! I mean, we never go to the church, we ignore the bible, we make jokes about Jesus, but I am christian! I am evangelic. Classic Lupadim comment. |
lupadim said: What I think about religions in general: Atheists Oh, hey, look, I am an atheist! You are christian? Or, your little brain-washed stupid kid! Hahaha! Look at my, I am so cool, I am atheist! Hahahahaha! Agnostic I do think that God exists but in my opinion God doesn't exists is anyone getting what I am saying? Muslim Hey, we have a fair religion, we are fair with everyone, our religion is the most fair one in the world, women are treated like shit in our country but hey Not real christians Hey, we are christians! I mean, we never go to the church, we ignore the bible, we make jokes about Jesus, but I am christian! I am evangelic. I think I'm done here. |
lupadim said: Agnostic I do think that God exists but in my opinion God doesn't exists is anyone getting what I am saying? you got agnostic wrong, your definition of agnostic is confusing, agnostics simply believes their is not enough evidence or knowledge that their is god or their is no god, as much as science gives answers to our questions its still in its infancy on knowing all the truth about this universe (or multiverse) |
Immahnoob said: Yeah, but some people love to add that Agnostic there for some reason. And yeah, stating your beliefs as facts is fucked up. If you were to actually study and compare all of the worlds scriptures you will find there aren't many idiosyncrasies. All of the worlds "major" religions follow the same God and the same principles (not counting edited modern say translations of course) so it is actually possible for people to justify their belief in God by arguing historical facts. Is it wrong for someone to state their belief as a fact that everyone else absolutely MUST subscribe to? Sure. But to simply say it's a fact isn't retarded at all. Believing in something while doubting it's true is even more retarded because it's purely speculative. |
 |
| "Is it wrong for someone to state their belief as a fact that everyone else absolutely MUST subscribe to? Sure." And this is what I meant but maybe you didn't notice that we were talking about it specifically, the rest of what you said is irrelevant to be honest. Oh but there's still: "you will find there aren't many idiosyncrasies." This is common knowledge and your assumptions are wrong. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
Immahnoob said: "Is it wrong for someone to state their belief as a fact that everyone else absolutely MUST subscribe to? Sure." And this is what I meant but maybe you didn't notice that we were talking about it specifically, the rest of what you said is irrelevant to be honest. Oh but there's still: "you will find there aren't many idiosyncrasies." This is common knowledge and your assumptions are wrong. I love it when someone brings "common knowledge" into the equation. The "common" man has proven to be nothing more than an apathetic sheep incapable of thinking for himself or questioning the status quo. As I said I've actually bothered to pick up the books and read them, so these "assumptions" of mine come from a place of actual knowledge and research, unlike your sheeple herd mentality. |
|
MitchD said: Immahnoob said: "Is it wrong for someone to state their belief as a fact that everyone else absolutely MUST subscribe to? Sure." And this is what I meant but maybe you didn't notice that we were talking about it specifically, the rest of what you said is irrelevant to be honest. Oh but there's still: "you will find there aren't many idiosyncrasies." This is common knowledge and your assumptions are wrong. I love it when someone brings "common knowledge" into the equation. The "common" man has proven to be nothing more than an apathetic sheep incapable of thinking for himself or questioning the status quo. As I said I've actually bothered to pick up the books and read them, so these "assumptions" of mine come from a place of actual knowledge and research, unlike your sheeple herd mentality. Why would I study something I don't care about? Like LOL, I'd rather shoot myself in the knee than read more about religion than I already have. As I said, I already knew most religions have the same idea of god and almost the same rules. And I meant your assumptions about me not knowing about it. Don't be a dickhead. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
| Nope. My mom is mormon, and my dad is agnostic. I was raised as a mormon, and now I'm an atheist. |
 |
| Nope. |
 |
Immahnoob said: And I meant your assumptions about me not knowing about it. Don't be a dickhead. Oh, forgive me. I never once said you didn't know a thing about it, so any assumptions made were on your part. "you will find there aren't many idiosyncrasies." When I made that comment, I only quoted what it was you said about beliefs and facts. I was more concerned with those reading than addressing you personally as this is actually a common misconception. So again, assumption on your part. Still, I'm reluctant to believe you know much about the subject when you openly declare you have no interest in learning any more about it. |
