The religious debates here need to be cleared up with a very important point: What exactly the word "God" means.

The religious debates here need to be cleared up with a very important point: What exactly the word "God" means. "God exists" is a poorly defined statement. Spinoza's Deus and the Hindu Brahman are at times referred to as "God", yet they are conceptually completely different from the Abrahamic deity, and in fact no Atheist would really object to them, since they are more of a philosophical opinion than an assertion of existence of a superpowered fairy that watches you in your sleep.
Thus, I propose an essential concept to bringing these debates anywhere: The Brahman-Yahweh distinction. The entity that is being debated on this board and that everyone takes issue with is Yahweh, and any argument is only meaningful when it addresses Yahweh as opposed to Brahman. For example:
-The problem of evil is relevant to Yahweh, but irrelevant to Brahman.
-The Kalam cosmological argument is not relevant to Yahweh, because it does not specify any attribute of Yahweh as opposed to those of Brahman, and thus is a meaningless argument.
-The teleological argument(lol) is relevant to Yahweh and irrelevant to Brahman, because it supposes an active personality rather than an impersonal force.

Other examples of Yahweh-type deities: Allah, Tengri, etc.
Other examples of Brahman-type deities: Neoplatonic One, Tao, etc.
Classification of the Gnostic Monad is unclear and likely depends on particular interpretation.

The existence of a Brahman-type concept is fundamentally not controversial, and an atheist can accept it without becoming a theist because it is highly distinct from the common understanding of the word "God", which is virtually exclusively used with the sense of a Yahweh-type being. I recommend that the word "God" not be used for Brahman-type concepts to avoid grossly misleading people.

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    We would use the word God to refer to Yahweh and god to refer to anything else. The problem of evil only exists if you assume that a creator god exists, but I don't know if Brahman is a creator god or not. The Kalam cosmological argument is merely to demonstrate the logical consistency of creator god's existence, it is not meant to prove the existence of God.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Brahman is not a creator god per se and moreso describes the common phenomenon of reality, in itself all-encompassing and impersonal. While Brahman is personified in gods, it is also represented by literally everything that exists, and is not a personality as such.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        So why should I care about it then? Sounds like a big nothing.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Not my problem.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It doesn't sound like mine either.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It doesn't sound like mine either.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Not exactly arguing, though I might say that his observation about the lack of reason to care about Brahman is not entirely stupid, since Brahman and similar concepts are typically not worshipped because of this, they are moreso neutral facts of existence. But the purpose of this thread is not to advocate for the philosophical views of Hinduism or Taoism.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                From my perspective there's literally no reason to bring it up if I am not supposed to care about it, it just becomes a non-sequitur at that point.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Outside of the scope of the discussion. Even a Yahweh-type being that you're not supposed to care about can exist, as Deism postulates.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                So you think that you brought up is outside the scope of the discussion? This thread is now a trainwreck.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                What you personally think of Brahman is irrelevant to the matter at hand, and I would rather not have this thread be arguing about the validity of the gods themselves.

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Good post op. Just to elaborate, atheists and agnostics refer to the Brahman, Tao, the one, etc. as The Universe/Nature.

    It really is everyone vs. Christians, Tengri worshippers etc.

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    There is no "God" out there, only an endless expanse of fluctuating vacuum with us and our observable universe as one such fluctuation.
    It has no mind, it has no will, it has no purpose, it has no no meaning. Only we have, only we do, only we make, only we give.

    "God" is us
    I am God

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You sound like you're making an absolute truth claim with this.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You are the reason why God is mad at us

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >in fact no Atheist would really object to them
    Any atheist who knows what they're talking about would definitely object to those things.
    >The problem of evil is relevant to Yahweh, but irrelevant to Brahman.
    Hindu philosophers disagreed. All Hindu theists talk about the problem of evil. They clearly saw that it was a problem for their worldview and tried to come up with solutions to it. Buddhists also clearly saw that it was a problem for them, which is why Buddhist philosophers like Vasubandhu invoked the problem of evil when arguing with Hindus.
    >The Kalam cosmological argument is not relevant to Yahweh, because it does not specify any attribute of Yahweh
    What exactly does this mean?
    >The teleological argument(lol) is relevant to Yahweh and irrelevant to Brahman, because it supposes an active personality rather than an impersonal force.
    The main Hindu philosophical argument for the existence of God is literally a teleological argument. What are you talking about?
    >The existence of a Brahman-type concept is fundamentally not controversial
    It is extremely controversial. Contemporary philosophers generally do not think that anything like the Brahman of Advaita Vedanta or the One of Neoplatonism exists.

    You really should read more about the things you're talking about before you try to invent new taxonomies.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Any atheist who knows what they're talking about would definitely object to those things.
      No, not really.
      >Hindu philosophers disagreed. All Hindu theists talk about the problem of evil.
      Many Hindus have different, more Yahweh-like conceptions of the universe, in particular because the personified gods are the ones responsible for the creation and maintenance of the world as it is. It goes without saying that many Hindus also did not encounter any such problem due to holding different views. I can tell you're confused by how I use the word Brahman here: I do not refer to strictly the Hindu concept as it is, but the archetype as represented in many religions, which I think is most recognisably exemplified by the Hindus.
      >What exactly does this mean?
      A "cause" need not be a personal deity, a Brahman-type concept fulfills the implications of the argument.
      >The main Hindu philosophical argument for the existence of God is literally a teleological argument. What are you talking about?
      What are you? This is completely irrelevant to the statement. Ishvara is a separate subject.
      >It is extremely controversial.
      No one is offended by it or arguing it with any particular enthusiasm online, which is what I meant by this.

      >You really should read more about the things you're talking about before you try to invent new taxonomies.
      And you should get some reading comprehension in addition to the decency to stop animeposting, but that's beside the point.

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    What exactly classify as Yahweh type gods and Brahman type gods ?
    What are the traits that define and differentiate them ?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The most striking distinction is probably personality vs impersonality. Yahweh-likes are going to be overwhelmingly anthropomorphic and sustained actors on their creation, while Brahman-likes are more abstracted and usually only gain further attributes indirectly, if at all. It's not rare for systems of thought to actively reject assigning them any quality beyond absolute simplicity.
      There are some that seem to tow the line, like the Monad I mentioned as well as ironically Yahweh himself in some interpretations of Judaism(Kabbalah), but these are typically not relevant to common religion.

      Another example of a Yahweh-type would be Ahura Mazda, while another example of a Brahman-type would be the Confucian Heaven. You may notice a geographical trend, but this is not so important.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I believe in the God of the Bible, not any of the things you mentioned.

Your email address will not be published.