Existence of God(s)

Tea · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Tea** on Sat Jun 30, 2012 12:35 pm

"The difference between servancy and slavery is the difference between willingness and unwillingness."

A willing person is not a slave. Their title or station might be established as a slave, but an individual who is willing to function and exist within that station is not a slave. A true slave is one who considers their station undesirable and wishes with the sincerity of their conscience to have a different, and perhaps better, lot for their Life. Remember, always, that most slaves throughout history have been imprisoned, starved, beaten, deprived of water, stripped of all clothing and medicine, given less food than what is necessary for health, held in the most diseased and waste-filled locations possible, and have been murdered in public displays of sport.

Slavery...is not moral. It is not moral because it lacks Love...the most basic element of compassion and kindness.

TheFinalOne · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **TheFinalOne** on Thu Jul 05, 2012 7:33 am

Aniihya wrote:FinalOne: No room for preach here. It is about the existence of deities, not just the Judeo-Christian god. Look at my post about mother Kali. And life doesn't need a purpose because everyone has their own purpose. No divinity gives you a purpose of life. It is for the individual to decide.

Unfortunate that you thought I was preaching, for I myself do not believe in God. My superiority complex will not allow for some dude to control me; some dude who I cannot fight back. No fun in life then. But I'm not going to stop anyone from believing in God. It is their choice.

The concept of God was created many thousand years ago when life was very different. Things were more uncertain back then. They did not understand many things. When they had no logical explanation for the things happening around, they turned to the supernatural (we do this even now). They created the concept of God; of a being who knew what was going.

Why do you think the older religions have so many Gods? Why do you think the religions created by people from different places, people who could not have met each other, are so similar? Why is there always someone who created the universe? Why is there always someone who destroys things?

Anyway, do I believe in God? No.
Would I believe in God? No.
What if someone came to me and he could prove he was a God? I'd try and trick him into making me immortal.

Colonel_Masters · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Colonel_Masters** on Thu Jul 05, 2012 11:09 am

The pagan religions in their heart represented nature, the thing that interests me is why most pagan religions did not seek to convert followers while the desert dogmas seemed to be all most entirely about doing so?
What do the desert dogmas represent? A nameless, faceless, shapeless being but why is he so? All that we see of the dogmatic god is his will and will is something humans are very good at. The pagan religions didn't force their religion on others because they where not about how many followers they had unlike the dogmatic god; they where living beings in the sense that many of them represented something very real in the universe such as wine, fear, war and death. Those religions were the human interpretation of those things and in my opinion considering the influence war, love, song, the moon and the sun have on us they are gods in their own right. The dogmatic god on the other hand is both similar and diffrent; he represents nothing other then the will of domination and for as long as life has flourished on the earth each being has wanted to dominate the other which makes this god of will is quite real if you think about it like that.
That god represents the will of an individual to dominate and rule the masses which makes him a powerful god indeed; why does this god in his nature command the eradication of all other religions? Because man's will to dominate and rule extends to everything including nature, emotion, time in short all that makes reality and above all his own destiny.

You could argue that the god doesn’t really exist then but to that I say:
As far as I can see the will to dominate is very real and powerful; when one serves this will he is a slave when one denies this will he is a fool. Hate, fear, love, joy; all those things rule upon us and unless these gods of ours are not given the proper respect they burn us to the bone and yet if we serve them completley we are made into vessles of their power and our own spirit dies as a result. With the god of domination this is a required thing from his servents which is why his religons are so powerful. Together spirits form gods and when I imagine the combined wills of mankind i can only imagine what a terrible god the god of domination must be.

As I said in another post; everything has meaning and everything is a god in one way or another. This is why I dislike some atheists; because they do not acknowledge or respect the spirit and thus their arrogance known's no boundaries and that’s why I resist the desert dogma; because all who worship it are slaves to the will of domination. (As in all cases not all atheists or all who worship the desert dogma are like that at all)

All is one and one is all

Aniihya · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Aniihya** on Thu Jul 05, 2012 12:08 pm

Colonel_Masters: What are you anyways then? Sound a bit native American to me because my great-grandfather talked like that.

