What Religion are you?

What Religion are You?

  • Atheist

    Votes: 70 27.8%
  • Christian (inclusive of both Catholic and Protestant)

    Votes: 86 34.1%
  • Muslim

    Votes: 15 6.0%
  • Hindu

    Votes: 9 3.6%
  • Buddhist

    Votes: 12 4.8%
  • Daoist (also known as Taoist)

    Votes: 2 0.8%
  • Other

    Votes: 60 23.8%

  • Total voters
    252
Status
Closed

Corvidius

Ad Honorem
Jul 2017
2,140
Crows nest
You quoted, as you seemingly cannot write for yourself, this:

Polytheism and pantheism both have a questionable basis for their ethics. With polytheism, if there are many gods, then which god has the more ultimate standard of ethics for humans to keep? When there are multiple gods, then their ethical systems do not conflict, do conflict, or do not exist. If they do not exist, then ethics are invented and baseless.
Before posting these quotes and links you should consider researching other religions, active and long dead, to see how they dealt with morality, and you will find that what you quote is wrong.

The Egyptians, with perhaps more gods than any other culture, had no problems with this presumed conflict between the morals of different gods. Ma'at was their all embracing and overarching "moral code". All were held accountable when their heart was weighed against the feather of Ma'at, all were bound by the "negative confessions" which had one source, Ma'at, and no god was above Ma'at in this or dispensed their own moral code, there was only Ma'at. I'll remind once again, that while the Abrahamic god gave only ten commandments, the Egyptians lived by 82, including the catch all, "I have done no wrong", and other "confessions" in similar vein, like, "I have caused none to cry". Ma'at makes the Abrahamic god look rather dubious as to the depth of their morality.
 
Dec 2014
556
United States
now give that proof without spamming links.
and with christanity i mean proof that jesus was raised from death,not just that some places mentioned in bible are real.
Can a scientist believe in the resurrection? Three hypotheses. - The Veritas Forum
Hypothesis one:
We’re not talking about a literal resurrection. Perhaps it is just an inspiring myth that served to justify the propagation of Jesus’ exalted ethical teachings. A literal resurrection contradicts the known laws of nature. Maybe scientists can celebrate the idea of Jesus’s spirit living on, while his body remained in the grave.

But the first disciples attested to a physical resurrection. How could an untruth logically support high moral character? How could it have sustained the apostles through the extremes of persecution they experienced founding Christianity? And is celebrating a myth consistent with scientific integrity?

Hypothesis two: We really believe in the bodily resurrection of the first century Jew known as Jesus of Nazareth. My Christian colleagues at MIT – and millions of other scientists worldwide – somehow think that a literal miracle like the resurrection of Jesus is possible. And we are following a long tradition. The founders of the scientific revolution and many of the greatest scientists of the intervening centuries were serious Christian believers. For Robert Boyle (of the ideal gas law, co-founder in 1660 of the Royal Society) the resurrection was a fact. For James Clerk Maxwell (whose Maxwell equations of 1862 govern electromagnetism) a deep philosophical analysis undergirded his belief in the resurrection. And for William Phillips (Nobel prize-winner in 1997 for methods to trap atoms with laser light) the resurrection is not discredited by science.

To explain how a scientist can be a Christian is actually quite simple. Science cannot and does not disprove the resurrection. Natural science describes the normal reproducible working of the world of nature. Indeed, the key meaning of “nature”, as Boyle emphasized, is “the normal course of events.” Miracles like the resurrection are inherently abnormal. It does not take modern science to tell us that humans don’t rise from the dead. People knew that perfectly well in the first century; just as they knew that the blind from birth don’t as adults regain their sight, or water doesn’t instantly turn into wine.
 
Dec 2014
556
United States
now give that proof without spamming links.
and with christanity i mean proof that jesus was raised from death,not just that some places mentioned in bible are real.
Historical Evidence of the Resurrection: A Debate with a Skeptical Friend
Do Christians have good historical reasons to put our faith in Jesus? Can we really know what happened 2,000 years ago? When it comes to studying ancient history, we need to abide by the “Rules of Historical Research.” As Mike Licona has pointed out, to establish something of the ancient past as historical, we need to have multiple, and converging lines of evidence such as:

  • eyewitness data
  • closeness to the facts
  • criteria
We don’t say, “Julius Caesar or Alexander the Great never existed!” In fact, we not only believe they existed, but we believe we actually know many things about them. When it comes to establishing historical data, it does not matter that something happened 2000 years ago — what matters is this: do we have access to an event that happened 2000 years ago? Licona has taught me that historians don’t just take one person’s word for it. They come to their conclusions through converging lines of evidence, such as:

– written

– pictorial

– inferential

– archaeological

– Etc.…

Again, no one doubts Alexander the Great, Caesar, or the history written about them. We have great historical reasons to conclude that we actually have knowledge of these individuals and many things they did. However, the sources confirming the historicity of these men, and their lives, are far inferior than the sources we have for Jesus! We not only have New Testament sources (27 individual historical documents collected into one volume) but even trained atheistic scholars and historians will go to the New Testament and use it for their purposes (I am treating it just as they do — I am not assuming anything special or supernatural about the Bible).

With this in mind, skeptical scholars will never say we cannot use the New Testament as a historical document — because it is a historical document — and it is recognized as such. Obviously, atheistic historians don’t conclude it is the inspired word of God, because, they don’t believe in anything “supernatural.” However, they conclude that the books that have been compiled into the Bible, are historical books written by people who lived a long time ago and who believed in God. These skeptics just arbitrarily choose to ignore the parts that have anything to do with the supernatural only because of their assumptions (blind faith) in naturalism (that nature is all that exists).

