Do you believe all religions are truly one and the same?

I heard allah and buddha were singing at the savior's feast
And up the sky and arabian rabbi
Fed quaker oats to a priest.
Pretty good, not bad, they can't complain
Cause actually all them gods is just about the same
John Prine

Centroles

Give up on all that "belief" crap.

It appears as though we cannot know if a God exists -- or if no gods exist.

It appears as though we cannot know if a God exists and came to earth.

It appears as though we cannot know any of the stuff humans suppose about gods -- nor any of the stuff you are supposing in your post.

Let it all go.

Simply acknowledge that knowledge of any of this appears to be hidden at the moment.

Given the non-proveable existence of a god, I would say that yes, all religions have the same one. Now if we could only all get along...

Do you believe all religions are truly one and the same?

No. Some are harmless, some are not.

Frank, if you refer to any of my previous posts, you would notice that I clearly don't believe in god, in the form that religion presents him/her. At best, I acknowledge the the underlying forces, the energy that make this universe possible, that allow it to run are god themselves.

Here I even argue that living organisms are no different from nonliving objects.

But just because I don't believe it doesn't mean I don't think it's possible. I'm simply presenting another theory of how so many different religions might have emerged if they were indeed all based on true events.

Centroles

I am going to assume you are a decent person -- sharing notions and considerations not only for the pleasure that we all derive from these kinds of interactions, but also because you think something can come of endeavors such as this that will help make the planet a better place on which to live.

In this last response to me, you wrote:



I think you are kidding yourself. If that actually were true, you really could not have written what you did in your origination post.



Your words here indicate quite clearly that you "believe" in a god who "came down" and who attempted "to influence the behavior of man."

Well...you are free to "believe" anything you want. But my suggestion that you give up these kinds of beliefs in favor of a simple acknowledgement that we do not even know if any gods exist -- let alone that any came to earth to influence humans -- was a heartfelt plea that you abandon this kind of "belief" system.

In effect, you are simply saying that the "beliefs" of others are faulty (whether through their own fault or through translation faults of others) -- and that your "beliefs" make more sense.

When it comes to questions of whether or not there are gods -- no "beliefs" are superior to simply acknowledging that we do not know.

When it comes to questions of what might please or offend any gods that might exist -- no "beliefs" are superior to simply acknowledging that we do not know.

Your protestations to the contrary, I see "belief" permeating every aspect of what you are saying here -- and my advice holds.

Obviously, you are free to disregard it -- and you are free to consider it unwarranted.

"Beliefs" are suffocating humanity, Centroles.

My plea to you is: Don't add to the smog.

Frank,

If you're so convinced that I do believe in god in any manner, shape or form, I urge you to read the statements I make in this thread.

There I adamantly defend my views that...

1. There is no difference between living organisms and nonliving organisms. We are in every sense of the word no different from complex machines. (I argue this in my last post in the thread, so you'll have to scroll down a bit).

2. Free will itself is an illusion.

3. The very notions of good and evil, right and wrong, moral and immoral are themselves illusions.

These are views that are clearly out of line with any concept of god or some divine being.

Centroles

I am not dealing with what you wrote in other posts - I am acting upon what I see written here in this thread.

I ask you this. Please explain the following comment from your origination statement -- and do so without positing a belief in a god who comes to Earth to influence humans:

"I've long held the belief that any god that exists is far too complex to ever be understood by the human mind. Everytime he came down to influence the behavior of man, he knew that humans are far too simple minded to truly understand the reasons for what he says and so just spewed out several absolutes such as don't kill."






As for the "There is no difference between living organisms and nonliving organisms"...

...well, I think you overstate the case for this with careless phrasing.

There most assuredly are differences between living organisms and nonliving organisms -- even if the only difference is one is living and the other is nonliving.

But I get the point you are trying to make - and I agree with it.

You might be interested to know that I have written extensively on this subject over many, many years.

It seems obvious to me that "existence" (whether existing as a living or non-living thing) is more similar than "non-existence."

