Legion's Official Religion Debate Thread

[FreeMason]

I'm ignostic. I don't see how any religion could possibly be proved wrong or right. I also don't feel that there is any cognitive meaning in the word "God" or any other religious speak, as it is all based on the interpretation of humans, who, as we all know, have limited perception. So before we go on can we possibly agree on a general definition of "God", so I can have some idea of what I'm talking about?

[Scrawney]

A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religion.

[FreeMason]

But is a "God" always perfect? Or omnipotent or omniscient? I seem to remember that the ancient deities (Greco-Roman, Norse, etc.) having human flaws to them, and those religions were as real as any now. And does a "God" necessarily have to be worshipped in a monotheistic style? Hinduism is polytheistic and is still alive and well, do you intend to exclude that and other such religions from the discussion?

[tom the pit leader]

Freemason you make a good point, as monothiesm is a "new" idea in a religious sense. If I recall my history correctly, Atens was the first "monotheistic" deity as he was called the only true deity by a Pharo who I am too lazy to look up. Atens didn't last long, and then Yahwe (Ya-way) of the Isrialites and the Tora which had stories which resembled most other stories in other poly theistic socities. Given that Islam and Cristianity also worship Yahwe, or the god of Aberham, I can't think of any other society that had only one deity. Others had gods and goddess for most aspects of daily life and other natural phenomenon.

If I had to choose between the two, I would hope for a polytheistic pantheon as group think and discussion usually end up being supererior to any one person. It also allows debate and new ideas to surface in a way that one god does not simply because of the nature of montheism.

Yes, I know I mangled the names.

[James Davis]

Originally Posted by leninrocks244

Where in that whole statement does it say "Hey guys, we need an official religion thread!"?

I apologize if I misrepresented what you said in my opening post, I certainly didn't mean to. That was the quote that made me think of this, though.

[FreeMason]

Originally Posted by tom the pit leader

Freemason you make a good point, as monothiesm is a "new" idea in a religious sense. If I recall my history correctly, Atens was the first "monotheistic" deity as he was called the only true deity by a Pharo who I am too lazy to look up. Atens didn't last long, and then Yahwe (Ya-way) of the Isrialites and the Tora which had stories which resembled most other stories in other poly theistic socities. Given that Islam and Cristianity also worship Yahwe, or the god of Aberham, I can't think of any other society that had only one deity. Others had gods and goddess for most aspects of daily life and other natural phenomenon.

If I had to choose between the two, I would hope for a polytheistic pantheon as group think and discussion usually end up being supererior to any one person. It also allows debate and new ideas to surface in a way that one god does not simply because of the nature of montheism.

Yes, I know I mangled the names.

I wasn't asking what style is better, though that is definately an interesting question. I simply want a general definition of the word "God" that can be applied to all religions so that I can more easily understand the basic ideas that will be displayed in this thread. We can be more religion-specific later by refering to specific gods by their names, or as "the Christian God", "the Muslim God", etc.

[leninrocks244]

Originally Posted by FreeMason

I'm ignostic. I don't see how any religion could possibly be proved wrong or right. I also don't feel that there is any cognitive meaning in the word "God" or any other religious speak, as it is all based on the interpretation of humans, who, as we all know, have limited perception. So before we go on can we possibly agree on a general definition of "God", so I can have some idea of what I'm talking about?

You spelled Agnostic wrong.

[leninrocks244]

Originally Posted by James Davis

I apologize if I misrepresented what you said in my opening post, I certainly didn't mean to. That was the quote that made me think of this, though.

Ah, well no worries. I'm not angry or anything.

[tom the pit leader]

Originally Posted by FreeMason

I wasn't asking what style is better, though that is definately an interesting question. I simply want a general definition of the word "God" that can be applied to all religions so that I can more easily understand the basic ideas that will be displayed in this thread. We can be more religion-specific later by refering to specific gods by their names, or as "the Christian God", "the Muslim God", etc.

Well, the thing about the monotheisitc god and a polythesic pantheon is that god for a monotheistic system has to be perfect, where as a god in a pantheon does not. In many Mesopotamien stories, gods can make mistakes, and be challanged. A good story to read about the topic of religion and technology is "By the Waters of Babalon". Also good is the last line of "Clash of the Titans" about greek myth. The basic idea is that anchient civilizations needed gods to explain life and morality, but that there will be a day in which we as a civilization will no longer need gods and religion.

[FreeMason]

Originally Posted by leninrocks244

You spelled Agnostic wrong.

Thats because I'm not agnostic, I'm ignostic.