You mean a Brahma day? Close. It's around a 311+ Trillion year cycle, and hardly resembles astrophysics beyond the one hypothesis that the universe "bounces" in and out of existence, expanding then collapsing then expanding....forever....but most hypotheses disagree. Some claim the universe will not collapse but expand eternally, ending in a big freeze, some suggest collapse in 5 billion years from now. Until we understand dark matter/energy, we are in the dark on this question.

The lifespan of Brahma (creator god) lasts for 100 of his years. His 12-hour day or Kalpa (a.k.a. day of Brahma) is followed by a 12-hour night or Pralaya (a.k.a. night of Brahma) of equal length. At the start of his days, he is re-born and creates the planets and the first living entities. At the end of his days, he and his creations are unmanifest (partial dissolution). His 100-year life is called a Mahā-Kalpa, which is followed by a Mahā-Pralaya (full dissolution) of equal duration, where the bases of the universe, Prakriti, is manifest at the start and unmanifest at the end of a Mahā-Kalpa.[13][24][25]

1 day (12 hrs: Kalpa) of Brahma = 4.32 billion solar years (1,000 Mahā-Yugas) (14 Manvantaras + 15 Sandhyās)
1 Day (24 hrs: Kalpa + Pralaya) of Brahma = 8.64 billion solar years
30 Days (1 month) of Brahma = 259.2 billion solar years
12 months (1 year) of Brahma = 3.1104 trillion solar years
50 years (Parārdha) of Brahma = 155.52 trillion solar years
100 years (lifespan: 2 Parārdha) of Brahma = 311.04 trillion solar years
I see a slight similarity, but not a correlation.


Oh my god, that's what you call perfectly describing psychology? Ok, your standard of proof is clearly light years away from mine.

Good poetry outweighs crusades, dark ages, etc?! Not to me.

You can say that, it's just a tool and can be used for good or bad, but in reality it's a tool for controlling the masses and pitting different segments of the population against each other. As a whole, religion has done exponentially more damage to individuals, society, and progress than any estimation of it's real world benefits. Only by adding the infinite good of heaven can the scales be even close to balanced imo.
The same may be true of science, it's real world benefits, which are ubiquitous and undeniable, may be outweighed by it's side effects since making the planet uninhabitable clearly outweighs extending grandpa's expected lifespan by 10% and keeping his lights on.

My personal faith has led me towards the Religious Society of Friends (for the non-google oriented: Quakers). But I don't pretend to have all the answers, so I'm always learning and searching for the truth.

>> ^Smugglarn:

What god? The Hebrew war god in the Bible? Odin? Brahma? Ra?>> ^TheJehosephat:

What god? The Hebrew war god in the Bible? Odin? Brahma? Ra?>> ^TheJehosephat:

That's the reason (to me anyway) God seems to work well. Anyway, this was a pretty civil discussion. Thanks @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/GeeSussFreeK" title="member since August 1st, 2008" class="profilelink">GeeSussFreeK @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/xxovercastxx" title="member since February 23rd, 2007" class="profilelink">xxovercastxx and @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/heathen" title="member since April 28th, 2008" class="profilelink">heathen
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/xxovercastxx" title="member since February 23rd, 2007" class="profilelink">xxovercastxx @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/TheJehosephat" title="member since October 12th, 2009" class="profilelink">TheJehosephat And even more damning is if you believe in causality as the prime way the universe works, you need a first link in the causality chain. Without causes and effects, you have no real meaning for time. You need a point to which causality starts, it is a logically necessary condition.

I get that this guy is doing satire, but there's a line between satire and a pure straw man--and NonStampCollector took a flying leap over that line in this video.

In the first place, any halfway competent theist using those arguments will of course make it clear that these argument do not necessarily support any one religion over the others. This is how Aquinas used similar arguments in the 13th century, and it's how theistic thinkers deploy them today. They are only intended to weaken the atheist position generally. NonStampCollector doesn't even attempt to address them on this level.

In the second place, it's asinine to assume that every religion is the same--either with regard to how well they are supported by the cosmological, teleological and moral arguments, or how much or little they incline their followers to religious violence. As it happens, the Hindu has a much better case than the Christian or Muslim for saying that these arguments support his religion. Brahma, unlike the God of Abraham, does not have a seemingly petty concern with particular tribes of humans or become angry or feel wronged because of sin. Brahma is described as illimitable, all-embracing. Brahma is a more cosmic God, better supported by the discovery of the age and vast distances of the universe.

Other Gods or divine realities so supported include Plato's Form of the Good, the Logos of the Stoics, the God of Leibniz or Spinoza, and even the God of A. N. Whitehead (co-author of the Principia Mathematica with acclaimed atheist Bertrand Russel) and Charles Hartshorne.

