what is god

To use your phrase: Non-sense! Factually absurd, no offense. No religion claims their God is the only true God, certain people belonging to religions make this claim.

Same goes for the various respected teachers. People from different religious backgrounds can most certainly coexist - check up on Thomas Merton and Thich Nhat Hahn.

As a Christian I do not deny the Buddhist or Hindu, ect, faith. I applaud those and other traditions. This is a very real option for all religious people, and one that is quite popular.

[...] It's ideologues, the fearful and the power hungry who deny faith traditions other than their own.

This is the progression Abrahamic religion:

I. Judaism - God picks one particular tribe as his chosen people. Those who are their enemies are His enemies and are killed.

II. Christianity - Anyone can join the chosen people, but if you don't join, God will punish you with eternal fire.

III. Islam - Anyone can join the chosen people, but if you don't don't join, God will punish you with eternal fire and it is the duty of the chosen people to kill you so you can start suffering as quickly as possible.

I don't define Him. He created the world and wants what is best for us. So yes, I follow His Laws.


I wanted to speak to you more about the concept of fear. Fear is not the best word for it.

It's the feeling you get when you are standing before greatness. If you were to stand before someone you really admire, The Dahli Lhama, or John Lennon or whoever it is you admire. Many people feel this way when in the presence of their father. If you have this type of awe and admiration for them, then how much more so should you have awe for the one that created them.

So wake up and smell the burning corpses, common people aren't as philosophical as you think they are, they don't see religion as mythical stories, like you do, and they are not all poets and Zen Buddhist monks. As long as religion exists there always will be Wahhabism, Zionism and far right Christian fundamentalists who want to teach God in physics class. The only path religion can walk on is towards fundamentalism.

Ah, those common people. They are always causing problems. But perhaps there is more involved. Alas, I fear the world will not become a utopia if religion is abolished.

I fear the fanatically anti-religious as much as I fear the fanatically religious.

Whether it is the Inquisition or the Committee on Public Safety doing the killing, it is all the same.

We are in danger whenever those who firmly believe they know what is best for others have the power to impose their will, and use that power. If religion goes away, people will find other reasons to harm or oppress each other. Of course, they already have, many times, in the past.

"I am against rapists just as much as I am against people who condemn rape"

Of course you fear anti-theists. I mean, of course you don't want equal rights for all human beings, right ?
Of course you don't want reason to be held above superstition, right ?
Of course you fear freedom of thought, right ?
Of course you fear people who protest against religious courts being sanctioned by secular courts in western society, right ?
Of course you are against people protesting that children should not be told "Always trust God and the Church and never trust science", right ?

Really ? So all religions are polytheistic ?

A poet and a Zen Buddhist monk. Very relevant to today's world and what's happening in it, eh ?

Applaud all you want, meanwhile people are getting murdered because of their religion.

"India - Violence flares as Hindu militants accuse Christian missionaries of stealing followers - Bloody anti-Christian riots broke out here in late August, rampages by Hindu hardliners that since then have left at least 38 people dead, as many as 30,000 homeless and dozen of churches destroyed."

Applaud all you want, while women in Islamic countries are being beaten, stoned to death and have their faces burned with battery acid, and are basically denied almost all human rights. All because of their holy book. I could go on.

Isolated cases which don't have any important impact on the real world, eh ? :sarcastic:

I don't deny religion can be a good influence on some people, especially more philosophical ones like Buddhism which don't require worshiping a deity. But billions of people are not Buddhists.

So wake up and smell the burning corpses, common people aren't as philosophical as you think they are, they don't see religion as mythical stories, like you do, and they are not all poets and Zen Buddhist monks. As long as religion exists there always will be Wahhabism, Zionism and far right Christian fundamentalists who want to teach God in physics class. The only path religion can walk on is towards fundamentalism.

I think I told you this before, if humanity saw religion as you do, Thomas, if humanity treated these "holy books" just as they treat Homer's Iliad and Odyssey the world would be a much better place. It's too bad the Churches make sure this doesn't and will never happen.

But the analogy to your mock-statement about rapists doesn't quite work, does it? First, one would have to accept that the religious are to be equated with rapists, and I just don't think you can, as a general proposition. In fact, itf you take the position that you can, I suggest you are making a mistake similar to the mistake made by those you condemn. The opinion that "All believers are bad" is no more valid than the opinion "All non-believers (or those who don't believe as I do) are bad."

Second, you ignore my use of "fanatically." That is a significant qualifier. For example, I do not fear anti-theists, but fanatical anti-theists cause me concern.

I'm not sure how you came to these conclusions about me based on my post, but I don't think you did so by using your "reason."

Regardless, I consider myself a follower of J.S. Mill as well as Cicero, and am all for freedom of thought, and expression. So, I think the religious should be allowed to believe what they wish, provided they do not harm others, or try to force their beliefs on others. Religious belief does not justify violence or oppression. Neither does science or reason.

