Any of them that specify how god(s) made man that isn't "A little bit of randomness happened, all the new random things that weren't well adapted to live in their environment died, all the ones that were better adapted did better than their parents. Rinse and repeat." It's basically throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks, except a lot more.
So breathed life into clay? Nah, not really Abrahamic faiths. Rubbed his semen into dirt? Nope, no luck Sumerians. Turned animals into humans, making them cousins? Surprisingly close, certain Native American tribes, well done.
>>17170413 So you believe in a metaphorical version of the Bible. Cool. At that point why even bother believing in the religion in general? Why don't you just live a good life and be ready for whatever the fuck happens after death? You're still hanging on to that shred of terror that if you don't you'll be sentenced to eternal damnation? By your loving God? That allows all the suffering in the world when he could create a perfect life for every being, with no need to test people... Have all people living in loving harmony?
Most creation myths were homogenized to hide the fact that we are the result of a primate species being genetically engineered by a higher species. But many religions still contain inklings of truth about this fact, most famously the Elohim (more than one, not just "the one true God") stating "let us create them in our image".
In truth evolution can fit within many religions but not within religious dogma.
>>17170460 >>17170488 Siddhis, demigods, gods, karma, and such I don't think have any problem coexisting with evolution.
The two largest cognitive dissonances in believing in the Vedas and accepting evolution are 1) that matter descends from awareness, rather than awareness being the result of complex material systems, and 2) the numerous stories of humans existing millions of years ago
If I wish to rationalize this illogical dual-stance in myself, I would say
1) The universe was created with certain physical laws that would allow evolutionary processes to happen. Beings such as the progenitors could have been older, alien races who guided the formation of certain phenotypes through advanced information.
2) There are said to be 400,000 species of "human" in the Bhagavatam. Such tales could have detailed events that happened in other times, in other places, in previous Yugic cycles, perhaps even in other universes. (I find "super-ancient human" evidence unconvincing.)
But mostly I don't find that the two views cross paths. Science is a reliable model for the environment around me. Religion tells me what I should be doing with my life to be successful before death.
I didnt want to make a thread for this, so I will try my luck here and ask you guys, since you seem knowledgeable in this type of stuff.
I need to do an investigation / paper on a subject that involves some topics I barely know of.
Basically I need to know about Cults and Religions in general. People worshipping or idolizing Figures, entities, people or Gods. Organizations or Societies (secret?) that are centered around these type of ideologies, etc.
So Books, Papers, Documentaries, anything would be great really.
>>17170760 It's a commonly believed myth that all religions have a great flood story. That's a lie. It's a nice lie to believe if you're pushing some Christian recruitment line, but think about the propiganda for a solid second: ALL religions? Even the ones from forever ago? The ones that lived and died out before recorded history? The ones practiced by those undiscovered tribes in God-knows-where jungles? The ones not even recognized as a religion by nice white English speaking Christians? The ones practiced by desert dwelling nomads who have never seen a lake? Remote Islanders who have creation myths about their lone island rising from the seaduring creation? What about Eskimos who live on the ice and so would never have to fear a world covered in water? How would that work?
This article is about proper pronunciation in reciting Vedic mantras. Where in there do you see support of what you said?
There's sruti and srimti: "that which is heard" and "that which is remembered." Basically the eternal, revealed information, and the various commentaries. The 4 Vedas, the Upanishads, and usually people agree the Vedanta-Sutra compromise the compiled sruti. The Puranas, the Ramayana, the Mahabharata, and other texts are smriti, but this doesn't mean they are considered less authoritative. Though it does mean they are more often argued about among the sects.
>>17170720 Apparently Islam doesn't, describing evolution.
QURAN 21:30We got every living thing out of water. Will they not believe?QURAN 24:45And God created from water every living creature. Some of them walk on their bellies, some walk on two legs, and some walk on four. God creates whatever he willsQURAN 30:27God begins the process of creation. Then repeats it.QURAN 71:14God created man in diverse stages
>>17170413 What do you mean Adam and Eve could have been the "first fully evolved" modern humans? Evolution doesnt work that way. Evolution is a gradual thing, it doesnt step from neanderthal to human just like that. There is no "First fully evolved". The gradual evolution of modern humans in no way would have resulted in two male and female modern humans, who then lead to the entire human race. You have to understand the sheer timescale evolution works on.
