The Hype Religion Discussion and Debate thread!

[Danger Mouse]

You make the assumption that religion is needed for ethics, this is not the case.

Point that I made was that religion is constant whereas ethics is greatly defined by circumstances. Going back to the example of the movie, what is so unethical about running away with a few million dollars of government-insured money when the bank is about to foreclose his house? It's a heist. Nobody gets hurt if all goes according to plan. It's the bank's money, not some individual's who is being made poorer by it. Weighed by the fact that he is in serious and immediate financial troubles, what's so unethical about it?

What is so unethical about bedding another man's wife when she has found love in you and is unsatisfied with her uncaring husband? None whatsoever, one MIGHT argue.

 

[Danger Mouse]

So unless you are a part of the Abrahamic faith, you're more or less lost as a person. Would this be an accurate description?

That would certainly be an accurate misrepresentation of what I said. I said "It applies regardless of faith. Well, Abrahamic faith, at least." It's not exclusively applicable for the Abrahamic faith.

 

[Sloth7d]

First of all, God did not make this world a permanent world. This is a temporary world and everything here has a time limit. When its times comes it will die, come to an end and finish. Neither the good things of this world are forever, nor the bad things eternal. We are here for a short time and we are being tested. Those who will pass this test will find an eternal world that is perfect and permanent. Those who will fail this test shall see the consequences of their sins and corruption.

Basically all you're saying is that God allows evil to exist because he gets a kick out of arbitrarily testing a persons ability to resist it so that then he can reward those people who passed with a world without evil instead of, say, allowing everyone from living in that eviless world to begin with. Then no one would have to suffer in the first place. Essentially God allows evil because he has a desire to test people. This sounds like a serious vice of someone who gets off on being manipulative and controlling and would fall under God being malevolent in Epicurus' riddle.

Secondly, God has placed a physical law and a moral law in this universe. God allows suffering to occur when one or more of these laws are broken.

Suggesting that God chose the physical and moral laws only makes everything the more arbitrary, and in fact, further suggests that he created a world with both good and evil whe he could have designed it without evil's influence.

The way we exceed the measures set by God and violate His laws of cause and effect is incredible. It is really the mercy of God that we are saved. Strictly speaking, the question should not be why does God allow suffering, but how much God protects us and saves us all the time in spite of our violations and negligence.

But seeing as God would have to be the one who introduced evil in the first place, he's essentially only protecting us from himself. Thus the question still remains, "Why would he allow for such a world of evil to exist if he isn't malevolent?"

Thirdly, suffering can also be a test and trial for some people. God allows some people to suffer in order to test their patience and steadfastness. Good people sometimes suffer but their sufferings heal others and bring goodness to their communities. People learn lessons from their good examples. Martyrs die for their faith, soldiers give their lives for their nations and this brings liberation and freedom for their people.

This goes back to what I first said. If this is the case, then God arbitrarily allows people to suffer because he gets a kick out of testing humans in some sort of psycological experiment to see if they'll do exactly what he tells them to do (that which he deems to be good) with promise of an immortal reward for these mortal humans that pass. Now even though he could just allow everyone to have this immortal, eviless paradise, he opts them to suffer through pain, mortality, and the wickness of man first. Though it seems he doesn't have to.

Fourthly, God sometimes allows some people to suffer to test others, how they react to them. When you see a person who is sick, poor and needy, then you are tested by God. God is there with that suffering person to test your charity and your faith.

If some human caused another to suffer, even if it was just to see if someone else would do the right thing, they'd be seen as malevolent. Why should that not be the case with God?

So to summarize, we can say that sufferings occur to teach us that we must adhere to God's natural and moral laws. It is to test our faith in God and to test our commitment to human values and charity. Whenever we encounter suffering we should ask ourselves "have we broken any divine commandment?" so we study the cause of the problem and use the corrective methods; "could it be a punishment?" so we can repent and ask forgiveness and reform our ways; "could it be a test and trial for us?" so we can work hard to pass this test.




