Biblical Creationism versus Hindu Creationism

[MoonLancer]

who is right?

yes indeed. we will never know. That's quite frankly the point.

 

[juvenissun]

yes indeed. we will never know. That's quite frankly the point.

But ! If we ask the right question, we may get closer to knowing.

For example, instead of asking whether monotheism is "better" than polytheism, we ask "what should be the nature of a God"? or "what should be the structure of god's world if there were multiple gods"?

 

[ragarth]

But ! If we ask the right question, we may get closer to knowing.

For example, instead of asking whether monotheism is "better" than polytheism, we ask "what should be the nature of a God"? or "what should be the structure of god's world if there were multiple gods"?

So prove a point that makes Christianity look better than the competition! It should be a simple task, but has failed utterly thus far. You're earlier statement:

Just like two different cakes. You say this one is better than that one. I say the opposite. Who is right? Better or worse is measured against something everyone can agree upon. In religion, what is that?

Said the problem quite well. To claim that a given religion is true is to claim that religion as better because it is more true than any other religion. How can you claim that a given religion is better if it cannot be proven? To do otherwise is to frame your method of belief in terms of wanton nihilism. "Nothing is better than anything else, so I'm just going with this one."

 

[consol]

The religion a person has depends on a few things,
the country they're born in, the part of the country they're born in, what their parents believe,
how strongly their parents hold those beliefs, what the people around them believe,
the last person to be given the choice or make any decision, is them,
they might kid themselves that it was their choice, but deep down they know it wasn't.

Ask a [the religion here] why they are a [religion here] and they will give you a hundred reasons why,
but they will not tell you that they looked at all religions and decided for themselves to be a [religion here],
in fact they might even deny that there are other TRUE religions around, theirs is the ONLY TRUE religion.

Religion has got to be the most insidious idea out there, because it makes the believers lie to themselves,
believers go into a state of denial, they ALL know that there are hundreds of religions in this world,
but not one of them will even consider that the religion they believe is the wrong one, in fact the opposite is true,
they tell themselves that if they had been raised to believe a different religion they would have searched around
until they had found the one they have now, if that's not self delusion I don't know what is.

 

[ragarth]

The religion a person has depends on a few things,
the country they're born in, the part of the country they're born in, what their parents believe,
how strongly their parents hold those beliefs, what the people around them believe,
the last person to be given the choice or make any decision, is them,
they might kid themselves that it was their choice, but deep down they know it wasn't.

Ask a [the religion here] why they are a [religion here] and they will give you a hundred reasons why,
but they will not tell you that they looked at all religions and decided for themselves to be a [religion here],
in fact they might even deny that there are other TRUE religions around, theirs is the ONLY TRUE religion.

That's the point, isn't it? How can you claim a given religion as being 'true' and others as 'false' (mine is better than yours) if you can't back that claim up. That's what this thread is about.

 

[juvenissun]

So prove a point that makes Christianity look better than the competition! It should be a simple task, but has failed utterly thus far. You're earlier statement:

Just like two different cakes. You say this one is better than that one. I say the opposite. Who is right? Better or worse is measured against something everyone can agree upon. In religion, what is that?

Said the problem quite well. To claim that a given religion is true is to claim that religion as better because it is more true than any other religion. How can you claim that a given religion is better if it cannot be proven? To do otherwise is to frame your method of belief in terms of wanton nihilism. "Nothing is better than anything else, so I'm just going with this one."

On this issue, you are hopeless.

 

[ragarth]

On this issue, you are hopeless.

I disagree, my original premise is still valid and sound. You have failed to provide proof to the contrary, and your attempt to claim obfuscation of terms where there is none is about as transparent as fiber-grade glass. Therefore, I'm not hopeless, I just haven't been shown anything validating the superiority/betterness/truthiness of any religion over the other.

 

[consol]

Religions seem to be pathetic, and the people who believe in them seem even more pathetic,
why would anyone want to even consider a thing like a god? why? what for? it's pathetic.
I was told that money is the root of all evil, personally I think religion is the root of all evil,
I think there has been more death and destruction caused by religion than the desire for money ever could,
and to the leaders of creationism, creationism means money, and lots of it.

