Is Monotheism most stupid religious idea in the world? Everything

>>1432666
Good point dude

>>1432666
dude weed lmao

Is religion the most stupid idea in the world?

>>1432666
Even if you take the rock and grind it yourself.....this stone was created by God.

>>1432666
How young are you?

>>1432708
The correct question is "how stupid are you?"

Age has nothing to do with intelligence.

>>1432666
you can't fool me satan

>>1432666
The worst thing about monotheism is that it introduced the idea of 'one true religion'.

>>1432730

False.

Religious exclusivism is prevalent in polytheistic religions also.

Monotheism does not necessarily entail religious exclusivism; it merely entails belief in one absolute God.

File: 32591D2E00000578-0-image-a-51_1458347703592.jpg (46KB, 634x423px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 634x423px

>God created everything
>God is everything.
>God has always existed
>Everything has always existed
>Everything created Everything.

>>1432753
>>God created everything

No.

God just created archons, angels, and demons.

>>God is everything.

No.

God comprises everything.

>>God has always existed

Yes.

>>Everything has always existed

No.

>>Everything created Everything.

That doesn't even make sense.

File: Spinoza.jpg (146KB, 800x930px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 800x930px

>>1432753
>Everything created Everything.

You got a problem with that? Pantheism is probably the most internally consistent theism there is.

>>1432761
>God just created archons, angels, and demons
Dude, all these creatures dont exist. It's just an allegory to the laws of physics. And god dont created everything, god is the cause of everything. Not a creator.

>>1432798
Holy shit, you are both ignorant and stupid, and incapable of comprehending what you read.

>>1432666
Shot in the dark here, but I'm going to say that the OP is a really high Christian doing his best to sound like a nonbeliever.

>>1432764
Pantheism dont include the idea of creation.

>>1432715
I think Hume actually made this exact objection. Saying that if we reach God through observations of design a team of imperfect designers would make more sense.

>>1432806
I think it nicely handles the whole problem of how the universe can be self caused.

>>1432715
>Age has nothing to do with intelligence.
Underage detected.

The cause does not mean intelligent design.
I can be the cause of A, but is not necessarily a creator, designer of A.

>>1432666
It's almost like God isn't a person, and is in fact a god, and as such is capable of doing things that couldn't be done by one person, or even any number of people.

Also, he just created the setting and the original pieces really, we did most of the rest.

>>1433023
Could god not create universe?

>>1432686
Is atheism the most stupid idea in the world?

[spoiler]__Yes__[/spoiler]

I don't understand why God is called creator, designer, masterplaner.
Only a "Personal god" can be called creater, designer. Impersonal force of nature could " move" galaxies, "create" matter in empty space, "expand" the space, "return" me from nothing to consciousness after sleep, narcosis, punch in the jaw, but couldn't be designer, creator. Water can be a cause of the canyon, but water couldn't be designer, creator of the canyon.
"Personal god" is a reasonable,Intelligent, conscious, person and also omnipotent. This means that, at least, he can do everything he wants. Why do we believe that he is purposefully created world? He might create or not create world. What does it mean "create the world"? - world look like a dynamic process. Create the initial conditions. Create the initial conditions and intervenes sometimes? Manage the entire process in every point of space-time? Make intervention in the spontaneously arisen process and inspire its inhabitants that this process was created by you?

If God isn't a "Personal god", how he can be a creator of the world? mb he is just a cause of the world? Why Impersonal nature couldn't be a cause, "be a creator" of everything? What is the difference between Impersonal Nature and Impersonal God?

also
>>1433666
Why world couldn't be "created" by itself In the presence of God? Why this is mutually exclusive ideas?

You only need one omnipotent creator of the universe, not two. Hence monotheism.

>>1432740
Could you provide some examples of polytheistic religions practicing religious exclusivism? I'm not well-versed in polytheistic religions, at least much less so than the monotheistic, western ones.

>>1434353
>You only need one omnipotent creator of the universe, not two. Hence monotheism
>omnipotent
Some number not omnipotent creators is completely solve all the dilemmas of omnipotence.

File: 1466432203993.png (442KB, 1000x720px) Image search: [Google]

442KB, 1000x720px

>>1432764
I don't agree with Spinoza's hyper-rationalistic method, but reading Sec. 1-2 of the Ethics gave me several mental orgasms. He has a pretty mind-fucking metaphysic.

>>1434353
No need to be omnipotent to create the universe, everything that is needed it is being enough potent for create the universe. Also God couldn't Create the universe, there was no time "before" universe. word - Create, dont have sense without time.