We always ask ourselves why do pain and sufferings exist in the world. We find sickness, old age and death. We see things that are ugly, people who are insane and foolish. There are storms, earthquakes, floods, draught and famine. We also see people commit sins, show disloyalty, unfaithfulness, greed and insincerity. We see people commit rapes, murders; they fight and make wars. We know all these and many more problems. There are evils caused by human beings and there are natural disasters. There are suffering for individuals and there are those that involve a large number of people.

Thus one has to wonder, if God isn't malevolent, made it possible for humans to do evils? Why did he create a world where natural disaster could cause pain and suffering? Why not just make things perfect from the start instead of playing at an experiment with people's minds? Wouldn't a benevolent person do this? Make it all perfect from the start? Design everything to make evil an impossibility, death an impossibility, pain an impossibility, and anguish an impossibility? Why the arbitrary test?

But we also know that this is not the whole story. Besides all these negative things, we also see beauty, health, prosperity, life, birth, wisdom, intelligence, growth and progress. We also see goodness among people, faith, sincerity, charity, love and the spirit of sacrifice. We also see a lot of virtue and piety. It is wrong to see one side of the coin and not to see the other side.

If we're arguing about the way God designs things, you can't really use your coin example to prove a point. Supposing that he exist, God would had to have designed that too. Thus my point still stands, if the other side of the coin sucks, why didn't God create the coin in a way in which it wouldn't have that evil side?

Any philosophy that concentrates on one aspect of the creation and denies or ignores the other side is partially true and partial truths are no truth at all.

Epicurus didn't do this at all. It's becuse he acknowledge the whole God IS both "All Good" and "All Powerful" idea of certain religions that prompted him to question the existence of evil and how it conflicts with the premise.

It is also the fact that the element of good is more in the creation than the element of evil. We all see that there are more people who are healthy than those who are sick. There are more that eat well than those who starve. There are more that lead decent lives than those who commit crimes.

This is not true at all, as it strictly depends on where and when you live to determine whether this is true.

We seem to have forgotten that goodness is the rule and evil is the exception. Virtue is the norm and sin is the aberration.

But only because, should he exist, God made it to play out that way, no?

 

[-Arya-]

That would certainly be an accurate misrepresentation of what I said. I said "It applies regardless of faith. Well, Abrahamic faith, at least." It's not exclusively applicable for the Abrahamic faith.

You said that these laws apply regardless of Abrahamic faith. Now my question to you is, what happens to those who don't have a deity or don't follow the abrahamic faith?

 

[Danger Mouse]

Basically all you're saying is that God allows evil to exist because he gets a kick out of arbitrarily testing a persons ability to resist it so that then he can reward those people who passed with a world without evil instead of say allowing everyone from living in that eviless world to begin with so that no one would have to suffer in the first place. Essentially God allows evil because he has a desire to test people. This sounds like a serious vice of someone who gets off on being manipulative and controlling and would fall under God being malevolent in Epicurus' riddle.

He doesn't get a kick out of it because He didn't do it for his personal satisfaction. Now, THAT would be malevolent. He did it for us, so we may learn to improve ourselves.

Suggesting that God chose the physical and moral laws only makes everything the more arbitrary, and in fact further suggests that he created a world with both good and evil whe he could have designed it without evil's influence.

But that would rob us of the purpose for existence, wouldn't it? Then why the heck not then throw us all in heaven straight away, bypassing the need for life on Earth?

But seeing as God would have to be the one who introduced evil in the first place, he's essentially only protecting us from himself. Thus the question still remains, "Why would he allow for such a world of evil to exist if he isn't malevolent?"

He only saves those who pass the tests.

This goes back to what I first said. If this is the case, then God arbitrarily allows people to suffer because he gets a kick out of testing humans in some sort of psycological experiment to see if they'll do exactly what he tells them to do, that which he deems to be good, with promise of an immortal reward for these mortal humans that pass. Now even though he could just allow everyone to have this immortal eviless paradise, he opts them to suffer through pain, mortality, and the wickness of man first when he doesn't have to.

Guess what? Life is an experiment. Separating the wheat from the chaff.

If some human caused another to suffer, even if it was just to see if someone else would do the right thing, they'd be seen as malevolent. Why should that not be the case with God?

Again, malevolence is only if one gets personal satisfaction out of it. Not so with God. God is above human emotions.