|
| That's the thing, I know about it and it bores me to death. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
MitchD said: I tried to shy away from bashing religion in this thread, but come on! All the world's major religions do not follow the same God; outside of the 3 Abrahamic religions, the pantheistic religions that preceded them, panentheistic religions like Zoroastrianism, idealist monist religions like Hindu or Buddhism, deist religions like Taoism... Despite the actual diversity in beliefs presented here, there is one unifying factor: they are attempts of prescribing an 'a priori' solution to an 'a posteriori' problem, using imagination to solve questions about our physical surroundings instead of experimentation and facts.If you were to actually study and compare all of the worlds scriptures you will find there aren't many idiosyncrasies. All of the worlds "major" religions follow the same God and the same principles (not counting edited modern say translations of course) so it is actually possible for people to justify their belief in God by arguing historical facts. MitchD said: To say something is a fact when it is not a fact makes you wrong. Believing in non-facts do not automatically make them facts.Is it wrong for someone to state their belief as a fact that everyone else absolutely MUST subscribe to? Sure. But to simply say it's a fact isn't retarded at all. Believing in something while doubting it's true is even more retarded because it's purely speculative. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
katsucats said: MitchD said: I tried to shy away from bashing religion in this thread, but come on! All the world's major religions do not follow the same God; outside of the 3 Abrahamic religions, the pantheistic religions that preceded them, panentheistic religions like Zoroastrianism, idealist monist religions like Hindu or Buddhism, deist religions like Taoism... Despite the actual diversity in beliefs presented here, there is one unifying factor: they are attempts of prescribing an 'a priori' solution to an 'a posteriori' problem, using imagination to solve questions about our physical surroundings instead of experimentation and facts.If you were to actually study and compare all of the worlds scriptures you will find there aren't many idiosyncrasies. All of the worlds "major" religions follow the same God and the same principles (not counting edited modern say translations of course) so it is actually possible for people to justify their belief in God by arguing historical facts. MitchD said: To say something is a fact when it is not a fact makes you wrong. Believing in non-facts do not automatically make them facts.Is it wrong for someone to state their belief as a fact that everyone else absolutely MUST subscribe to? Sure. But to simply say it's a fact isn't retarded at all. Believing in something while doubting it's true is even more retarded because it's purely speculative. Clearly I'm talking about forms of gnosticism, as pantheistic and impersonal philosophies don't even mention the existence of a God. This "Abrahamic" label you apply is false. The concept of an Abrahamic God (or sky God) is taken from the Vedic DEMI God Brahma, who is said to live in the top most planet of the universe. In gnostic religious philosophy, a Demi God is still a creation of the transcendental supreme God. Christians, Muslims etc. worship the God which transcends the material creation. Pantheism predates what exactly? My research shows that the origin and authority of all forms of religion are the Vedic scriptures. Please explain. |
|
MitchD said: Clearly, and clearly you're wrong that all forms of gnosticism espouses the same values as "Abrahamic" religions, which I'm using to describe Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Pantheistic and polytheistic religions both have Gods in different conceptions.katsucats said: Clearly I'm talking about forms of gnosticism, as pantheistic and impersonal philosophies don't even mention the existence of a God. MitchD said: I tried to shy away from bashing religion in this thread, but come on! All the world's major religions do not follow the same God; outside of the 3 Abrahamic religions, the pantheistic religions that preceded them, panentheistic religions like Zoroastrianism, idealist monist religions like Hindu or Buddhism, deist religions like Taoism... Despite the actual diversity in beliefs presented here, there is one unifying factor: they are attempts of prescribing an 'a priori' solution to an 'a posteriori' problem, using imagination to solve questions about our physical surroundings instead of experimentation and facts.If you were to actually study and compare all of the worlds scriptures you will find there aren't many idiosyncrasies. All of the worlds "major" religions follow the same God and the same principles (not counting edited modern say translations of course) so it is actually possible for people to justify their belief in God by arguing historical facts. MitchD said: