Well neither of us know just how much of the whole is or isn't true, but deduction and science shed light constantly and run scripture through the gauntlet. The similarities between these things isn't what matters, but how these fundamentals can possibly exist in the world.

@Morty_Frey speak for yourself! you don't know what i do or don't know ) besides, some of the "fundamentals" don't actually exist, in this world or any other. they're made up.

g

@genessa I said what I did to be fair. No, I don't know what you know exactly. From what you're saying, you believe you know the whole that religion is nonsense and so I'll reiterate that you don't know that for sure. Again, neither do I.

Some moral fundamentals of religion do stem from natural and inevitable phenomena. Karma for example. So long as sentient beings exist to observe and participate in the flow of energy in an ecosystem, morality will be pondered.

@Morty_Frey since when is karma a moral fundamental? and i stand by every word i said.

g

@genessa Well seeing that this concept has a place in both Hinduism and Buddhism, I wouldn't exactly call it something standalone, hence my calling it a moral/philosophical fundamental.
I'll respect that you think as you do. Your input was the point of this post, so I appreciate your input.

@Morty_Frey no problem. btw,you didn't say moral/philosophical. you just now added philosophical. that's fine, but i can't address what you don't say, and changing it without acknowledging that you've changed it (in fact, as much as saying that you DID say moral/philosophical when in fact you did not) isn't quite fair play. changing to refine a topic is one thing. changing to avoid being disagreed with is another.

g

@genessa How would you not take morality and philosophy hand in hand here? I didn't throw in philosophical from the get-go because that's sinply a given. Morality is a philosophical concept; Karma, a philosophical concept. I'd have done a lot more before this conversation if I wanted to avoid disagreements and/or chastizing. It just didn't need refining in my opinion.

Such a theory would be considered watered down until every detail of scripture is addressed. Apologetic isn't exactly what I'm going for because of the audacity it takes to degrade the infeesable into a metaphor if science couldn't fathom explanation. Regarding the advocation of other faiths, one has to consider, compare and separate the revisions and content withheld from the public eye by religious officials. Discredited material must also be discredited as material barely feesable even as a metaphor.
I believe I agree about how to process all of this information.
As for basic beliefs such as mono and polytheism being simultaneous, you can't just look for a man in the clouds in some dark corner of space. The universe gets more complicated the higher up the "chain" you go. You do make a great point that this is all irrelevant if we won't discover it in our lifetimes but discovery takes time as all else.

I forgot initially include nihilism along side the concept of karma. I'd be happy share, but on a later post. I believe external input will help refine what I have in mind as of now.

Thanks for pointing out the typo; gotta love auto-correct right?