Okay, I haven't read all the posts, but here's my two cents.

I'm a Hindu, and in Hinduism it states that all religions are just simply different paths to the same goal and none of them are wrong. Personally, I like that belief and the fact that we can either be mono or polytheism, in fact you can not believe in any of the gods and still be a hindu. It states in Hinduism that all you need to do is fufil your dharma and overall be good in your life. Wheter you believe in god or not. And my next favorite thing is that the goddess Saraswati (goddess of learning) stated that we should accept sciene also.

Of course, there are things in all beliefs that I don't agree with. In Hinduism, it's the caste system (even though, technically, it wasn't supposed to be part of Hinduism in the first place). In Christianity, I extremely hate the converting, and the entire thing of hell. Especially the hell part because, if you don't believe in God, the 'correct way' you're going to go through an eternity of suffering and pain, while burning up with no chance of leaving. But he loves you. That doesn't really sound like a loving god.

I really, really hate these kinds of sites because they try to justify their conclusions not by proper science, but by piling buzz word upon buzz word and throwing so much general science in a reader's face that he will be overwhelmed. "So much science! And I can't see how any of it contradicts their position; I guess it must be true, strange as it seems..." It's much like the New Age gobbledy-**** peddlers who slap the label 'quantum' on every piece of bullshit they feed to the credulous.

[...]

Of course, if you follow the links, they draw on Einstein -- one of those names or words that, like quantum physics or Stephen Hawking, is supposed to invoke a trust in the infallibility of science. E=mc^2! Light has infinite energy! ...Oh, wait, a proton actually has 0 mass, so it has no kinetic energy from that equation. Well, light has special properties and there are other equations...but if light has infinite energy, then due to the law of conservation of energy, it must take infinite energy to produce light. I guess the common light bulb violates the known laws of physics. Pity Einstein and Hawking didn't know of those fantastic machines. Would that Edison had pre-dated them!

As for time "stopping" at the speed of light, an asymptotic approach is not the same as reaching, and bereft of this odd concept of infinite energy, it is not something that can be accomplished or is worth considering; never mind that 'living forever' would be due to time dilatory effects and feel no longer than normal life to the person experiencing it (although he might notice all his friends and family dying within an infinitesmal amount of time).

...And so on and so forth, and, oh: Quantum quantum quantum. "So until the new paradigm is firmly established, reincarnation and the transcendental nature of consciousness will continue to be considered the greatest scientific discoveries of all time by those who can see the quantum light with quantum eyes."

Unfortunately, because there is much in this science that I don't know (exempli gratia, observer-dependent effect in quantum physics, single-electron double slit experiments, and so forth), and because I lack the capacity to check up on all their sources, I cannot say whether anything on that site is true. However, it is abundantly clear even to me that there is a lot of nonsense and gobbledy-**** on the site, and it therefore cannot be trusted. I must assume that the authors and editors are either incompetent or liars.

I published a couple of papers on this very thing.

In essence, it's about pilfering authority from established traditions (e.g. science, religion), and using it to persuade those who can't tell the difference.

My approach was to show how their assertions were contradictory, chiefly because their language (from physics, Hinduism, Christianity, and so on) implied vastly different assumptions about the universe.

In some cases, I also demonstrated how dangerous this was, e.g. when people don't eat because they're ingesting quantum prana.

Nasty stuff, mostly.

In a time of "soul searching" I read Deepak Chopra's "Life After Death: The Burden of Proof" in which he deals a whole lot with NDE's. Of course this all comes back to his silly happy flowers everywhere world view, and by mid-book my reasoning facilities had brought me out of his clap-trap little world of "quantum" bullshittery.

It's so easy to take an experience like a NDE and claim spiritual importance, but it ignores a fundamental question. Which is more likely?

1. As you are dying, and in some instances are registered as dead (on certain instruments) you experience god(s),universal truth, etc. For some reason, perhaps because you're drifting into the afterlife you experience religious enlightenment. This assumes there is an afterlife for one, which we have no good evidence of. It is a bit of a confirmation bias already, but let's ignore that for now.