Thus one has to wonder, if God isn't malevolent, made it possible for humans to do evils? Why did he create a world where natural disaster could cause pain and suffering? Why not just make things perfect from the start instead of playing at an experiment with people's minds? Wouldn't a benevolent person do this? Make it all perfect from the start? Design everything to make evil an impossibility, death an impossibility, pain an impossibility, and anguish an impossibility? Why the arbitrary test?

Again, to give purpose to existence. God acknowledges that human being is His greatest creation, bestowed with intelligence and emotion, not some mindless drones. And our purpose here is to see what we do with our intelligence and emotion, proving our worthiness to Him.

If we're arguing about the way God designs things, you can't really use your coin example to prove a point. Supposing that he exist, God would had to have designed that too. Thus my point still stands, if the other side of the coin sucks, why didn't God create the coin in a way in which it wouldn't have that evil side?

Answered.

Epicurus didn't do this at all. It's becuse he acknowledge the whole God IS both "All Good" and "All Powerful" idea that prompted him to question the existence of evil.

Then he should really have given it more thought.

This is not true at all, as it strictly depends on where and when you live to determine whether this is true.

And I live on Planet Earth. And what I said holds true on the global scale.

But only because, should he exist, God made it to play out that way, no?

No. We did. Free will and all.

 

[Danger Mouse]

You said that these laws apply regardless of Abrahamic faith. Now my question to you is, what happens to those who don't have a deity or don't follow the abrahamic faith?

It's not about the application of any kind of law. I was responding to the theory of existence of evil. Some practitioners of non-Abrahamic faith may agree to what I posted. Or not.

I accept that fact that those who don't believe in God may disagree with me, which is fine. My life still goes on.

 

[Dark Phantom]

Danger Mouse, how do you account for polytheisitic religions? How are you so sure that you have only one creator? Could it be possible that the number can vary from 1 to infinity?

this video i found challenges theists:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0RpMW2PlLQ
[YT]v=T0RpMW2PlLQ[/YT]

 

[Danger Mouse]

Danger Mouse, how do you account for polytheisitic religions? How are you so sure that you have only one creator? Could it be possible that the number can vary from 1 to infinity?

this video i found challenges theists:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0RpMW2PlLQ

To make such arguments, first you need to stipulate to the fact that God created the universe and everything within it.

Now, to qualify as a God, He has to be omnipotent. If He has to share his powers with other deities, then he's not omnipotent. Ergo, not God. Therefore, in my humble opinion, 'many Gods' is in itself an oxymoron.

For the believer of pure monotheism, God has to be completely unique and that there is nothing like Him. That's what makes God, well, God.

 

[Saint]

Well, if you believe then eternal life in paradise validates your life

No, in this instance God's judgement validates your choices (and then, only if you give a crap about what God thinks). The fact that you live forever doesn't validate anything. It can't.

It makes the very act of life feel without worth or reward or anything.

There's plenty of reward. That the rewards end at some point makes them no less rewarding.

Guess what? Life is an experiment.

Obvious logical problem: God knows everything, so he doesn't need to run an experiment to see whose worthy. He already knows. As with most divine concepts, the idea of life as a test is revealed as an obvious human construct under scrutiny.

However, a person with enough religious guidance would not get involved

Or any person with strong moral convictions, religious or not. Religion is not special. If religion is all that prevents a particular person from turning to crime, that indicates not the moral strength of the religion, but the moral weakness of the individual.

On my forum we had a member who once wrote that, without God, he would decide whether or not to save a drowning woman based on her attractiveness. He didn't understand why I thought him scum after that.

Point that I made was that religion is constant whereas ethics is greatly defined by circumstances.

Completely false; religions evolve constantly, and their beliefs, ideals, and morals often change. What an absolutely ludicrous thing to say.

 

[Danger Mouse]

Or any person with strong moral convictions, religious or not. Religion is not special. If religion is all that prevents a particular person from turning to crime, that indicates not the moral strength of the religion, but the moral weakness of the individual.

Would you like to hazard a guess as to the origin of that strong moral conviction?

Completely false; religions evolve constantly, and their beliefs, ideals, and morals often change. What an absolutely ludicrous thing to say.