To say something is a fact when it is not a fact makes you wrong. Believing in non-facts do not automatically make them facts.Is it wrong for someone to state their belief as a fact that everyone else absolutely MUST subscribe to? Sure. But to simply say it's a fact isn't retarded at all. Believing in something while doubting it's true is even more retarded because it's purely speculative. MitchD said: Semantics. I think it's clear what I meant when I said "Abrahamic", and even if I was mistaken in the label (which I'm not) it would not change the fact that different gnostic religions espouses different values.This "Abrahamic" label you apply is false. The concept of an Abrahamic God (or sky God) is taken from the Vedic DEMI God Brahma, who is said to live in the top most planet of the universe. MitchD said: You assume that there is one "transcendental" supreme God that is distinct from the universe. This is not gnostic philosophy, but Christian/Muslim/Judaism philosophy.In gnostic religious philosophy, a Demi God is still a creation of the transcendental supreme God. Christians, Muslims etc. worship the God which transcends the material creation. MitchD said: Right, because North American natives somehow gained access to ships or telepathy when they conceived of Gods; the people who built the Stonehenge had to consult the Vedic scriptures; Early Egyptians, who built the pyramids to get closer to God traversed across multiple civilizations to reach India in order to do so? Clearly not, and the fact that all these religions have nothing to do with the Brahmic concept only cements this fact.Pantheism predates what exactly? My research shows that the origin and authority of all forms of religion are the Vedic scriptures. Please explain. There is in fact a supreme God in Hindu -- Brahman -- and it does not share any similarities with Jesus. Even still, all of this proves to be a huge red herring and debating me about religious particulars does not change the fact that they are not facts, but erroneously held beliefs, traditions used to mold society. Facts require empirical evidence. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
| Not at all. I'm atheist (as is my sister and my dad) but my mom is a very strict Catholic woman, and so, even though my dad had no religion, we still had to do all of the catholic ceremonies growing up, such as baptism, communion, Christmas, etc. I was even forced into Catholic education too haha. Contrary to popular belief, a religious schooling system isn't preachy where I live, as in, you don't read bible verses every day or something like that. It was a lot of just "general religion" in my school, and we had a choice to take classes such as World Religion Politics, or individual classes on Hinduism or Judaism. Even though I'm definitely not religious, I don't regret Catholic schooling. :) |
★  |
Chxistine said: Not at all. I'm atheist (as is my sister and my dad) but my mom is a very strict Catholic woman, and so, even though my dad had no religion, we still had to do all of the catholic ceremonies growing up, such as baptism, communion, Christmas, etc. I was even forced into Catholic education too haha. Contrary to popular belief, a religious schooling system isn't preachy where I live, as in, you don't read bible verses every day or something like that. It was a lot of just "general religion" in my school, and we had a choice to take classes such as World Religion Politics, or individual classes on Hinduism or Judaism. Even though I'm definitely not religious, I don't regret Catholic schooling. :) It's so nice to have an atheist say something positive about religion. I'm glad that it all worked out for you! It's strange though that if your mother is a strict Catholic that she married an atheist. I could never see myself in a serious relationship with someone who didn't share my faith. But all's well that end's well I suppose. |
| Let this be our little secret, no needs to know we're feeling HIGHER AND HIGHER AND HIGHER! |
Hitchens said: lupadim said: What I think about religions in general: Atheists Oh, hey, look, I am an atheist! You are christian? Or, your little brain-washed stupid kid! Hahaha! Look at my, I am so cool, I am atheist! Hahahahaha! Agnostic I do think that God exists but in my opinion God doesn't exists is anyone getting what I am saying? Muslim Hey, we have a fair religion, we are fair with everyone, our religion is the most fair one in the world, women are treated like shit in our country but hey Not real christians Hey, we are christians! I mean, we never go to the church, we ignore the bible, we make jokes about Jesus, but I am christian! I am evangelic. I think I'm done here. This. Yup, I'm pretty much just going to leave re-quoting this. |