2. While your brain function is limited you experience some sort of unique euphoria and even an out of body experience. The brain produces this in some mysterious way, but since after all the brain is just about the most complicated thing we've ever encountered we don't understand it very much. The instruments which measure brain function report none, but perhaps (for reasons mentioned above) they don't know exactly all that can be measured.

1 begs a lot of questions, and conforms to an idea in which there is little to no evidence. 2 is based off of our (limited) knowledge of just how damn complex an organ which can produce the essance of us can be. 2 also begs some questions, like why would such a mechanism evolve, and how can our instruments measure our brain activity better? But 1 supposes an entire supernatural world for which we otherwise have no evidence.

Of what?

A universe without a god is a simpler model than a universe with one.

I'm a Hindu, and in Hinduism it states that all religions are just simply different paths to the same goal and none of them are wrong. Personally, I like that belief and the fact that we can either be mono or polytheism, in fact you can not believe in any of the gods and still be a hindu. It states in Hinduism that all you need to do is fufil your dharma and overall be good in your life. Wheter you believe in god or not. And my next favorite thing is that the goddess Saraswati (goddess of learning) stated that we should accept sciene also.

Of course, there are things in all beliefs that I don't agree with. In Hinduism, it's the caste system (even though, technically, it wasn't supposed to be part of Hinduism in the first place). In Christianity, I extremely hate the converting, and the entire thing of hell. Especially the hell part because, if you don't believe in God, the 'correct way' you're going to go through an eternity of suffering and pain, while burning up with no chance of leaving. But he loves you. That doesn't really sound like a loving god.
That's very nice, avenger; it's a friendly and accepting world view. Unfortunately, however, being nicer doesn't make a belief system any more likely to be true.

The only reason why the biblical god being a vicious bastard has any bearing on a discussion on how likely the Bible is to be true is the inconsistency it introduces (loving god who cheerfully murders people by the thousands). I think it would be very nice if there were indeed a god, omnipotent and benevolent if not quite omniscience, and if said god were just about to wake up, any minute now, and make everyone happy for all time. That'd be really nice. Sadly, there's no evidence that it's true, so I have to work under the assumption that it isn't and make the best I can of reality as it is.

Of course the major religious belief systems contain some terrible and deplorable moral lessons, but that's not the main problem with them. The main problem with them is that they cause people to base their decisions and philosophies on what is, in all likelihood, not true, and however well-intentioned you may be, building fairy-castles on thin air is not nearly so reliable in the long run as constructing more modest and pedestrian structures on real, solid earth.

So the chief question in this thread is not whether your faith is nice. The question is why do you believe what you believe? I hope it's more than wishful thinking!

How nice of you to equate us atheists with "muderers [sic]", thieves, and liars..

That's a quote from a book and I see how it sounds now and I apologize. The book in question was arguing more liberal NDE beliefs to fundies who saw athiests as bad as murderers. I CERTAINLY didn't mean it like that at all or ever believe that at any point. Sometimes I don't see how something sounds until after I say it.


Well, at least we have some small point of agreement. I take it you would also, then, agree that the Bible is not in itself a reliable or authoritive source for any truth-claim?
Yes I would agree. The mere fact that it CLAIMS to be the word of God doesn't necessarily mean it is. I mean come on, the Vedas, Talmud, Quran, Book of Mormon, Course in Miracles and a whole pile of other books also make that claim. Logically they can't ALL be true because they contradict each other on many points in addition to the internal contradictions. Also, it should be said that there were an unknown number of largely unknown people who wrote the Bible. It's not like it was faxed from Heaven. And because of that large number of people, even if SOME were divinely inspired there's no nothing that says every individual writer was.



I think I've already explained why I think less of adherents of 'strong atheism' than of 'weak atheism', so I needn't cover that ground again save to point out that they were guilty of irrationality to begin with, whatever the quality of their conclusions. As for the credibility---well, no, I'll get to that.

that actually had nothing to do with my point but w.e.



I really, really hate these kinds of sites because they try to justify their conclusions not by proper science, but by piling buzz word upon buzz word and throwing so much general science in a reader's face that he will be overwhelmed. "So much science! And I can't see how any of it contradicts their position; I guess it must be true, strange as it seems..." It's much like the New Age gobbledy-**** peddlers who slap the label 'quantum' on every piece of bullshit they feed to the credulous.