Really? Enlighten me, please, on this constant evolution of religion and its change in beliefs, ideals and morals.

 

[Saint]

Would you like to hazard a guess as to the origin of that strong moral conviction?

Wait--so you want me to hypothesize on the the origin of a hypothetical person's morality? What an asinine question. Not to sound like a broken record, but morality is an idea and it exists where you find it.

Really? Enlighten me, please, on this constant evolution of religion and its change in beliefs, ideals and morals.

Stone any disobedient children lately? No? That's strange. Clearly, something has changed since it was written that disobedient children are to be stoned, yes? Well, since you haven't been stoning children (also, gay people and non-believers), perhaps you've had time to notice the wealth of Christian sects that have been created as the result of changing ideas and beliefs? Perhaps you've noticed a shift in attitude regarding exactly how historically accurate the Bible is? And disputes regarding this? Perhaps you're aware of Vatican II?

Really, I don't understand why you're wasting my time with a question so ridiculous. Religions adapt to changing circumstances, changing ideas, and changing beliefs all the time--though certainly a hell of a lot more slowly than everybody else.

 

[Bill]

Really, it depends on my station in life. If I do not believe in God and an afterlife, how I lead my life would greatly be depended on the circumstances of my life. If I am a millionaire, then it would be easier to do charity. Even then, it would not be without some degree of self-interest (tax relief, perhaps?) However, if faced with grave financial difficulties and I do not have religion for guidance, I would do whatever it takes to be back in the black, which might include the commission of crime to achieve wealth.

So without religion and/or wealth, you would be an unscrupulous person.

This reminds me of a movie I recently watched: Armored, starring Matt Dillon and Lawrence Fishburn. In this movie, a guy who works with an armored security company was persuaded to partake in a billion-dollar heist. Considering that his house was about to be foreclosed and his brother to be taken by the welfare services, it was an easy decision indeed. Had I not been guided by religion, I, too, might be persuaded to abscond with the cash.

However, a person with enough religious guidance would not get involved on the realisation that it is not his money to take in the first place and no money is not worth risking the divine rewards if he stays true to his beliefs. He would choose to face his hardship as a divine test of his resilience of which he SHALL be rewarded if he passed.

Likewise, a person who does not wish to go to jail, be ostracized from family, friends, and society at large, and generally wishes to stay away from any troubling legal matters would decide to not commit a crime to gain wealth and be rewarded with the strength and fortitude of using reason and intellect to attain the solution to any adversity facing them.

Why should religion guide your morality? Would you not, if God were to tell you so, abandon those morals to prove your devotion? I would not do the wrong thing for any god because it is the wrong thing. You seem to only have them at the command of another, and were that command to be lost, so would the ability to think and act for yourself in a proper manner.

 

[Bill]

Again, malevolence is only if one gets personal satisfaction out of it. Not so with God. God is above human emotions.

Ever read your Bible? He seems to have them pesky human emotions all the time. Anger, happiness, sadness, regret, love. I submit that a god would be above them, but this one, invented by man, isn't.

 

[-Arya-]

It's not about the application of any kind of law. I was responding to the theory of existence of evil. Some practitioners of non-Abrahamic faith may agree to what I posted. Or not.

Sure. They might agree with you as far as the moral structure is concerned, but many of these faiths contemplate morality without the need to invoke a magical deity. This raises the question of whether or not a deity is necessary for morals.

 

[Danger Mouse]

Wait--so you want me to hypothesize on the the origin of a hypothetical person's morality? What an asinine question. Not to sound like a broken record, but morality is an idea and it exists where you find it.

It's no hypothesis. It's fact. Our moral principles all originated from religion, like it or not. Before religion came many, many, many centuries ago, human beings were idol-worshipping pagans. And before that, they were neanderthals.

Stone any disobedient children lately? No? That's strange. Clearly, something has changed since it was written that disobedient children are to be stoned, yes?

Ummm... which religion are you referring to? Stoning of children?

Well, since you haven't been stoning children (also, gay people and non-believers), perhaps you've had time to notice the wealth of Christian sects that have been created as the result of changing ideas and beliefs? Perhaps you've noticed a shift in attitude regarding exactly how historically accurate the Bible is? And disputes regarding this? Perhaps you're aware of Vatican II?