EarlCiel said: Hitchens said: lupadim said: What I think about religions in general: Atheists Oh, hey, look, I am an atheist! You are christian? Or, your little brain-washed stupid kid! Hahaha! Look at my, I am so cool, I am atheist! Hahahahaha! Agnostic I do think that God exists but in my opinion God doesn't exists is anyone getting what I am saying? Muslim Hey, we have a fair religion, we are fair with everyone, our religion is the most fair one in the world, women are treated like shit in our country but hey Not real christians Hey, we are christians! I mean, we never go to the church, we ignore the bible, we make jokes about Jesus, but I am christian! I am a proud believer of lupadimism. I think I'm done here. This. Yup, I'm pretty much just going to leave re-quoting this. qft |
| sexual incest in nisomonogatari - no one bats an eye romance incest in SAO - everyone loses their minds |
| Personally I believe that Odin is the mightiest God. So I worship him. Because when it comes down to it, who's going to help me be victorious in battle? Certainly not the christian God, he's nailed to a cross, he's dead. He's not alive like Odin and Freyja and Tyr. Nope, I'm going to rely on the Gods that got my people this far. |
| > The Fellow MAL Users Social Link has reached level 6! > Your power to create Forum Posts of the Anime Arcana has grown! |
katsucats said: You assume that there is one "transcendental" supreme God that is distinct from the universe. This is not gnostic philosophy, but Christian/Muslim/Judaism philosophy. Just to clear up a misunderstanding (and a short coming on my part) when I said gnostic I was actually meaning Theistic. Sorry about that. katsucats said: MitchD said: Pantheism predates what exactly? My research shows that the origin and authority of all forms of religion are the Vedic scriptures. Please explain. Right, because North American natives somehow gained access to ships or telepathy when they conceived of Gods; the people who built the Stonehenge had to consult the Vedic scriptures; Early Egyptians, who built the pyramids to get closer to God traversed across multiple civilizations to reach India in order to do so? Where to begin with the fallacies.... Who said Vedic culture was Indian? There is a substantial amount of historical evidence which suggests Vedic culture was the original and global culture. Since you want empirical evidence, I suggest taking a look at "Proof of Vedic Culture's Global Existence" by Stephen Knapp. katsucats said: Clearly not, and the fact that all these religions have nothing to do with the Brahmic concept only cements this fact. Does it really? I can quote you passages from the Vedas right now which predict the appearance of impersonalist philosophies like Buddhism, and describe their purpose. I can also prove the Vedas pre-date said philosophies, thus making it authoritative. katsucats said: There is in fact a supreme God in Hindu -- Brahman -- and it does not share any similarities with Jesus. Did you bother to learn about the caste system? Brahman refers to a class of men tasked with teaching all the other classes religious principles. Yes, God is refered to as "the supreme Brahman" in the scriptures, but that's not his name. His name is Krsna, which is Sanskrit for all attractive, or supreme. Just like "Allah" means in Arabic, or God means in English. Also, why would you try to liken the Supreme God to Jesus? Each of these religions makes the distinction between God and his messengers (or prophets, gurus, whatever you want to call them) very clear. Jesus is clearly acting on God's behalf. |
|
michd said: Does it really? I can quote you passages from the Vedas right now which predict the appearance of impersonalist philosophies like Buddhism, and describe their purpose. I can also prove the Vedas pre-date said philosophies, thus making it authoritative. Buddha dharma is, at its core, based around some guy who wanted confirmation via empirical evidence, not just acceptance of the Vedas. The Vedas are related to Buddhist, and ultimately many impersonalist thought. The thing is that you need to know Sanskrit to truly understand the Vedas, and that knowledge and mastery is rare in Indian subcontinent, let alone the West. That’s why various western philosophies, which are now coming to similar conclusions as dharmic philosophy, don’t know that certin concepts are already in the Vedic literature. Veda essentially means “knowledge”….it is not unsurprising that independent trains of thought will lead to the same or similar conclusions if all of these are based upon logic, which they strive to be. michd said: Did you bother to learn about the caste system? Brahman refers to a class of men tasked with teaching all the other classes religious principles. Yes, God is refered to as "the supreme Brahman" in the scriptures, but that's not his name. His name is Krsna, which is Sanskrit for all attractive, or supreme. Just like "Allah" means in Arabic, or God means in English. Also, why would you try to liken the Supreme God to Jesus? Each of these religions makes the distinction between God and his messengers (or prophets, gurus, whatever you want to call them) very clear. Jesus is clearly acting on God's behalf. The caste is called Brahmin, not BrahmaN. Brahman = concept of ultimate existence/supreme consciousness Brahma = representation of creation symbolizing illusion of man (this is not a Vedic deity) Brahmin = one who’s karma is of pursuing the truth (not necessarily a priest, like the modern-day corrupted version has become under the defiled caste system and Hinduism in general) Krishna means (beauty of) darkness in Sanskrit….where did you get all supreme lol. Krishna, in dharmic philosophy, is free from the system of Karma. Katsucats is right, if I’m understanding him correctly – Brahman is the concept of existence/truth – aka the ultimate aspect. In sanatana dharma, the philosophy of Vedic , there is no personal, Abrahamic-like God that judges something called the “soul”. |