All right, all right, this is all very well and good if I can substantiate that the above is bullshit. But I am no physicist, and most people have even less science background than I do. How can I show that the above site is the bullshit-piling sort, rather than a site that actually cites relevant research that supports a highly surprising conclusion? Well, I could start from the top and note that they start the reader off with bullshit that is thankfully rather obvious, in the second paragraph of the second link cited:

Again I agree with you. Using a lot of scientific buzzwords is a great way to manipulate idiots. I personally completely disregarded the whole physics part myself. However the study validating OBEs (the first one) is pretty easy to understand and relatively conclusive if he wasn't straight up lying. Also, did you read the part about how people who had NDEs came back with diseases miracularly cured or the fact that people born blind can acurately percieve their surroundings? That, to me is far more impressive because I can actually understand it.


Of course, if you follow the links, they draw on Einstein -- one of those names or words that, like quantum physics or Stephen Hawking, is supposed to invoke a trust in the infallibility of science. E=mc^2! Light has infinite energy! ...Oh, wait, a proton actually has 0 mass, so it has no kinetic energy from that equation. Well, light has special properties and there are other equations...but if light has infinite energy, then due to the law of conservation of energy, it must take infinite energy to produce light. I guess the common light bulb violates the known laws of physics. Pity Einstein and Hawking didn't know of those fantastic machines. Would that Edison had pre-dated them!

As for time "stopping" at the speed of light, an asymptotic approach is not the same as reaching, and bereft of this odd concept of infinite energy, it is not something that can be accomplished or is worth considering; never mind that 'living forever' would be due to time dilatory effects and feel no longer than normal life to the person experiencing it (although he might notice all his friends and family dying within an infinitesmal amount of time).

...And so on and so forth, and, oh: Quantum quantum quantum. "So until the new paradigm is firmly established, reincarnation and the transcendental nature of consciousness will continue to be considered the greatest scientific discoveries of all time by those who can see the quantum light with quantum eyes."

Unfortunately, because there is much in this science that I don't know (exempli gratia, observer-dependent effect in quantum physics, single-electron double slit experiments, and so forth), and because I lack the capacity to check up on all their sources, I cannot say whether anything on that site is true. However, it is abundantly clear even to me that there is a lot of nonsense and gobbledy-**** on the site, and it therefore cannot be trusted. I must assume that the authors and editors are either incompetent or liars.:

I don't agree with calling them liars but I do concede that unintelligable gobbledey **** can't qualify as truth if no one understands it. I don't understand why the author put that in personally. However, lower on the page are far simpler and more convincing arguments



That sounds rather like a threat of rape.

LMAO!!! Again, sometimes I don't see how something sounds until after I say it.

A universe without a god is a simpler model than a universe with one.

To me, a universe with a beginning caused by a supernatural, self-existent creator seems to be simpler than a universe that began from spontaneuous quantum activity, or a singularity (who or what put it there?), or "everything came from nothing", or "this universe is a result of previous universes smashing into each other."

If I've totally missed the mark, then by all means, educate me. I like to question and I like to learn. And I like to caption.

In a time of "soul searching" I read Deepak Chopra's "Life After Death: The Burden of Proof" .

That book sucked IMO. If that was all I read on NDEs I wouldn't believe in them for a second either. Try reading Kevin Williams book (Free in PDF form on the website I provided with my original post) it's WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYY more convincing.

that ['strong' vs. 'weak' atheist thing] actually had nothing to do with my point but w.e.
Well -- you argued that this NDE stuff had convinced 'strong atheists' as though this were in favour of its credibility. I would be more impressed if you claimed it had convinced 'weak atheists', id est, skeptics. (Anecdotal evidence still, though; 'more' is not 'very'.)