 

[Hespera]

I disagree, my original premise is still valid and sound. You have failed to provide proof to the contrary, and your attempt to claim obfuscation of terms where there is none is about as transparent as fiber-grade glass. Therefore, I'm not hopeless, I just haven't been shown anything validating the superiority/betterness/truthiness of any religion over the other.

In the dept of dealing with obscurantism, you are talking definitions with the person who spent pages on the unique concept that "a plant is not a life".

We never even found out what "a life" is.

 

[ragarth]

Religions seem to be pathetic, and the people who believe in them seem even more pathetic,
why would anyone want to even consider a thing like a god? why? what for? it's pathetic.
I was told that money is the root of all evil, personally I think religion is the root of all evil,
I think there has been more death and destruction caused by religion than the desire for money ever could,
and to the leaders of creationism, creationism means money, and lots of it.

I'm sorry, this deals with my thread how? I'm not asking 'do you think religion is the suxxors' I'm asking 'how is christianity or hinduism better than the other'

 

[Hespera]

Religions seem to be pathetic, and the people who believe in them seem even more pathetic,
why would anyone want to even consider a thing like a god? why? what for? it's pathetic.
I was told that money is the root of all evil, personally I think religion is the root of all evil,
I think there has been more death and destruction caused by religion than the desire for money ever could,
and to the leaders of creationism, creationism means money, and lots of it.

Tell me that it isnt true

"Dr Dino" gets 10 years in prison after failure to pay taxes

 

[ragarth]

In the dept of dealing with obscurantism, you are talking definitions with the person who spent pages on the unique concept that "a plant is not a life".

We never even found out what "a life" is.

And obfuscation is a terrible place to argue from, it's semantic nihilism, the definition of a literary salt the earth policy.

 

[Hespera]

And obfuscation is a terrible place to argue from, it's semantic nihilism, the definition of a literary salt the earth policy.

Nah. its just childish.

 

[juvenissun]

I disagree, my original premise is still valid and sound. You have failed to provide proof to the contrary, and your attempt to claim obfuscation of terms where there is none is about as transparent as fiber-grade glass. Therefore, I'm not hopeless, I just haven't been shown anything validating the superiority/betterness/truthiness of any religion over the other.

Good luck. I don't have any proof for you.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Good luck. I don't have any proof for you.

So you admit there is no reason to teach Christian creationism but not the Hindu version besides personal preference.

 

[Hespera]

This stuff all seems so simple to me. In HK we have comparative religion classes, you can study and talk about all sorts of things. No problem.

In a science class, we talk about science. You dont bring in myths except as they relate to the development of science. If you want to present something as true, as a fact, as a good theory, you need to have hard evidence for it.

To me, it would be good to do things that way here too. If ID wants a place at the table, bring something to the table to earn a seat (that would be data, something that creo totally lacks). If Lakota Indians have facts to put on the table, some contribution to science, they are welcome too.

Otherwise, keep your stuff where it belongs, in the comparative religion class. NOT in science, not history, not math or physical education.

 

[juvenissun]

So you admit there is no reason to teach Christian creationism but not the Hindu version besides personal preference.

Bad logic leads to very wrong conclusion.

 

[ragarth]

Bad logic leads to very wrong conclusion.

I admit his grammar is poor, but if we take his statement as meaning "There's no reason other than personal preference to teach Christianity rather than Hinduism" How is this false?

 

[MoonLancer]

For example, instead of asking whether monotheism is "better" than polytheism, we ask "what should be the nature of a God"? or "what should be the structure of god's world if there were multiple gods"?

the point of asking which is better is that no side clearly has that awnswer. That if God really existed the answer would be clear who is better or more effective... etc... (it would be the one that's real)

and what is you conclusion of these two questions you ask?

 

[juvenissun]

the point of asking which is better is that no side clearly has that awnswer. That if God really existed the answer would be clear who is better or more effective... etc... (it would be the one that's real)

Not really. If we can see God, we won't treat Him as God. If we can not see God, nothing would be clearly shown.

The effect of God is manifested by people. Unfortunately, there are many strange behaviors performed by all kinds of people. And perhaps, there are also all kinds of gods. In Christian, we called them angels. So it is hard to have any consensus on which behavior is really "better".

So, the criteria will never be simple. Too bad.