RandomChampionJul 1, 2013 12:15 PM
| I was not raised to believe in any religion, and for that I am grateful. Even as an adult, I have no will to worship any god. So yeah, an atheist here :) |
| My brain cells don't find dwelling over religion useful. Figured that out when I was around 12. So no. I think my mother tried to raise me Catholic. I don't believe parents should be allowed to teach their children religion. That just sets them up for a lifetime of limited choices/free thinking and willingness to accept the undeniable facts and truths we observe in nature and space. Simply teach your kids morals and manners without a deity. Same principles. I don't need to be a devout Catholic or something to be an intelligent, upstanding member of society with an empty criminal record. |
 |
MitchD said: Are you seriously going to present the author of Hinduism and new age spirituality books as a credible source of history? The last ice occurred approximately 15,000 BC when Siberian hunters crossed the Bearing ice bridge into North America. Vedic culture is credited to have existed somewhere around 1,500-500 BC. There is absolutely no evidence of ancient cultures being able to sail half way across the world by ship: ancient mythologies of "the edge of the world" prove that, as does archeological evidence and the immunology of Native Americans being susceptible to Western diseases. And yet, cultures across the world that were inaccessible to the Vedas have developed concepts of religion and theistic God.katsucats said: Just to clear up a misunderstanding (and a short coming on my part) when I said gnostic I was actually meaning Theistic. Sorry about that.You assume that there is one "transcendental" supreme God that is distinct from the universe. This is not gnostic philosophy, but Christian/Muslim/Judaism philosophy. katsucats said: Where to begin with the fallacies....MitchD said: Right, because North American natives somehow gained access to ships or telepathy when they conceived of Gods; the people who built the Stonehenge had to consult the Vedic scriptures; Early Egyptians, who built the pyramids to get closer to God traversed across multiple civilizations to reach India in order to do so?Pantheism predates what exactly? My research shows that the origin and authority of all forms of religion are the Vedic scriptures. Please explain. Who said Vedic culture was Indian? There is a substantial amount of historical evidence which suggests Vedic culture was the original and global culture. Since you want empirical evidence, I suggest taking a look at "Proof of Vedic Culture's Global Existence" by Stephen Knapp. The idea that Western churches across the world were once Vedic temples, and that Vedic Aryans are the forebears of modern civilization is so revisionist and ridiculous that I frankly can't tell if you're either a really bad troll, or you have copy of The Nazi Party 25 Points buried somewhere in your bookshelf. One more thing, learn the definition of a logical fallacy before you use that word again. MitchD said: The "Buddha" in the Vedas was said to have existed at the beginning of the Kali-yuka, which predates Buddha (who lived in 500 BC) by 3,000 years. But regardless, I will not be drawn into a discussion of religious "prophecies" with you as it is irrelevant. Christian philosophy, as an easy example, have almost nothing to do with Hinduism, thus your claim that all religions are derived from the Vedas is unsupported.katsucats said: Does it really? I can quote you passages from the Vedas right now which predict the appearance of impersonalist philosophies like Buddhism, and describe their purpose. I can also prove the Vedas pre-date said philosophies, thus making it authoritative. Clearly not, and the fact that all these religions have nothing to do with the Brahmic concept only cements this fact. MitchD said: Semantics again. Why does the name matter? The fact remains that each of these religions view God as having different properties, they have different values, different ethics, different customs, etc. Any religious details that you summon forth not only do not contradict this, but affirms it. Your redirection isn't working.katsucats said: Did you bother to learn about the caste system? Brahman refers to a class of men tasked with teaching all the other classes religious principles. Yes, God is refered to as "the supreme Brahman" in the scriptures, but that's not his name. His name is Krsna, which is Sanskrit for all attractive, or supreme. Just like "Allah" means in Arabic, or God means in English.There is in fact a supreme God in Hindu -- Brahman -- and it does not share any similarities with Jesus. MitchD said: Irrelevant. Argue the point. Don't argue about religious technicalities that have nothing to do with the core contention:Also, why would you try to liken the Supreme God to Jesus? Each of these religions makes the distinction between God and his messengers (or prophets, gurus, whatever you want to call them) very clear. Jesus is clearly acting on God's behalf. 1. Religions are different. 2. Believing a non-fact does not make it a fact. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