As most people know, I am a pagan. I see something bad in missionarianism. As it is often used by fear to make naive people believe. Pagan religions today grow because people become interested in them and not because of missionaries (it would be laughable to even think about the existence of a pagan missionary). Though violence still exists within polytheists, especially in India but not out of intolerance towards non-believers but because Muslims and Christians have a long history of desecrating and destroying Hindu-temples in India. Even today. If the Muslims and Christians in India would have the will to coexist with Hinduists then there wouldnt be violence from the Hindu side.

Colonel_Masters · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Colonel_Masters** on Thu Jul 05, 2012 12:14 pm

Well I like to think I am a pagan but I am not exactly sure yet :D

TheFinalOne · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **TheFinalOne** on Thu Jul 05, 2012 1:07 pm

If the Muslims and Christians in India would have the will to coexist with Hinduists then there wouldnt be violence from the Hindu side.

Actually, Hindus are the most intolerant of the lot, and can get extremely excessive. The only reason you don't know much about it is because it is localized/Americans are not killed.

I love the word 'pagan'. Possibly the only word that was supposed to be derogatory, but fails to be.

Colonel_Masters · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Colonel_Masters** on Thu Jul 05, 2012 4:06 pm

Did you know that the word heretic actually means choice? Oh well I think we can now see the true face of christianity when they waged their war against the heretics; against choice :P

Aniihya · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Aniihya** on Thu Jul 05, 2012 5:20 pm

TheFinalOne: Have you been to India? Probably not. I have. I have witnessed these things with my own eyes and have been close to danger a couple times. Places with large muslim minorities have these problems nearly daily. The Muslims attack temples and refuges while the Hindus retaliate. The had once tried to discuss the problem face to face in peaceful manners but a Brahmin ended up getting stabbed by one of the Muslim attendees. If you are tired of being attacked, then you decide to fight back. Hindus don't let themselves get driven away because of extremists of other religions. They stand ground and don't let anybody screw with them.

TheFinalOne · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **TheFinalOne** on Fri Jul 06, 2012 12:57 am

I know more about India than you do, dear Aniihya. I do not disagree with you, to some extent, when you say Hindus aren't the ones who strike first. But when they do strike, they are the most vicious and excessive of the lot.

Places with large muslim minorities have these problems nearly daily.

Eh, no. Very few places have this problem.

Aniihya · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Aniihya** on Fri Jul 06, 2012 5:38 am

Go to Kashmir or Hyderabad. it really is a daily problem. Stop making it look harmless, when it isn't. It tells me how little you know about it. I have friends and family in India. I have been in India for funerals. It hurts me to hear that you are blind of the fact that thousands of Hindus are killed because of what they believe in and their temples desecrated because the religious minorities are wanting dominance in the area and would do anything to drive those they see as unbelievers away from India.

TheFinalOne · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **TheFinalOne** on Fri Jul 06, 2012 5:59 am

Do you know that more Hindus are killed/discriminated against by other Hindus than by 'outsiders'?

I never said that Hindus are not being killed or that it is not a problem. It is. Mindless killing is always a problem, be the victim Hindu/Muslim/Christian/Atheist.

Here, the quote "We know our differences but cannot accept them" holds very true. People there are starting to accept each other and I'm happy for them. For example, after 26/11, I did not see News channels getting filled with news of riots and religiously motivated crimes. I saw a sense of brotherhood. I saw a Muslim and Hindu crying together for the loss of a near and dear one.

After the 26/7, I saw news of how Muslims and Hindus were helping each other regardless of what religion they were from. I saw in the news, an 'Untouchable' family's house occupied by a Brahmin's family. I saw them crying and realizing that degrading someone who is different in stature than you is not cool.

We are making the same point, but in different ways. I'm trying to stay neutral while you are demonizing the Muslims and Christians. Let us not fight. I'm sure there may be some problem in Hyderabad and Kashmir. But in both places, the problem is not caused by a Muslim-Hindu divide, but by a India-Pakistan divide.