Really, I don't understand why you're wasting my time with a question so ridiculous. Religions adapt to changing circumstances, changing ideas, and changing beliefs all the time--though certainly a hell of a lot more slowly than everybody else.

Ah. I see. You're equating religion with Christianity. Got that. There are other religions which have stood steadfast through the passage of time without changing as much as an alphabet in its scriptures since time immemorial.

 

[Danger Mouse]

So without religion and/or wealth, you would be an unscrupulous person.

Not necessarily. But without religion, my compass would then be based on what I presume to be correct at any point in time, which might (or might not) lead to being unscrupulous.

Why should religion guide your morality?

Why shouldn't it?

Would you not, if God were to tell you so, abandon those morals to prove your devotion? I would not do the wrong thing for any god because it is the wrong thing. You seem to only have them at the command of another, and were that command to be lost, so would the ability to think and act for yourself in a proper manner.

Then the next question would be WHICH religion should one subscribe to. Not all religions are as how you described it. Some religions do preach the wrong thing. Not all, though. I won't presume to tell you which faith is better than which. That's up to each individual.

Believe it or not, there are religions out there which promote intelligent discourses.

UNDERSTAND the religion(s) first before you start condemning them. Understand them in totality, not disjunctively. Religion does not promote mindless devotion, contrary to popular belief.

 

[Danger Mouse]

Ever read your Bible? He seems to have them pesky human emotions all the time. Anger, happiness, sadness, regret, love. I submit that a god would be above them, but this one, invented by man, isn't.

No, He doesn't. I have no idea what you have been reading.

 

[Danger Mouse]

Sure. They might agree with you as far as the moral structure is concerned, but many of these faiths contemplate morality without the need to invoke a magical deity. This raises the question of whether or not a deity is necessary for morals.

ALL faiths, monotheistics and polytheistics alike, believes in some form of deity as their guardian of morality.

 

[-Arya-]

ALL faiths, monotheistics and polytheistics alike, believes in some form of deity as their guardian of morality.

Interesting; I suppose the Jains and Buddhists aren't aware of this.

 

[Saint]

It's no hypothesis. It's fact. Our moral principles all originated from religion, like it or not. Before religion came many, many, many centuries ago, human beings were idol-worshipping pagans. And before that, they were neanderthals.

I'm sorry, you seem to be babbling about something that doesn't actually matter. You claimed that a religious person would "Not get involved" with your hypothetical criminal activity. I countered that any person with strong moral conviction would "Not get involved," religious or not. Your dubious and unsubstantiated claim that the concept of morality was originated by religious adherents is irrelevant to this concern and offers no meaningful counterpoint.

Furthermore, as I explained in my previous post (and I'm getting tired of writing this) morality is an idea. It doesn't matter if the first people to have the idea were religious nutbags, goat farmers, or prostitutes on opium: the idea (or rather, ideas, as there's a lot more than one) has evolved and can be found through numerous means. Religion is but one of the means.

As a fun aside? Humans never existed in a void. We always existed in groups. If morality originated from any identifiable place, it was likely from the instinctual understanding that the welfare of the group translated to the welfare of the individual.

As another fun aside? The statement "Our moral principles all originated from religion" is totally ridiculous. If you actually want to make this argument, you would then be required to explain how every individual moral guideline that anyone has ever held in the history of time was originated by a religion. That means you'd have to demonstrate how nobody ever thought that murder was a bad thing before a religion came up with the idea, or that nobody ever thought gay sex was morally acceptable until a religion said so. You've got a ****-ton of work to do, my friend. Enjoy!

Ummm... which religion are you referring to? Stoning of children?

If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear. -- Deuteronomy 21:18-21

He that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death. -- Exodus 21:15

He that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death. -- Exodus 21:17

Ah. I see. You're equating religion with Christianity.
Got that.

No, I'm citing Christian examples because we have been discussing the Christian religion. I imagine this applies to any religion, as religions are made up of people, the ideas of the people change.

There are other religions which have stood steadfast through the passage of time without changing as much as an alphabet in its scriptures since time immemorial.