| I voted Atheist,but i don't really know! I was raised Ortodox but at some point i just stopped caring about religion,i mean i don't really care if god exists or not anymore! |
RandomChampion said: The caste is called Brahmin, not BrahmaN. Brahman = concept of ultimate existence/supreme consciousness Brahma = representation of creation symbolizing illusion of man (this is not a Vedic deity) Brahmin = one who’s karma is of pursuing the truth (not necessarily a priest, like the modern-day corrupted version has become under the defiled caste system and Hinduism in general) Krishna means (beauty of) darkness in Sanskrit….where did you get all supreme lol. Krishna, in dharmic philosophy, is free from the system of Karma. Katsucats is right, if I’m understanding him correctly – Brahman is the concept of existence/truth – aka the ultimate aspect. In sanatana dharma, the philosophy of Vedic , there is no personal, Abrahamic-like God that judges something called the “soul”. The caste is actually called "Brahmana" and since the last "a" in sanskrit words is often silent, it's often spelt as either Brahman or Brahmin. Yes, Veda means knowledge, and Vedanta means the conclusion of all knowledge a.k.a. the sum of the Vedas. Bhagavad Gita and Srimad Bhagavatam are both Vedantas, making them authoritative. According to these literatures, Brahma is a demi God who has been given the power of creation on Krsna's behalf. Where did I get all supreme (absolute)? Perhaps the etymology as explained by the scriptures themselves. Not some mundane article reference on Wikipedia. Here you go: "If we analyze the nirukti, or semantic derivation, of the word 'Krishna,' we find that na signifies that He stops the repetition of birth and death, and krish means sattartha, or 'existence.' (Krishna is the whole of existence.) Also, krish means 'attraction,' and na means ananda, or 'bliss." — Srimad-Bhagavatam 10.8.15 "'The word 'krish' is the attractive feature of the Lord's existence, and 'na' means spiritual pleasure. When the verb 'krish' is added to the affix 'na' it becomes Krishna, which indicates the Absolute Truth.'' - Mahabharata katsucats said: are you seriously going to present the author of Hinduism and new age spirituality books as a credible source of history? That's not what I've done at all. I've simply suggested his book as he has compiled credible sources of history all in one place. That's more effective than me hunting down each source individually when someone else has already gone out of his way to do it. No? katsucats said: Christian philosophy, as an easy example, have almost nothing to do with Hinduism, thus your claim that all religions are derived from the Vedas is unsupported. The name given to the religion which follows the Vedanta philosophy is Vaishnavism. Christian philosophy is very similar to Vaishnavism. Hinduism still came from Vaishnavism but it's a deviated form as Hindus worship Vedic demi gods. I'm bothering to back up my claims with verifiable facts. You're simply making statements to the contrary and passing it off as a legitimate rebuttal. |
|
MitchD said: katsucats said: That's not what I've done at all. I've simply suggested his book as he has compiled credible sources of history all in one place. That's more effective than me hunting down each source individually when someone else has already gone out of his way to do it. No? are you seriously going to present the author of Hinduism and new age spirituality books as a credible source of history? MitchD said: Presenting the name of a book with no citation that one has to buy and sift through countless pages to find the supposed "facts" that you purport is not backing up claims "with verifiable facts". That doesn't take into account that your "facts" are not even central to the argument. Vedas' extensity would be irrelevant to the fact that religious precepts are not epistemically knowable, therefore calling them "facts" is to reject empiricism. Explain how the Vedic culture was able to peruse technology a millennium from their existence and travel across the Indian and Pacific oceans to send their missionaries to every Polynesian island and the American continents whose inhabitants have conceived of theistic Gods.I'm bothering to back up my claims with verifiable facts. You're simply making statements to the contrary and passing it off as a legitimate rebuttal. MitchD said: Vaishnavism is a branch of Hinduism and neither is even close to the values endorsed by Christianity; and