In polytheism there is usually a god that is the creator, a watchmaker. A Hindu might see Catholicism as being similar to Hinduism in that there a multiple deities with supernatural character, the monotheism/polytheism is a distinction of rather limited use tbf
I’m not familiar enough with Hinduism to comment too strongly, but it’s my understanding that while Brahma is the god of creation, he didn’t create Vishnu and Shiva, who are separate beings and forces entirely and not aspects of each other the way the Catholic trinity is.
There very often isn’t a single creator god in polytheism. There might be someone who created humans, but that figure(s) isn’t necessarily the creator of all reality. You can look at Norse and Greek mythology for examples.
Completely incorrect. Empiricism does not require faith. And empiricism has no immutable dogma or doctrine.
While empiricism can provide the guidance that religion offers, it is not a religion.
Actually, I think religious people tend to believe that there is one god/creator. They simply disagree on what God dictates.
In monotheism, that is correct, but you have to add polytheism into consideration
In polytheism there is usually a god that is the creator, a watchmaker. A Hindu might see Catholicism as being similar to Hinduism in that there a multiple deities with supernatural character, the monotheism/polytheism is a distinction of rather limited use tbf
I’m not familiar enough with Hinduism to comment too strongly, but it’s my understanding that while Brahma is the god of creation, he didn’t create Vishnu and Shiva, who are separate beings and forces entirely and not aspects of each other the way the Catholic trinity is.
There very often isn’t a single creator god in polytheism. There might be someone who created humans, but that figure(s) isn’t necessarily the creator of all reality. You can look at Norse and Greek mythology for examples.
Buddhism is also a religion.
That’s why I say “tend to believe”
It’s of course very obvious that Buddhism is the most correct one of the big religions
Eh, I tend to find points that are broad enough to avoid actually saying anything or require ignoring exceptions not terribly useful.
Lol on correct religions.
So is empiricism: it is axiom-based, it is an assumption-river, it holds that contradictory-alternatives are bogus, which they are, etc.
_ /\ _
Completely incorrect. Empiricism does not require faith. And empiricism has no immutable dogma or doctrine. While empiricism can provide the guidance that religion offers, it is not a religion.
I’m still going to try and avoid a brick thrown at me even if I’m just assuming it’s real. I don’t find questioning it useful.