Why theism doesn't work for everybody

Post Reply New Topic

These are two very different things, and theists usually feel attacked because they equate them. If I criticize or attack the truth claims of a belief system, I am not attacking the believer as a person. Just like a film critique is not a personal insult of the director.

Well, I don't address Hinduism because I come from a Protestant Christian background. I know very little of Hinduism. I understand generally that they believe in numerous gods that all represent aspects of the same entity. However, it might be that this concept is only popular with ecumenicalist-minded intellectuals: it could very well be that locals in culturally backward parts of India have never heard of this idea, and they still try to resolve things by making sacrifices to their rain god.

A Christian would probably be better off calling certain Hindu gods "ba'als," since this is literally what "ba'al" refers to in the Old Testament: it referred to local tribal gods. Hinduists call a similar type of entity a "deva," which doesn't translate directly to "god" as we understand it. A deva is not really a god at all, in the sense understood by someone who practices a monotheistic religion, and it's not even exactly like a ba'al like in the Levantine religions. If New York City were to be struck by a bad storm coming in from the Northeast, people in New York City would assume it was sent by a deva that happens to be plaguing New York City with bad storms, and they would try to appease it by sacrificing possibly a goat, more likely something common-sense like a little bit of nice butter or something. However, they wouldn't assume this deva to be an all-pervasive spirit that penetrates the entire universe. It might be, but the only thing they know about their deva is that it's whoever sent them the bad weather. They want to try to get on good terms with it, so perhaps it will send in some sunshine and maybe a light rain shower here and there.

However, this original picture is complicated by the Indo-Aryan migration, which introduced a very different type of religion. Before the Indo-Aryan invasion, the Hindu Subcontinent was largely practicing a conventional tribal-type of belief system, like that described above. That's my understanding, anyway. When the Indo-Aryans came down, bringing in the Vedic Period, we ended up with this hybrid of two very different belief systems. Imagine the Hunnic invasion of Western Europe. However, instead of encountering an equal or superior civilization, Attila found a bunch of nice but not in the least organized tribespeople. Attila, because he wanted to build an empire of some kind, realized that he would need to somehow unify these tribespeople, so he tried imposing some panentheistic concepts from his culture on them and presenting them with this idea that their gods were all part of some spiritual whole. Anyone who is more familiar than I am with Hindu religions and Indian history can correct me on any of this because I'm a bit out of my element.

Now, the monotheistic god in Abrahamic religions is not really a nice entity as far as the Hinduist religion is concerned but not strictly speaking evil. The Hindus believe in Devas, but they also believe in a power-seeking god called an "Asura." It is not a coincidence that "Asura" is a rough cognate with "Ahura," as in "Ahura Mazda." In Hinduism, I think that the difference between an Asura and a Deva is that, while an Asura tends to preside over human affairs and aspects of society, a Deva presides over forces of nature. In the Hindu religion, Devas and Asuras are constantly at odds with each other. Neither are seen as particularly evil, just as conflicting forces.

The relationship this has with Christianity goes back to the political relationship between Ancient Israel and Persia during the time of Cyrus the Great. Yahweh was probably seen by the Persians and related cultures as just a greedy Ahura, and this kind of represents their ignorance about Canaanite culture. In Canaanite culture, any united culture had to have an official god of that culture. The USA would have an official God of the USA, and Germany would have a God of Germany. In other words, their gods were not really what we think of as a "god" in monotheistic culture at all. It was a henotheistic religion. They simply didn't fully understand the polytheistic concepts that other cultures were trying to relate to them.

But all of a sudden, let's throw the Greek schools of philosophy into the mix. The philosophers were really trying to get at a more scientific, rationalistic concept of the world. Now, imagine that they postulate that a universal logos is somehow responsible for the creation of the universe and everything that happens in it. They're just trying to present a monist concept of "natural forces," and it makes a lot of sense, right? There is nothing hokey or mystical about it.

However, something weird happens when you present this idea to the complex religious cocktail that we had going in the Levant. In Israel, they had these warring concepts of religion, one being more like the elemental spirits of the Hindu religion and the other being like the national "lord gods" of the Canaanite religion. When a philosopher introduces this concept of a single universal force that emanates through the entire universe, the confusion results in people concluding, "ergo, the god of the logos is the god of everything, ergo the god of the logos is the god of everybody."

Monotheism and the modern concept of "God" therefore was founded on a rich and complex history, and I'm getting a little dizzy.

Anyway, if you lived in India, you would pass by the giant idols some of them worship at and hear some skeptic screaming, "IT'S A PIECE OF ROCK!! ! HOW CAN YOU PRAY TO A ROCK!? IT CAN'T HEAR YOU!! !" Just because we talk about our skepticism in the context of our culture doesn't mean that we're deliberately trying to single out one particular religion for abuse.

Hmm.

I value when someone is critical of my beliefs and opinions in an objective and rational manner. I highly respect anyone who does so.

I generally get a chuckle out of anyone who is critical of my beliefs or opinions in an unintelligible or ignorant manner. I do not respect people who do so.

So, depending on what you mean by "insults", I may or may not agree with you.

But I fully support the insulting of beliefs and opinions regardless. I just prefer it to be mostly civil.


But my point is...there is difference between insulting a belief/opinion and insulting the person who has it.

I feel that just because some one is religious should not be demonized for their beliefs and the religious should not demonize the perosn who is a non theist.

Hmm.

I value when someone is critical of my beliefs and opinions in an objective and rational manner. I highly respect anyone who does so.

I generally get a chuckle out of anyone who is critical of my beliefs or opinions in an unintelligible or ignorant manner. I do not respect people who do so.

So, depending on what you mean by "insults", I may or may not agree with you.