Again I agree with you. Using a lot of scientific buzzwords is a great way to manipulate idiots. I personally completely disregarded the whole physics part myself. However the study validating OBEs (the first one) is pretty easy to understand and relatively conclusive if he wasn't straight up lying.
Well, maybe (I haven't the time to read it all), but herein lies the problem. From other stuff on the site, we know that they are not above posting sheer bullshit. Therefore, they either screwed up badly and so are incompetent, or they don't care and so post lies.


Also, did you read the part about how people who had NDEs came back with diseases miracularly cured or the fact that people born blind can acurately percieve their surroundings? That, to me is far more impressive because I can actually understand it.
I glanced at it. I don't find it persuasive because, well, anecdotal evidence like that is just too damned easy to fake. Faith healers are common, and faith healers are commonly uncovered as utter frauds. How many people who claim to have been cured of cancers fall into one of these categories:

1. People who never had cancer in the first place
2. People who still have cancer, although they may deny it or have been deluded about it
3. People who were cured of cancer and attributed it to faith healers or weird experiences where there are natural explanations, e.g. someone who is miraculously cured of cancer during a near-death experience on the operating table under the knife of a skilled surgeon

Once you cite a study that't specific enough and well-substantiated enough to rule out such fraud, and still shows a statistically significant number -- keep in mind that cancers do occasionally go into spontaneous remission, and that the human immune system sometimes does amazing things on its own -- well, then I'll listen.

Until then, given that this seems to follow a pattern normally associated with obvious frauds, I will conclude that these people are probably frauds, too.


I don't agree with calling them liars but I do concede that unintelligable gobbledey **** can't qualify as truth if no one understands it. I don't understand why the author put that in personally. However, lower on the page are far simpler and more convincing arguments
Note that there was a fair bit of stuff that I did understand, and specifically pointed out why it's total nonsense: Light has infinite energy, therefore light bulbs cannot exist -- that's pretty straightforward. I'm not saying they're necessarily liars: They could be foolish enough to buy it, or just sufficiently ignorant of physics -- though if so, they should have enough awareness of their own limitations not to push this stuff.

I'm glad they did, mind you. It made it easy to see what level of argumentation they're willing to stoop to, which means I don't need to exert myself overmuch on the obscure stuff. Every so often there's a diamond in the rough, but life is short, and most of the time, all you find is more rough.

That book sucked IMO. If that was all I read on NDEs I wouldn't believe in them for a second either. Try reading Kevin Williams book (Free in PDF form on the website I provided with my original post) it's WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYY more convincing.

While a kind sentiment, and I do genuinely appreciate the offer, I don't think I'll bother. NDEs are able to be replicated regularly in a centrifuge (astronaut training) as I recall. Furthermore, in my "soul searching" I became more reasonable. The rest of my previous post illustrates my current view of NDEs.

A religious/spiritual person sees a NDE and says "I saw the other side!" or something like that. Someone skeptically minded says "I don't understand what happened, but I'm willing to find out." The first is just another form of the God of the gaps argument: "I don't understand how it happened otherwise, it must be supernatural". This is a philosophy of ignorance; skepticism and science are philosophies of discovery.

Though not entirely relevant, Bertrand Russell in "Religion and Science" does a wonderful job of dismissing the idea of the soul. Once there is no concept of a soul, NDEs mean nothing more than some sort of brain fart. This is far from eloquent, but I think a lot of spiritual practices start with the assumption of the soul, without ever proving it. And of course no one ever has.

HOORAY LABELS! Let's all barcode, serial number and ship each other into a neatly categorized person warehouse, then discuss how awesome it is to have a place to put ourselves.


Labels, or better yet..."words" are sounds used to convey thoughts. Without them, no communication exists...Which, works into the "post-modern heirarchy" destructionist philosophies.

Labels are good for communication.


Petter,

Sorry for the delay, I was away.



AA: you have to start with the leap of faith that anything outside of you exists.

P: I prefer 'assumptions' to 'leaps of faith', but I'll give you that one


I don't mind assumptions.

Why do you choose to make that first assumption?

Labels, or better yet..."words" are sounds used to convey thoughts. Without them, no communication exists...Which, works into the "post-modern heirarchy" destructionist philosophies.

Labels are good for communication.