>>17170907 I know puranas are important too but Puranas are not coded properly,they exist in simple sanskrit and there are no ancient script found.So we should not trust everything thats written in purana bcoz they must be corrupted. I mean india went through 700 years of Islamic rule and they destroyed everything from ancient temples to scripts.So who knows maybe they injected poison in purana bcoz it's easy.
>>17171045 Also, what the fuck is "fully evolved"??? It doesn't even work that way. A species adapts to an environment to the fullest extent possible. If the environment changes then when presented through random mutation new adaptions are eventually successful enough to become universal traits to the species in order to maximize the chance of species survival. It is a continuous process. Humans are still evolving now.
>>17170724 >Basically I need to know about Cults and Religions in general. People worshipping or idolizing Figures, entities, people or Gods. Organizations or Societies (secret?) that are centered around these type of ideologies, etc.
Thule society and the thuggee cult are two good ones to research imo.
>>17171071 Exactly. People need to learn about and research evolution before they go around spinning shit about it and claiming its wrong and what not. Alot of the "Evolution is false" stuff is just caused by people hearing misinformation.
>>17171047 According to who? Every major saint and personality of Hinduism has accepted the Puranas as authoritative. Your criticisms are pointless and based on unsupported guessing. They "must be" corrupted. Tell me - how would YOU tell the difference between a pristine verse and a corrupt one? Are you divinely inspired with the truth? Would you go on the knowledge of someone else telling you "this is true, this is not?" Can you show evidence of any of this corruption? Can you show this corruption didn't happen to the sruti Vedas, despite Sanjeev's insistence this is impossible? Of course, I will point out again that the article you linked to makes NO distinction between sruti and smriti. The oral traditions he lauds as keeping the Vedas intact apply to both.
>>17170388 You could believe in God and evolution, but I don't know how anyone could believe in a benevolent God and evolution. You'd have to conclude that God is a horrid monster who allows the suffering of every living creature. Think of all the animals who struggle and kill each other every day to survive, all the millions of types of bacteria and disease, and even if you avoid all that and happen to find enough food and stay healthy you still naturally get old and fall to pieces. All because some dumb bitch ate an apple 6,000 years ago. It's a blasphemous libel on God to accuse him of allowing this to happen. It's much better to believe that this is a random, chaotic universe with no bad intentions. Then God would be flattered that you didn't blame him for all this. That's how I see it. I've never been convinced by religious arguments saying "Well your life isn't so bad" because it implies that I should overlook the suffering of every other living creature that came before us.
>>17171800 This is why I think the duality of creator god/Spirit God is helpful. On one hand you have the evil demiurge behind the creation of man (also Genesis "translation") but also there are other myths of creation. Then you have God who isn't exactly responsible for material life, but is God in Spirit.
I have, and whaddaknow it turned out that evolution is the most likely thing we've come up with so far.
I wasn't sure if you were referring to the fact that evolutionary mechanics are simplified in grade schools so as to make them graspable by someone just being introduced to them, but clearly you have some vague "I know something you don't" boner you need to feel fulfilled.
Esoteric works lost their charm to me when they made assertions about the world and the mind that have been proven quite false since.
That's not even getting into the realm of dualism, which is basically a giant popularity contest mixed with a bit of "I can spout unprovable claims with no apparent use more convincingly than you, therefore I must be right."
Although I will admit that looking into it helped me grasp the "model of reality" part of psychology.
>Besides, it has never been seen a specie coming from other different specie. Yes it has? Constantly? Fossil records and genetic evidence show pretty conclusively what stemmed from what and when, there hasn't been a single unrelated organism ever found.
But if that's not good enough, we took evolution and made it one of our tools. What do you think domestication and breeding is? That's just evolution guided by human selection instead of natural selection.
Also there is no commonly known theory of involution (unless you're talking about the biological process, which has nothing to do with the origin of humanity). If you want to mention it, you're gonna have to define it.
Proving it is verifying it for yourself. That's exactly what proving it means, providing evidence (such as information or a process) that can be followed by one's self to come to the same conclusion as is being asserted.
That's exactly what esotericism lacks. It just asserts that if you do a few things long enough you'll arrive at divine truth with little to no middle ground. There is no information that can be tested or process that can be followed, you "just get it" or you don't. That's not verifying for your self, that's shared delusion with the in group refusing to verify or test their own beliefs.
Thread replies: 45 Thread images: 5
Thread DB ID: 391933
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.