I'm willing to accept that this is possible, if you're able to cite which religions exist today that have maintained identical practices and beliefs since "since time immemorial."

It is, of course, largely beside the point. We're having this discussion because you claimed that religion, unlike ethics, is constant. We've established that religion is obviously not constant, because if it were we would not have all these different religions created (or destroyed) by emerging ideas and perspectives through the ages, and we certainly wouldn't have the changes we've observed within the established institutions. It seems that we inevitably arrive at the conclusion that "Religion is constant" is a completely asinine thing to say.

 

[Bill]

No, He doesn't. I have no idea what you have been reading.

I've been reading the Bible. In the Bible, he has felt anger, happiness, regret, sadness, and jealousy. Do we need specific passages?

Anger? Exodus 4:14 And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Moses, and he said, Is not Aaron the Levite thy brother? I know that he can speak well. And also, behold, he cometh forth to meet thee: and when he seeth thee, he will be glad in his heart.

Happiness? Psalm 149:4 For the LORD takes pleasure in His people; He will beautify the humble with salvation.

Regret and Sadness? Genesis 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

Jealousy? Exodus 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

 

[Bill]

Not necessarily. But without religion, my compass would then be based on what I presume to be correct at any point in time, which might (or might not) lead to being unscrupulous.

So you need religion to ensure your moral compass stays true as you seem to lack the ability to identify unscrupulous behavior without some outside agency.

Why shouldn't it?

For you, that question would seem moot as you apparently (due to your responses) lack the intellectual or psychological ability to understand the implications of poor morality. For others, religion is not needed.

Then the next question would be WHICH religion should one subscribe to. Not all religions are as how you described it. Some religions do preach the wrong thing. Not all, though. I won't presume to tell you which faith is better than which. That's up to each individual.

Believe it or not, there are religions out there which promote intelligent discourses.

UNDERSTAND the religion(s) first before you start condemning them. Understand them in totality, not disjunctively. Religion does not promote mindless devotion, contrary to popular belief.

And not all of them are religions. Some are philosophies that set goals that a follower can attain through meditation and self-reflection. And I understand that some religions and philosophies do allow and promote intelligent discourse. Christianity, unfortunately, is not one of them.

 

[TimBisley]

It never ceases to amaze me how little Christians know about the Bible.

 

[Kurosawa]

No, in this instance God's judgement validates your choices (and then, only if you give a crap about what God thinks). The fact that you live forever doesn't validate anything. It can't.

It only makes life itself worth living and gives you a reason to go on and a future to look forward to.

There's plenty of reward. That the rewards end at some point makes them no less rewarding.

For many people, life is never rewarding and nothing but an exercise in pain. At least an afterlife gives them hope of a good life after a bad life. I feel the promise of an afterlife is the appeal of religion above anything else. The thought of nonexistence is the the most horrifying thing I can contemplate. But I'm not saying it is so or that it isn't.

 

[Dark Phantom]

It only makes life itself worth living and gives you a reason to go on and a future to look forward to.


For many people, life is never rewarding and nothing but an exercise in pain. At least an afterlife gives them hope of a good life after a bad life. I feel the promise of an afterlife is the appeal of religion above anything else. The thought of nonexistence is the the most horrifying thing I can contemplate. But I'm not saying it is so or that it isn't.

There's no doubt that the religious promise of an afterlife has great appeal, but I think in a way it's a self indulged illusion. The very idea of a God granting an afterlife is like believing that you will live with Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny after you die. It astounds me that most religious followers will condone adults who still believe in santa clause or that they are the next prophet, even in the belief of U.F.O's. All those things show evidence of improbablity, but God and an afterlife seems to be too much of a risk for one less thing to believe in.

I think for many atheists and/or agnostics, death is just as frightening as it is for theists. The difference is in how each copes. In my opinion, once you study history and science, you begin to understand that if nothing really matters, therefore all that matters is what we do now.

Christian, Jews and Muslims are still trying to say that their Santa Clause is real in order to feel better about themselves. That's sad.

The only religions I can even remotley respect are Hindus and Buddhists. They understood the cycle of life and how all things end up. Despite their ideas in reincarnation, it still leaves the present as the most important factor of existence.