I agree, but in the context of people stating their ideas, then naming themselves those labels are merely semantics. I haven't looked back the posts that I made that comment in referance to, but I'm pretty sure it was some silly argument of atheist vs agnostic labeling and had nothing to do with actual beliefs. Labels are essential for communication, especially on a grand scale. When we get someone specifically stating their beliefs, you can personally categorize them however you like, but it does not affect what they think at all.

I don't believe in anything supernatural, but I can't be 100% sure I'm right. Does that make me an atheist or an agnostic? Petter calls this a weak atheist, and I think it's a good label, but now that you know what I think, it really doesn't matter. The communication has already taken place, and everything else is just semantics.

You can call me anything you like, but late for dinner. (Sorry for that cornball, but I was thinking of my grandfather.)

Well -- you argued that this NDE stuff had convinced 'strong atheists' as though this were in favour of its credibility. I would be more impressed if you claimed it had convinced 'weak atheists', id est, skeptics. (Anecdotal evidence still, though; 'more' is not 'very'.).
There were also weak athiests like Dr. George Rhodina but, seing as "more is not very" w.e.

Well, maybe (I haven't the time to read it all), but herein lies the problem. From other stuff on the site, we know that they are not above posting sheer bullshit. Therefore, they either screwed up badly and so are incompetent, or they don't care and so post lies.
I'll admit that somewhat troubled me as well but some bs doesn't necessarily mean it's ALL bs. Besides, it's not like the dude from the site made up the concept of NDEs he's just trying to explain them.

I glanced at it. I don't find it persuasive because, well, anecdotal evidence like that is just too damned easy to fake. Faith healers are common, and faith healers are commonly uncovered as utter frauds. How many people who claim to have been cured of cancers fall into one of these categories:
1. People who never had cancer in the first place
2. People who still have cancer, although they may deny it or have been deluded about it
3. People who were cured of cancer and attributed it to faith healers or weird experiences where there are natural explanations, e.g. someone who is miraculously cured of cancer during a near-death experience on the operating table under the knife of a skilled surgeon.
Yes, a VAST multitude off faith healers and psychics and dudes like that are complete frauds, I'm reasonable enough not to pretend otherwise. It is similarly true that a vast multitude of TMA "grandmasters" are frauds. Doesn't necessarily mean they all are. And even if you discount the healings, how do you explain how congenietally blind people can accurately describe their visual surroundings? There were 37 INDIVIDUAL cases where blind people astonished doctors by accurately describing their surroundings while out of body.


Once you cite a study that't specific enough and well-substantiated enough to rule out such fraud, and still shows a statistically significant number -- keep in mind that cancers do occasionally go into spontaneous remission, and that the human immune system sometimes does amazing things on its own -- well, then I'll listen.

http://www.near-death.com/tart.html (http://www.near-death.com/tart.html) This actually impressed my Psych prof (who is PHD) Therefore it's probably not total bs and worth a look if your interested
(http://www.near-death.com/tart.html)



Until then, given that this seems to follow a pattern normally associated with obvious frauds, I will conclude that these people are probably frauds, too.
Note that there was a fair bit of stuff that I did understand, and specifically pointed out why it's total nonsense: Light has infinite energy, therefore light bulbs cannot exist -- that's pretty straightforward. I'm not saying they're necessarily liars: They could be foolish enough to buy it, or just sufficiently ignorant of physics -- though if so, they should have enough awareness of their own limitations not to push this stuff.
I'm glad they did, mind you. It made it easy to see what level of argumentation they're willing to stoop to, which means I don't need to exert myself overmuch on the obscure stuff. Every so often there's a diamond in the rough, but life is short, and most of the time, all you find is more rough.

w.e. I conceded that I didn't agree with ALL of it, but these guys aren't the only, or even the main dudes studying this stuff. There are a number of reputable PHDs who study and truly believe in the phenomenon of NDEs. There is even one in particular whose original thesis was to try and disprove them and he came around because that's where his research led him. Keep in mind that this stuff isn't the work of narrow minded Biblical literalists trying to twist science to suit themselves. In fact it should be noted that literalists HATE NDEs and make ridiculous claims about them being of the devil cause some gays see Heaven and God is loving rather than wrathful in NDEs. These dudes actually believe in a devil who would turn athiests into Christian ministers!!! Wierd, that's just wierd. Anyways I think I've made all my points. Feel free to believe what you want, I just thought I'd throw my views into this debate. For the record, I know very well where you come from. I was an athiest (or at least very agnostic) ever since I was 8 and told I was going to Hell by a Catholic priest cause I didn't go to church. Because of this, I knew and defended all athiestic points backwards and forwards. I only found this stuff and changed my views like a year ago.