yet, neither Vaishnavism, Hinduism, nor Christianity are close to the values endorsed by the Shinto; and yet, none of the above share any concept of lokahi or the Aztec God Ometeotl. The Buddhist concept of Naraka is different from the Christian concept of Hell, and so on.katsucats said: Christian philosophy, as an easy example, have almost nothing to do with Hinduism, thus your claim that all religions are derived from the Vedas is unsupported. The name given to the religion which follows the Vedanta philosophy is Vaishnavism. Christian philosophy is very similar to Vaishnavism. Hinduism still came from Vaishnavism but it's a deviated form as Hindus worship Vedic demi gods. If there are any similarities at all (besides the existence of a transcendental God that is the very definition of theism), explain them... if you can. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
| No. |
 |
| My family never taught me any religion. Not even atheism. |
| I am important. I have a girlfriend. Check out my podcast |
| I don't care about religion at all and how there is a "God" Just enjoy your life to the fullest. |
mitchmd said: The caste is actually called "Brahmana" and since the last "a" in sanskrit words is often silent, it's often spelt as either Brahman or Brahmin. Yes, Veda means knowledge, and Vedanta means the conclusion of all knowledge a.k.a. the sum of the Vedas. Bhagavad Gita and Srimad Bhagavatam are both Vedantas, making them authoritative. According to these literatures, Brahma is a demi God who has been given the power of creation on Krsna's behalf. Where did I get all supreme (absolute)? Perhaps the etymology as explained by the scriptures themselves. Not some mundane article reference on Wikipedia. Here you go: "If we analyze the nirukti, or semantic derivation, of the word 'Krishna,' we find that na signifies that He stops the repetition of birth and death, and krish means sattartha, or 'existence.' (Krishna is the whole of existence.) Also, krish means 'attraction,' and na means ananda, or 'bliss." — Srimad-Bhagavatam 10.8.15 "'The word 'krish' is the attractive feature of the Lord's existence, and 'na' means spiritual pleasure. When the verb 'krish' is added to the affix 'na' it becomes Krishna, which indicates the Absolute Truth.'' – Mahabharata Youre free to believe that Smirti texts are authoritative…youre basically claiming as fact that texts based on divine revelation are authoritative. But why are you trying to play it off as fact in a debate… Yes, like I said, Krishna is an aspect free from the karmic system…and therefore ultimately an avtar of Brahman (the supreme absolute)…same thing I guess. Beauty of darkness also probably refers to the bliss of the inconceivable ultimate or something. In any case, katsucats is right…I’ll should stop trying to bury this thing in terminology. mitchmd said: The name given to the religion which follows the Vedanta philosophy is Vaishnavism. Christian philosophy is very similar to Vaishnavism. Hinduism still came from Vaishnavism but it's a deviated form as Hindus worship Vedic demi gods. I'm bothering to back up my claims with verifiable facts. You're simply making statements to the contrary and passing it off as a legitimate rebuttal. Dharmic philosophy…including Vaishnavism….is very different from Christianity. Are you able to explain how? |
| Raised Seventh Day Adventist. Though I don't see reason to adhere to that denomination's specific beliefs, and simply identify myself as a mere Christian instead. Went through some incredibly intense intellectual searching regarding my beliefs a few years ago and winded up where I am today. I don't find secular worldviews to hold much plausibility, nor do I have incentive to join a specific Christian denomination, so I'm probably going to be holding to my current worldview for quite a while. |
| Salmon is delicious. |
RandomChampion said: mitchmd said: The caste is actually called "Brahmana" and since the last "a" in sanskrit words is often silent, it's often spelt as either Brahman or Brahmin. Yes, Veda means knowledge, and Vedanta means the conclusion of all knowledge a.k.a. the sum of the Vedas. Bhagavad Gita and Srimad Bhagavatam are both Vedantas, making them authoritative. According to these literatures, Brahma is a demi God who has been given the power of creation on Krsna's behalf. Where did I get all supreme (absolute)? Perhaps the etymology as explained by the scriptures themselves. Not some mundane article reference on Wikipedia. Here you go: "If we analyze the nirukti, or semantic derivation, of the word 'Krishna,' we find that na signifies that He stops the repetition of birth and death, and krish means sattartha, or 'existence.' (Krishna is the whole of existence.) Also, krish means 'attraction,' and na means ananda, or 'bliss." — Srimad-Bhagavatam 10.8.15 "'The word 'krish' is the attractive feature of the Lord's existence, and 'na' means spiritual pleasure. When the verb 'krish' is added to the affix 'na' it becomes Krishna, which indicates the Absolute Truth.'' – Mahabharata Youre free to believe that Smirti texts are authoritative…youre basically claiming as fact that texts based on divine revelation are authoritative. But why are you trying to play it off as fact in a debate… I'm saying it's authoritative from a religious perspective. Don't play that card please. If the Vedantas predict and desrcibe the purpose for each Veda, including impersonalism/voidism etc. then clearly those two philosophies are stepping stones leading to the Vedantas. That is what I mean when I say authoritative. I'll address your question when I get home. |