Rocks exist. Insofar as they do -- they are more like humans than anything that does not exist. (NOTE: I am not arguing that there are NO differences.)






That is a belief.

"Free will itself MAY be an illusion" or "It appears as though free will itself is an illusion" -- is the way that concept is written in non-belief form.


[The very notions of good and evil, right and wrong, moral and immoral are themselves illusions. [/quote]

That is a belief.

"The very notion of good/evil; right/wrong; moral/immoral MAY themselves be illusions" or "It appears as though good/evil; right/wrong; moral/immoral are themselves illusions -- is the way that concept is written in non-belief form.





That seems to be so -- but I am not commenting in a vacuum with only that bit of information in front of me. The quote that I questioned at the top of the post, for instance, indicates that you may indeed have beliefs in this area.

It also may be that you were just careless in the way you stated what you stated. I am interested in your explanation. And since you seem intent on pursuing this discussion, I'm sure we will deal with it at greater length.

Perhaps I should explain myself more. When it comes to matters such as philosophy and religion or pretty much every other subject. I don't have any one set of beliefs, I have several that I think are all conceivable. I essentially believe in one of numerous theories, each of each I view with a different degree of plausibility. It allows me to be more open minded and helps me understand the world simultaneously from multiple perspectives.

This post was meant to share one of these theories, discuss it, and further explore it.

But the theory on life that I personally view as most likely is that it's an illusion. I don't believe (and by that I mean it's the theory that I think to be most plausible) that there is ANYTHING to seperate out living and nonliving organisms. I believe that we are no more alive than a computer, and that there is no way in which any living organism can be differentiated from a computer or any other "nonliving" object because, without freewill (and I argue in the linked thread that we have no free will), life itself is an illusion. I take in information, I interpret it through complex mechanisms, and I spit out a calculable output.

Of course this is a theory that is far too complex to explain in a short paragraph. That is why I wish to reference you to this thread. I urge you read my second to last posting on that thread if you wish to gain a better perspective on the theory I've just presented.

Now back on topic. No, the theory I posted here isn't the one that I believe to be most plausible. But I however believe that religion/god/life are concepts that none can truly know the truth to or fully understand. And this I believe that the theory I presented is a plausible one and would like to discuss and explore it in further detail.

I'm sorry if the thread has gotten off track. I just felt as though I needed to defend myself because my beliefs were being attacked. But the simple fact is, you don't really know my actual beliefs on the issue as I have several. And there is no way that you can possibly claim that the theory/ beliefs I've presented in this thread are invalid. I think they are perfectly plausible and I challenge you to prove me wrong.

life, the universe and everything in it may very well be an illusion but it's the only illusion we have.

i'm not saying the universe is an illusion thought that may well be the case.

i'm saying that free will is an illusion. and without free will there is NOTHING to differentiate between the living and nonliving.

so do you go to an optometrist to locate the rainbow in the sky or do you simply appreciate the beauty that you see?

No, not all religions are the same.

The Abrahamic faiths believe that we live in a finite universe, created by a single conscious and purposeful God. That God has some degree of participation in events, and rewards or punishes mortals for their behavior. Individuals have souls that continue to exist after death, and the afterlife is somehow conditioned upon behavior during their short lives. These religions tend to claim that they, and they alone, possess the absolute Truth, and that God favors their belief above all others. Christianity and Islam see it as their divine mission to convert every individual to their faith.

Hinduism, and those religions that sprang from it, view the universe as infinite without beginning, or endings. In this view, there is no "creation" by a single God, though a pantheon of gods represent different aspects of observed reality. Where gods are believed to exist, they have little or no control over human affairs. Transmigration of souls is a common belief system with Hinduism, but is not universal in those religions that evolved out of it. Indeed, to Buddhists it is a central belief that no soul exists at all, and that what we perceived to be real is actually illusory. Within this family of religions it is generally recognized that Ultimate Reality can be described in many ways, and that each has it's place.