Yes, a VAST multitude off faith healers and psychics and dudes like that are complete frauds, I'm reasonable enough not to pretend otherwise. It is similarly true that a vast multitude of TMA "grandmasters" are frauds. Doesn't necessarily mean they all are.
No, but it means they may be. It means that, if it seems a priori improbable, and if there is no evidence to show otherwise, we should assume that they are.


And even if you discount the healings, how do you explain how congenietally blind people can accurately describe their visual surroundings? There were 37 INDIVIDUAL cases where blind people astonished doctors by accurately describing their surroundings while out of body.
How do I explain it? I don't -- I would be foolish to make an attempt until I'm convinced that it happened. What I know is that you claim (and I can confirm) that some website, made by people who have erroneous or fradulent claims, assures me that 37 congenitally blind people could somehow 'see', and that there was no cheating.

Once again, I am faced with a body of evidence that falls broadly into two categories: Material that I have no way of verifying, and material that I can verify because it is obviously false. What should I think of the rest of the material, then, if the conclusion seems extremely unlikely and the opening arguments were incompetent or fraudulent?


http://www.near-death.com/tart.html (http://www.near-death.com/tart.html) This actually impressed my Psych prof (who is PHD) Therefore it's probably not total bs and worth a look if your interested
Well, it's interesting, I suppose, but I'm not aware of any peer reviewed research, so for all I know it's some kook dreaming up explanations (or being tricked, or lying).


w.e. I conceded that I didn't agree with ALL of it, but these guys aren't the only, or even the main dudes studying this stuff. There are a number of reputable PHDs who study and truly believe in the phenomenon of NDEs.
Name them and their peer reviewed publications?


There is even one in particular whose original thesis was to try and disprove them and he came around because that's where his research led him.
Who? What has he published? Where did he publish it? What university is backing him?


Keep in mind that this stuff isn't the work of narrow minded Biblical literalists trying to twist science to suit themselves. In fact it should be noted that literalists HATE NDEs and make ridiculous claims about them being of the devil cause some gays see Heaven and God is loving rather than wrathful in NDEs.
I approve of people upsetting bigoted biblical literalists, but that doesn't mean they're right.


These dudes actually believe in a devil who would turn athiests into Christian ministers!!! Wierd, that's just wierd. Anyways I think I've made all my points. Feel free to believe what you want, I just thought I'd throw my views into this debate. For the record, I know very well where you come from. I was an athiest (or at least very agnostic) ever since I was 8 and told I was going to Hell by a Catholic priest cause I didn't go to church. Because of this, I knew and defended all athiestic points backwards and forwards. I only found this stuff and changed my views like a year ago.
Well, you sound like a reasonable fellow. Where's the material that was actually solid enough to convince you?

That's very nice, avenger; it's a friendly and accepting world view. Unfortunately, however, being nicer doesn't make a belief system any more likely to be true.

The only reason why the biblical god being a vicious bastard has any bearing on a discussion on how likely the Bible is to be true is the inconsistency it introduces (loving god who cheerfully murders people by the thousands). I think it would be very nice if there were indeed a god, omnipotent and benevolent if not quite omniscience, and if said god were just about to wake up, any minute now, and make everyone happy for all time. That'd be really nice. Sadly, there's no evidence that it's true, so I have to work under the assumption that it isn't and make the best I can of reality as it is.

Of course the major religious belief systems contain some terrible and deplorable moral lessons, but that's not the main problem with them. The main problem with them is that they cause people to base their decisions and philosophies on what is, in all likelihood, not true, and however well-intentioned you may be, building fairy-castles on thin air is not nearly so reliable in the long run as constructing more modest and pedestrian structures on real, solid earth.