Aniihya · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Aniihya** on Fri Jul 06, 2012 6:38 am

Yes you see news but the news often twists the stories to manipulate the naive populace into believing that problems arent so big or putting bias towards a direction although it was the other. I demonize Muslims and Christians because there are a lot of zealots out there who start riots just being a Hindu shoved a Muslim boy. Its mainly the Muslims (mostly the undereducated non-Sufi Muslims) who start violence. If you go to a town where there are many Sufis, then violence between Muslims and Hindus are astonishingly rare. But then you got the non-Sufi irrational Sunnis who get mad over everything. And about Brahmins protecting Dalits it is common to see such a thing in the northeast (such as West Bengal) since the caste-system mentality there is less strict than in the south and west (Rajasthan and Gujarat). It varies where you really are but Kashmir and Hyderabad and some parts of Ahmadabad are very bad in religious violence.

Iye Khara · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Iye Khara** on Fri Jul 06, 2012 8:26 pm

Aniihya wrote:PS: I dont want any "God doesnt exist is fact due to no evidence" because you cannot bring the evidence yourself against it as both sides are at the current time just opinions.

lolwut

dealing with it · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **dealing with it** on Fri Jul 06, 2012 11:34 pm

The Painkiller wrote:lolwut

Please refrain from zero-content, zero-effort posts. If you have something to say, say something. If you have nothing to say, say nothing.

TheFinalOne · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **TheFinalOne** on Sat Jul 07, 2012 3:23 am

I do not know from where you get this hatred from, Aniihya, but it is not good, for you or for anyone. I lived a few blocks away from the Taj Palace when 26/11 came along. Do you see me hating on Muslims for that? No.

Judging someone just because some other person of their caste/creed/religion/region is doing wrong things is wrong. That's like calling all American rapists and racists. Are they all rapists and racists? No. then, why generalize?

Aniihya · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Aniihya** on Sat Jul 07, 2012 7:50 am

No I am not saying that Muslims themselves are the problem I am just saying the it is bad of you to call Hindus "the most intolerant lot" when it is the muslim communities who riot over a Hindu shoving a muslim boy. Do you notice how many (Sunni) muslims would threaten death if you criticize Mohammed. It is mostly the sunni muslims who have a radical, irrational and ultraconservative mindset. If people follow Sufism then they end up being rational but I have Sufi friends who fled their countries because sunnis persecuted sufis. Even the Shias (except the Iranian government) tend to mind their own business. I am just sick and tired of constantly being harassed by Sunnis because of my belief. They come to this country for better opportunities but then they live off of social welfare and harass the local people. It isnt a generalization anymore it is a sad thing that applies to 90% of the Sunni Muslims who dont follow sufism too. Do you know the Ibadi Muslims? Aside from Sufis, they are the most humble Muslims I have met.

So my conclusion is, I have a general dislike towards Sunni Muslims because of weekly harassment, them following the group (if one of them starts havoc the community starts havoc because they are like sheep). People just say we get the Eastern Anatolian idiots in this nation, but if you go to Turkey you will get problems if they know your preferences or that you only came to Turkey to visit a Kurd. Many in the Istanbul area are alright but then you find out that they are Alevi, which is no wonder since it is a belief based on tolerance. But over here, if a muslim harasses me because of my religion or wants to threaten me to convert and I go to the police, then I am labeled as a racist. Germany has become a sad place where tolerance goes so far that it becomes ignorance.

FIEND XIX · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **FIEND XIX** on Mon Jul 16, 2012 2:11 pm

My thoughts on the the existance of any divine beings is that at some point there most likly might have been a deity like entity responsible for the creation of this reality. Although I belive that if such a being were responsible for our creation it would not be out of moral desire but rather out of a curiosity to create and observe us as beings under varous conditions. My proof is not completly faked based but I base this Deitist Theory on several base concepts that i feel Most religions and Atheist belifs do not properly awnser. One example is the intracate nature of the universe and the immense measure of its expanse which would make the christian idea of god making the universe seem less than sensable with all of our species confined to earth and Atheism does not convince me in the randomness of an explosion leading to various mistakes and chance which made everything.