Chinese based religions have their own distinct set. Taoism is in some of it's schools quite similar to the doctrines of Buddhism. However, there are also Taoist Schools that have pursued alchemy (giving birth to a number of inventions and discoveries that still have impact), and others that provided support to the traditional Imperial governmental structure. The more important Chinese form is Confucism, and that is basically a system for regulating social relations and honoring one's ancestors. Chinese belief systems are very important, because Chinese forms have provided the model for all of it's Asian neighbors. Popular Chinese religion is a meld of Confucian, Taoist, Buddhist, and even a bit of Christianity and Islam. Very practical, a Chinese place of worship (prior to 1948) might display icons from all of the religions listed above.

There still exist a number of religions that don't fit into these categories. The aboriginal religious beliefs of American Indians is alive. The ceremonies that mark the calendar in the Kivas and plazas is still important to many native Americans, and has fundamentally little in common with the Christian practices grafted on to it by Europeans. Tribesmen in remote parts of the world still cling to their ancestral beliefs, though their religions are losing ground to aggressive Abrahamic expansion. Typically these religions are pantheistic and utilize rites and taboos to help regulate natural forces by sympathetic magic.

Without free will, there is no point. What is, is meant to be. Nothing you think, say, nor do can have any influence whatsoever on outcomes. Without free will, Charlie Manson and Sister Teresa are exact equals in every respect. Hitler, Stalin and their minions can't be blamed for their crimes because they were only doing what they were destined to do. Say that there is no free will, and you have justified every thought and act no matter what it is. Without free will, freedom is illusory and slavery is perfectly acceptable. Why bother to invent, or create anything if it requires discipline, hard work or hard knocks. Afterall, we can always excuse our laziness by saying "that's just the way things are".

Asherman, just because the things we do are more meaningful if we indeed had freewill doesn't change the evidence that we do not. I present all this evidence here and have yet to have any of it challenged. Similarly, just because the world might be more fair and a better place if we could believe that there was a god watching over us, that there is some inherent karma or heaven and hell doesn't change the evidence that there isn't.

Thank you for that brilliant summary of the various religion. I appreciate it.

But this doesn't change my original theory. While the overlaying concepts of what god, life, and the universe are might vary greatly, the underlying messages, don't kill, don't steal, respect others etc. are always identical.

This suggests that religions were either...

created by leaders in order to promote certain social principles, beliefs and rules (the more likely theory).

or that indeed, there is a god who communicated his inherent beliefs as to how humans should behave to people in various regions of the world. the actual messages conveyed during the meetings were all pretty basic, don't kill, respect life, respect others etc. But as time went on, people added more and more to these. They added on their own ideas as to how the universe operates, their own fables about things that god did etc. This accounts for why while the basic islamic tenets suggest tolerance and compassion towards others, many of the fables and stores found in the kuran point to a more aggressive apporach. And this also accounts for why evidence to stories such as how god created all the life on the planet at the same time, that all life emerged from adam and eve, how the earth was formed 3000 years ago, how it was once entirely flooded by god's wrath can't be substantiated with scientific evidence. Because these stories were all made up and added on later.

Or perhaps its a combination of both depending on which specific religion you're referring to.

Centroles

You claim not to have a belief system going -- but you use the words "I believe" more than anyone I've ever seen.

I'm about to watch the USC game -- but I'll get back to you.

Lay off the believing. All indications are that it's bad for you -- and it is bad for the universe.

I claim to not believe just one thing. I believe many theories might be right. Some I believe are the most likely to be right.

I believe USC is going to lose for one.

Why would I care if they're bad for me or the universe. Bad is an illusion remember.

Half time!

As you can tell, I don't especially like the expression "I believe...". The expression means so many different things to so many different people -- it is virtually useless.

But if there is anything I dislike even more, it is the expression "..to not believe..." -- which most often is a back door way to say one "believes" the opposite of what one is claiming to not believe.

We'll narrow it down, because I can see we are going to discuss a lot.

By the way -- did some god decide that "bad" is an illusion?

Differences
I like the idea that all religions are worshipping the sam God but surely it is illogical? Don't loads of rules and beliefs contradict each other?