So the chief question in this thread is not whether your faith is nice. The question is why do you believe what you believe? I hope it's more than wishful thinking!

I never said that it's true, but the main reason I believe in the belief I believe in is because it answers some questions that I believe haven't been answered yet. For instance, I believe that the universe was created by the big bang. But, it said that the big bang was created when all these gases got together and just made a huge bang. Then, where did the gases come from, and anything that you can think of a question from that that hasn't been answered by science.
One reason that I'm Hindu is that because being the Indian I am, It has a HUGE part to do with the history of India and it's culture.
I could be any other religion and my parents would be fine with it(besides it being part of their religion, but also because many of my friends/family are different religions). Personally, I don't like some of the beliefs of some of the other religions like Christianity were if you don't follow this to the period, you're going to rot in Hell or how the biblical god seems to be full of vengence. I also hate the idea of making people change their faith forcebly or not.
I'm also Hindu because I like how our gods and goddesses say aren't full of vengence even though they can sometimes get pissed of but they immediatly try to repent for what they done and sometimes regret being angry. And, you don't have to obey god says. In fact, there are plenty of times when the people in our stories didn't obey one of the gods or goddesses and they were ust fine because in the end they the gods or goddesses realize what they asked for was unreasonable and they take what they commanded back.
Sure, there are somethings that I don't agree with, like how the original theory of how all the man and everything like that was created, or the caste system. But I like it more then some of the other beliefs out there.

Are those good reasons for this thread?

I never said that it's true, but the main reason I believe in the belief I believe in is because it answers some questions that I believe haven't been answered yet. For instance, I believe that the universe was created by the big bang. But, it said that the big bang was created when all these gases got together and just made a huge bang. Then, where did the gases come from, and anything that you can think of a question from that that hasn't been answered by science.
I don't think that's an entirely accurate account by the standards of modern cosmology, but distilling the question down to "The Big Bang -- what went before it?", my answer is as follows:

I don't know.

That's it. I don't know. As far as I know, it isn't known; I'm not sure whether it ever will be known, but I sure as hell hope that physicists and astronomers will keep working on the problem, and I've no doubt that they will come up with some amazing facts, regardless of exactly how close to an 'ultimate' answer they get.

However, the fact that I don't know is no reason to make up an answer with no support in evidence rather than admitting ignorance and keeping an open mind for positions with evidentiary support. (For that matter, which is simpler to you: "I don't know how the Big Bang came about, or how it happened", or "I don't know how the Big Bang came about, so it must have been God, though I don't know how he did it, or where he came from, or how he works"?)


One reason that I'm Hindu is that because being the Indian I am, It has a HUGE part to do with the history of India and it's culture.
That's a perfectly good reason to feel nostalgic about it, and the beliefs sound harmless and accepting enough to even deserve some warm feeling, but that's still no reason to believe it. I'm Swedish: That's no reason why I should be Protestant or an Aesir-worshipper, even if I was born on 'Thor's Day'. My dad was Finnish, yet I accept that Väinamöinen was a fictional character.


Personally, I don't like some of the beliefs of some of the other religions like Christianity were if you don't follow this to the period, you're going to rot in Hell or how the biblical god seems to be full of vengence. [...] I'm also Hindu because I like how our gods and goddesses say aren't full of vengence even though they can sometimes get pissed of but they immediatly try to repent for what they done and sometimes regret being angry. And, you don't have to obey god says. In fact[...]
Well, fine and good, and I'd rather something like that be true than a vindictive sky-tyrant like Yahweh of the Old Testament and the Torah, but once again, nice has no correlation with true.


Sure, there are somethings that I don't agree with, like how the original theory of how all the man and everything like that was created, or the caste system. But I like it more then some of the other beliefs out there.

Are those good reasons for this thread?
Well, if that's why you believe what you believe, and what you believe in is a set of Hindu gods, then it's certainly your position, but I don't really see you presenting anything more than wishful thinking: "I think this is a nice set of beliefs; therefore, it must be the correct one."