To summerize I belive we are all just an experiment to some being of a superior nature (or dimension) Either for its own sense of ammusement or perhaps on an off chance some spiritual perogative to create realities in which life can naturaly form and progress into Sentiant life forms. But to make clear I do not belive in Chaos and a uslessness to existance but rather I consider our very existance to be an opertunity for us to advance and perhaps some day surpass our Maker whom ever that may be.

Aniihya · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Aniihya** on Mon Jul 16, 2012 2:31 pm

I often see where atheists say that it was rather rapid expansion than an explosion. But the definition of explosion is exactly the rapid expansion of something (mostly it is the case of gas or fire).

dealing with it · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **dealing with it** on Mon Jul 30, 2012 9:52 pm

FIEND, if you could see in the microwave spectrum, you would see that the universe still glows with background radiation. This background radiation was predicted by the Big Bang Theory, and it was quite a big deal when it was finally measured. Nobel Prize and all that.

It is curious to me that you see problems with atheism and theism, yet do not recognize agnosticism as a solution. Is admitting ignorance of the fundamental nature of reality that difficult?

cucumbersome · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **cucumbersome** on Tue Jul 31, 2012 5:30 pm

Gods exist. All of them. Well, at least most of the ones that are known to us humans. I can prove it, to an extent.

Let's first consider whether something else exists: Love. Love exists. It probably does not exist as a physical object somewhere or as a something outside the universe but inside the metaverse, but if someone tries to use that as proof that love does not exist, I say that they're missing the point.

So what is the point of the gods? Is it
(1) their intrinsic value,
(2) the value of what they want from us,
(3) the value of getting a reward or avoiding punishment,
(4) something else I never thought of?

If it is (1), then in analogy to love, of course they exist.

If it is (2), we can argue that motivation defines identity (depending on your views on reality this may be considered false), and then the value of what is desired by something becomes the intrinsic value of that thing, and we can prove existence like we already did for (1).

If it is (3), then I'm afraid I have no proof for you and that in my opinion you're completely missing the point of not just religion but of life.

In other words, only selfish people and those who disagree with me about the equivalence of motivation and identity would wonder whether any god exists. To the latter, I offer the following:

Is it not true that when you want nothing, not even your continued existence or the end of it, you are nothing? (Note that some religions consider this a desirable state. I'm not using the word "nothing" in a judging way.)

Is it not true that you do define your own identity, that you cannot change the past, that the present doesn't have a duration, that the future doesn't exist yet, and that the combination of all that leaves nothing but your wishes for the future to define yourself?

Of course a god might be able to change the past (fun solution to there being no time and therefore no causation before the big bang, by the way), and there are other problems, but it's good enough for me to accept (2).

So yes, all those gods exist. But that doesn't mean we have to worship all of them. Hate also exists and we shouldn't worship that. I would even say that if hell exists, it's better to go there than to worship a god who is evil by human standards. Again, if we choose the reward or avoidance of punishment over doing what is right, what does that make us?

Existence of God(s)

a topic in Discussion & Debate, a part of the RPG forum.

Re: Existence of God(s)

Re: Existence of God(s)

Re: Existence of God(s)

Re: Existence of God(s)

Re: Existence of God(s)

Re: Existence of God(s)

Re: Existence of God(s)

Re: Existence of God(s)

Re: Existence of God(s)

Re: Existence of God(s)

Re: Existence of God(s)

Re: Existence of God(s)

Re: Existence of God(s)

Re: Existence of God(s)

Re: Existence of God(s)

Re: Existence of God(s)

Re: Existence of God(s)

Re: Existence of God(s)

Re: Existence of God(s)

Re: Existence of God(s)

Post a reply

Make a Donation

Who is online