Moreover, on top of the many independent reports of the New Testament, we also have over a dozen non-biblical sources of Jesus within 100 years after his life! Every single one of them is NON-CHRISTIAN! Plus, we have archeological sources, and other Christian sources apart from the New Testament. When you compile all of this evidence together, it’s an incredible amount of historical evidence and information about the man, Jesus of Nazareth.
 

Aupmanyav

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
4,849
New Delhi, India
Polytheism and pantheism both have a questionable basis for their ethics. With polytheism, if there are many gods, then which god has the more ultimate standard of ethics for humans to keep? When there are multiple gods, then their ethical systems do not conflict, do conflict, or do not exist. If they do not exist, then ethics are invented and baseless. The weakness of that position is self-evident. If the ethical systems do not conflict, then on what principle do they align? Whatever that aligning principle is would be more ultimate than the gods. The gods are not ultimate since they answer to some other authority. Therefore, there is a higher reality to which one should adhere. This fact makes polytheism seem shallow if not empty. On the third option, if the gods conflict in their standards of right and wrong, then to obey one god is to risk disobeying another, incurring punishment. Ethics would be relative. Good for one god would not necessarily be "good" in an objective and universal sense.

Pantheism does not fare much better than polytheism since it asserts that ultimately there is only one thing—one divine reality—thus disallowing any ultimate distinctions of "good" and "evil." If "good" and "evil" were really distinct, then there would not be one single, indivisible reality. Pantheism ultimately does not allow for moral distinctions of "good" and "evil." Good and evil dissolve into the same indivisible reality. And even if such distinctions as "good" and "evil" could be made, the context of karma voids the moral context of that distinction. Karma is an impersonal principle much like a natural law such as gravity or inertia. When karma comes calling on some sinful soul, it is not a divine policing that brings judgment. Rather, it is an impersonal reaction of nature. But morality requires personality.
They are all nice and good, and care for the welfare of their devotees, there is no conflict. They don't have to answer to any authority, they themselves are the authority. Karma rewards the good and punishes the evil in various ways, but it always gives another chance to the person to improve. Actually, a total of 8,400,000 chances (Lakh Chaurasi).

"The Chaurasi Lakh Joon refers to the 8,400,000 lifetimes/lifeforms that exist on the Planet Earth as viewed by Sikhs, 4.2 million of which are on land and the same number in water."
 

Aupmanyav

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
4,849
New Delhi, India
.. Buddha himself (who was not monist but dualist).

Samsara and Nirvana are two poles of an existential dualism, since Buddha thought the Samsara to be real and not just an illusion (maya), as the Brahmanism teaches. Therefore, Buddha can be called a dualist, what is contrary to monistic Brahmanism.

Early Buddhism (Hinayana), which was exclusively based on Buddha´s teaching, hold that the phenomenal world consists of ´dharmas´ (basic factors of existence), including dharmas as elements of the material world as well as dharmas as elements of the mental world (consciousness and thinking). Both these elementary categories are not recognizable for the sensory organs. Since they have no substance or essence, they emerge and decay according to the principle of causality, the so-called ´conditional nexus´ (or ´causal nexus´). Thus they are empty of self-being or essence, however, they ´exist´.

This very form of existence is denied by later Mahayana Buddhism by creating the innovative concept of ´Shunyata´ (emptiness). In my view, the difference between Shunyata and Nirvana is that the latter is the conscious experience of Shunyata. The point is that ´emptiness´ not means nothingness but the state of being empty of concepts or conceptional thinking which, on lower consciousness levels, structures the world for evolutional reasons but also veils its true nature.

The protagonist of this school was Nagarjuna, teaching that all things (or dharmas) not only lack essence or self-being, but also existence. The basic idea of this was the insight into the incapability of conceptional thinking to seize the true nature of the world. Notions such as dharma, existence, being, and non-being cannot appropriately describe reality and therefore have to be dialectically negated. Paradoxically, ´Shunyata´ is thus a concept which basically denies conceptional thinking because it produces mere illusion. To put it quite simply, Nagarjuna´s method was to negate concepts as well as their opposites:

(simple version of the Catuskoti)

There is being.
There is no being.
There is being and there is non-being.
There is neither being nor non-being.

(and so on)

One can call this the ´deconstruction´ of conceptual thinking. This is what Shunyata (and its correlated state of consciousness ´Nirvana´) refers to: the absence of illusionary concepts. It refers not to nothingness.

So, according to the concept of Shunyata the true nature of the world is unrecognizable by means of conceptual thinking. However, it is recognizable by means of meditative expansion of consciousness.
Now Buddha was never that. Like in Advaita, Samsara has its own reality though a secondary 'pragmatic' one (Vyavaharika), where as Nirvana is the 'absolute' reality (Parmarthika). These are levels of understanding and not two separate things. I think Nagarjuna differs from Buddha. Buddha's Nirvana could be attained by conceptual thinking. Meditation too is conceptual thinking.

I consider Buddha to be one of my gurus, the other being Sankara. It is nice to meet someone who has more scriptural knowledge. We discuss many things at Religious Forums. I wonder if Nagarjua is not close to 'Anekantavada' of Jainism.
 
Status
Closed

Similar History Discussions