But I fully support the insulting of beliefs and opinions regardless. I just prefer it to be mostly civil.

You can not agree with some one but stil be respectful of their belief even if you do not agree with it in a religious point of view I do not go around insulting or trying to convert anyone because I think it is wrong trying to force others to convert.

Honor and respect are my main two strong core beliefs when I feel the person is not being honorable or disrespectful then I will engage and take action.

I never feel insulted by skeptism I accept skeptism if it is in a respeful manner and some what not distastfule becacuse I value honor and repsect

It is obvious that the atheist you met always attack the abrahamic religions the most.

If you go to India , there are a couple of key atheists that attack Hindu mythos.

One though had to find a Christian crying statue hoax in his spare time and is being processed for blasphemy.

It is hard not to be wary the Abrahamic religions when they are so full of a-holes, it seems.

That all goes back to opinon why is it that theists and non theists can not have a friendly debate about each others thoughts and opinons about the other with out getting heated?

In this specific case, I would say because the theists make hoaxes to convince people that magic exist, and when caught they try to get you to jail for discovering their stunt.

After such a jerk move, it is difficult not to heat the debate.

I valute honor and respect I find it beneath me to get upset that others attack me for being a theist cause that is my personal choice and belief you can't proove magic of any kind exsist but I bet would like to see you proove to me that it doesn't.

Everything has a cause and effect.

Therefore, magic doesn't exist.

I can barely find an atheist I can have a friendly debate with.

When I saw an advertisement on television asking me to be angry about a certain senate bill in the General Assembly in Raleigh, NC, I looked up the thing and read it through from beginning to end. When I showed it to my s.o., (who spent his life working closely with the state government), he howled, "it's all written in jargon! I can't understand it!" So I explained the parts that he couldn't decipher, based on what I had spent considerable time looking up information on to try to unravel. Finally, we concluded, between my deciphering skills and an article on it he found on it in the newspaper, that both sides were greatly exaggerating how much it would ever affect regular people, and it was just another political football.

That's how I make sticking decisions on political issues. I think anyone who doesn't go to at least that much trouble before forming an opinion on a piece of legislation is beneath contempt. I think that people who get big-headed opinions over things they don't bother to understand are useless sheeple who will eventually be the downfall of this country. I have a lot of trouble finding people I can talk with for very long without permanently alienating them. In fact, I am widely regarded as crabby, mean-spirited, belligerent, arrogant, crass and probably mentally unbalanced.

Now, my advice on having an intelligible conversation with someone who doesn't share your religious views is simple: read everything you can on that person's beliefs. Don't stop digging up more information. Become an expert on it. Become a thinker on it. If you are trying to understand atheism, you ought to look up all of the philosophers and read everything that they ever wrote: if you hear an atheist mention Xenophanes, make sure that you know more about Xenophanes than the average philosophy Ph.D. does within a fortnight. On the other hand, if you are trying to understand Christianity sufficiently to have an intelligible conversation with a Christian, make sure that you read the ENTIRE Bible, but don't stop there! Read everything that has ever been written by major leaders in the Christian faith, and make sure that you understand all of the major turning points in the faith and the reasons behind them. If the beliefs of the person you are talking to adheres to a Charismatic concept of Christianity, learn everything you can about the Charismatic Movement.

Two people who have at least endeavored to go to that much trouble to understand each other can invariably have an enriching, agreeable conversation with each other. If two people were to follow this simple rule, they shouldn't have any difficulty coming to like each other, even if their standpoints are a million miles apart. However, it is kind of annoying when you have to spend several hours giving someone remedial education on the simplest aspects of his or her faith. Why some people bother calling themselves Christians, I will never know.

I am enjoying some of your points here William. It would be nice to have a good conversation with people rather than just shooting each other.

My problem here is that I have an experience atheists do not. At least I presume they do not by definition of the word atheist. How can they be so authoritive in telling me about what they do not know, because they have never experienced such things? I am sure there are atheists here who have had religious backgrounds, in fact I might even strongly symphathise with their rejection of belief. What we have seen masquerading as Christianity is very off putting.

I don't really want to discuss my own experience, but can definitely say that after many years my faith has helped me through life, and enabled to to open up to face and deal with the pain of this hyper sensitivity. At no point has it been a retreat from reality. I had been doing that long enough to know.

"Friendly discussion" strikes me as the fallacy of the middle.

I think the main problem here is that one side believes their tale is holy and deserves worship while the other does not.

Take Richard Dawkins for example. Theists love to say that he is so rude and aggressive. But in reality he is quite calm in his discussions, I mean, he is no Penn Jillete... Theists confuse their entitlement to be respected as people during a discussion to a faux entitlement for their beliefs to be respected as holy.

It was some weeks ago that I posted in a thread that if the Christian god was real he would be a pretty evil jerk. I was instantly treated as if I was insulting the sex lives of their moms, but that day I was pretty focused on the argument - the claim that the god of the bible exists , rather than on the people. I don't even remember who was on the theists side back then. hmnn.

I have the idea that theism isn't supposed to work for everybody. Many churches regard their purpose is a mission effort to rescue the world's population from Hell. It just takes a moments common sense thinking to realise that is not going to happen. Whatever you believe about Hell, there are say roughly 1.3 billion people in China as an example. There are at a rough estimate 60 million Christians and somewhat more Buddhists. So just suppose a lot of people in China suddenly wanted to be Christian, or theist. There would be a terrible hotchpotch of confusion. I can imagine that being a counterproductive situation all round.

Whatever purpose the church at large should have I cannot help thinking of it as a magnifient, spectacular success, but at the same time a sad and sorry failure. Religion is far too useful to the power hungry. I wouldn't be sure of Constantine's motives for unifying the Church, but can't help thinking it wasn't a very good idea.