|
| I'm athiest, but my mothers half of the family is christian. Fun, fun everywhere. |
 |
| Both my parents are atheists, I consider myself an agnostic though. |
| The only thing you can rely on is that you can't rely on anything. |
NickyCharisma said: Chxistine said: Not at all. I'm atheist (as is my sister and my dad) but my mom is a very strict Catholic woman, and so, even though my dad had no religion, we still had to do all of the catholic ceremonies growing up, such as baptism, communion, Christmas, etc. I was even forced into Catholic education too haha. Contrary to popular belief, a religious schooling system isn't preachy where I live, as in, you don't read bible verses every day or something like that. It was a lot of just "general religion" in my school, and we had a choice to take classes such as World Religion Politics, or individual classes on Hinduism or Judaism. Even though I'm definitely not religious, I don't regret Catholic schooling. :) It's so nice to have an atheist say something positive about religion. I'm glad that it all worked out for you! It's strange though that if your mother is a strict Catholic that she married an atheist. I could never see myself in a serious relationship with someone who didn't share my faith. But all's well that end's well I suppose. Tell me about it... I find it so weird too ahaha. We try not to talk about religion a lot at my house because of this I suppose. :P |
| ★ |
Chxistine said: Tell me about it... I find it so weird too ahaha. We try not to talk about religion a lot at my house because of this I suppose. :P Thanks for the reply! I like to hear positive stories like yours, or at the very least people talking about their decision in a positive manner. |
| Let this be our little secret, no needs to know we're feeling HIGHER AND HIGHER AND HIGHER! |
| My parents taught me nothing so I have nothing n_n |
| the only purpose of religion is to manage the fear of death through the promise of paradise and eternal life |
| Nope. No matter how many times my family tries shoving the bible down my throat it is just not what I want to believe in. |
| The only reason why I stopped believing in God is because I want to focus on this life, not the other life. I'm not scared of death. I just want to fully live this life and not worry about dying or anything. You only live once, just like they say, YOLO. (But still YOLO is stupid because you don't just party and neglect studying and use YOLO as a reason.)And that I knew that people created religion because they didn't know who created the world. |
 |
Sora_N said: Why would you find that strange? I have known many couples that have married someone who is of another faith or who has no religion. My wife is a pagan, I on the other hand am an atheist (I have never believed in gods/deities even when I was a little girl). We respect each other’s beliefs. We celebrate Christmas/Winter Solstice (since winter solstice was the original pagan celebration). We both celebrate the holiday for family, friends, and for lights. We love each other and that’s what matters, not our beliefs. And all of that is strange to me. I could never see myself doing that. I don't know many couples, I'm still in my early 20's, and the ones I do know I wish they'd break up. But now is not the time to complain about my friends' toxic relationships, so back to me. I find it weird is all. It's a major component of my life. I'm not saying that my future partner has to be as devout as I am. They do have to have a baseline faith however. What can I say? Religion is one of my many dealbreakers. |
| Let this be our little secret, no needs to know we're feeling HIGHER AND HIGHER AND HIGHER! |
| Interesting how there's more atheist and agnostics on the internet(or at least on MAL) when its the very opposite in the 3d world.. How did it turn up like this..Why are atheists attracted to the internet more than theists? |
| sexual incest in nisomonogatari - no one bats an eye romance incest in SAO - everyone loses their minds |
More topics from this board
» Fuck societal norms. How would you really dress?VampireSylphy - Oct 17 |
22 |
by Enji_Todoroki
»»
1 hour ago |
|
» Given up on online friendships...Rivermind - Oct 17 |
28 |
by Enji_Todoroki
»»
1 hour ago |
|
» You guys watch anime on a laptop, tv or projector? ( 1 2 )Rivermind - Oct 17 |
51 |
by Enji_Todoroki
»»
2 hours ago |
|
» Do you have any addictions?Commit_Crime - 3 hours ago |
7 |
by Enji_Todoroki
»»
2 hours ago |
|
» What is needed for you to stop being a degenerate?Telecom - Yesterday |
39 |
by bigtiddysub
»»
2 hours ago |