I couldn't open your links for some reason, but assume your reference to courts sanctioning religious judgments refers at least in part to the UK secular courts enforcing judgments of religious "tribunals." That should not be happening. I've "protested" that on another forum (for whatever that is worth).

Yes, really. Take Christianity for example; some practitioners yell at the top of their lungs that their God and way of worship is the only way, the right way, other practitioners simply say that their God and way of worship is best for them and that people should worship whatever way makes most sense to them.

Merton was much more than a poet, we was a brilliant Catholic scholar and social activist. But yes, very relevant. The example proves my point decisively - that people from different faith traditions can coexist in harmony.

What's your point? People do terrible things in the name of religion. None the less, violence is not the only product of faith and often times the mitigation of violence is the product of faith.

Religion can move towards fundamentalism, but to claim religion can only move towards fundamentalism is factually incorrect. A false statement. If it were true, all religious discourse would sink into fundamentalism; go to your local bookstore and see how many books on religion there are that move away from fundamentalism.

[...]
Except that it does happen. Though, most organized bodies of religion do try to stifle that message, others preach the message of peace and openmindedness. The Dalai Lama certainly does, and he is hardly alone.

From what I can tell we are basically on the same page except that you have this preconceived notion that good religion is impossible. Look around, good religion exists and thrives. Bad religion also flourishes. So, instead of deriding all religion, let's criticize bad religion and applaud good religion, eh?

And what do you think is the ratio between them ? If you interview people, how many would accept other gods or prophets as true or as worthy of worship, beside the one they 'grew up with' ?

I admit that my statement about two persons of different faiths that can not coexist together is false. I have a very religious neighbor yet I don't piss on his door every day when I go to work. Instead of "persons", instead of individuals, my statement was directed at ethnic groups, religious groups, peoples and nations. Think Hamas or the like. (or that piece of news about Hindus and Christians from my other post)

If you remove religion and thus eliminate one of the greatest sources of violence, you will still have a lot of entities remaining to fight "the good fight", like amnesty or unesco. Religion is not required to mitigate violence.

You can't have "good religion" as you say, and at the same time not have fundamentalists, who tend to be the most loud and active of the whole gang. I know it sounds like I want to throw out both the dirty water and the baby in it, but in this case it's not a baby it's a god damn poisonous octopus, which is, contrary to what the Church says, not needed to have proper morals and ethics. It's basically a money making political machine that provides people with false but convincing answers, that offers "certainty" in a very uncertain world.

There are also non-religious organizations that do the exact same.

So you believe you can have your cake and also eat it ? Nah, I don't think that's possible. You can't have good theism, based on "holy books". How do you decide what is good religion and what is bad religion ? How will you tell the people who believe the Bible or the Qur'an is the inerrant word of God that they're wrong, that those books actually are allegorical writings, filled with interpretable metaphors, and more so how will you prevent preachers from telling people not to listen to you (and then ask for money:D) ? Sounds impossible to do ... I believe that as long as people have this need for gods, there always will be others to take advantage of it. The more fundamentalism is spread the more money and political power these people get. Why else would they want creation taught in physics and biology ? Why is renouncing your induced beliefs a capital offense in some parts of the world ?

You can have spirituality without theism. Theism isn't needed.

No idea. Though, I also have no idea why the ratio would possibly matter. As long as there exists even a few of them, the fact remains that religion is not universally close minded and that religion can and does embrace a plethora of perspectives.

I see what you are saying, and there is much truth in it. But even Hamas and Zionists can live harmoniously. Even the most entrenched opponents can embrace one another. You see, it isn't the religion itself that divides people. Usually it's economics. The problems begin when power brokers, concerned for their economic well-being, use religion to mobilize the masses.

You can't have humans without having violent humans. So what?

Good religion is religion that fosters peace, bad religion the opposite. As for what you say is impossible, such things are possible - they happen every day. I'm not saying religion is easy, it isn't. But religion is also a basic human quality.

Absolutely. But theism isn't the problem. Introducing the idea of God does not magically spur the problems we find in some spiritual paths.

It sounds nice on paper, doesn't it. But in the real world it's not those few who have the most influence or the loudest voice, unfortunately.

For the guy with TNT under his shirt it is religion. For his masters it's political power. Without religion maybe the guy would think more clearly.

So remove one source of violence, religion, and have its good parts replaced by secular organizations, like amnesty and unesco. Sounds like a good change.

Religion that fosters peace is hard to spread, take a look at a religious world map and you'll see it right away.
This 'good' and 'bad' comparison you're doing can't really be done in the real world. You can't convince a Saudite that his religion is 'bad'. To him, it's not.

No, introducing one god is OK. But introduce a second, third and fourth God, different dogmas with countless branches each and it's a whole new can of worms.

edit: It's also impossible to have only 1 god world wide and thus avoid _some_ religion based conflict, if 1 exists why not make up more ... I don't think you can have just 1.