Tendencies toward violence differ considerably between religions. The Hindu and the worshiper of Amun have no reason to get into a fight about religion. Hinduism is not a single religion, but thousands of intertwined religions which have co-existed peacefully for thousands of years. A plurality of religious beliefs and practices--including atheism--has long been not fought by Hindus, but embraced. Only when aggressive evangelistic monotheisms actively attack Hinduism does anything like an instinct to violence come into play--and even then it tends to arise mainly in extreme circumstances. (As in Orissa in 2008, when the assassination of a Hindu leader by Christian Maoist extremists sparked a riot and violence by members of both religions, or the year before, in 20007, when Christians deliberately provoked Hindus by .) Likewise, there is no reason anyone would go to war over Amun. It would not be appropriate to describe the religions of Egypt as tolerant--the word implies a perception of annoyance or burden in allowing others to co-exist, when co-existence was assumed as a daily fact of life. In fact, the priests of Amun welcomed Zeus-worshiping Greeks to the oracle of Amun at Siwa, which once declared Alexander the Great to be the son of Amun.

But, of course, NonStampCollector doesn't actually know any of this. He just assumes, like nearly all the New Atheists, that all the other religions in the world are more or less just like the ones he's most familiar with. Makes it easier that way; you don't have to do as much studying or thinking.

But to consider those the same thing as "Creationism" is a huge mistake. Creationism is the result of an overly literal--indeed, a scientific-- interpretation of Genesis. Creationism is the notion that the Creation account given in Genesis is true in exactly the same sense that scientific statements are.

Non-Creationist Christians--like Hindus and Sikhs--understand that the story is not intended, and never was intended, to convey that sort of message. The intent of the tale of Brahma's creation of the world is not to convey facts, but to help direct the spiritual practice of the listener.

To make sure I was right here I did a quick bit of research. Aron had it right best I can tell.

Hindu. Multiple gods each with different aspects or roles, the role of Brahma (not to be confused with Brahman) was the creator God. lots of variation within the religion though and some Hindus are considered to be atheist. Second link covers that part.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahm%C4%81
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism

Sikhism. Sikhs believe that before creation, all that existed was God and his hukam (will or order).[9] When God willed, the entire cosmos was created. From these beginnings, God nurtured "enticement and attachment" to māyā, or the human perception of reality.[10]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikhism

There are others as well but rather than write a book I just wanted to point out what he was probably considering when he said that. We're not all that familiar with some of these, but yes, they are there. And others besides.

Brahma, Vishnu, or Shiva? I need to know which one to worship so I can start understanding good and evil. Otherwise, I'm just stranded here, wondering how to tie my shoes and comb my hair.

Most--not all--religions state, "We're the only way." What if they're all legit pathways?

I'm nothing without a divine invisible authoritarian to tell me exactly how to live my life...

For people who claim there is no God, they seem to have a very narrow definitions of Who or What God is.

You have free will to f**k up your life all day and night long. There are consequences for every action. The question, then, is why make fun of people who, despite their personal failings, are seeking to do less harm and more good than people who believe in nothing except themselves?

Brahma, Vishnu, or Shiva? I need to know which one to worship so I can start understanding good and evil. Otherwise, I'm just stranded here, wondering how to tie my shoes and comb my hair.

I'm nothing without a divine invisible authoritarian to tell me exactly how to live my life. Without a god in my life, I feel like I could just rape a nun with a soldering iron, then defecate on a kitten while scraping uteri with wire hangers. Or eat at Wendy's and go to work, then watch videos on a sifting site. Either way, I need to know how my robotic overlord wants me to behave. How would I ever figure it out on my own? Impossible, I tell you. Impossible!

>> ^quantumushroom:
Without God, there is no good or evil. Everything is permitted.

My sweet lord
Hm, my lord
Hm, my lord

I really want to see you
Really want to be with you
Really want to see you lord
But it takes so long, my lord

My sweet lord
Hm, my lord
Hm, my lord

I really want to know you
Really want to go with you
Really want to show you lord
That it wont take long, my lord (hallelujah)

My sweet lord (hallelujah)
Hm, my lord (hallelujah)
My sweet lord (hallelujah)

I really want to see you
Really want to see you
Really want to see you, lord
Really want to see you, lord
But it takes so long, my lord (hallelujah)

My sweet lord (hallelujah)
Hm, my lord (hallelujah)
My, my, my lord (hallelujah)

I really want to know you (hallelujah)
Really want to go with you (hallelujah)
Really want to show you lord (aaah)
That it wont take long, my lord (hallelujah)

Hmm (hallelujah)
My sweet lord (hallelujah)
My, my, lord (hallelujah)

Hm, my lord (hare krishna)
My, my, my lord (hare krishna)
Oh hm, my sweet lord (krishna, krishna)
Oh-uuh-uh (hare hare)

Now, I really want to see you (hare rama)
Really want to be with you (hare rama)
Really want to see you lord (aaah)
But it takes so long, my lord (hallelujah)

Hm, my lord (hallelujah)
My, my, my lord (hare krishna)
My sweet lord (hare krishna)
My sweet lord (krishna krishna)
My lord (hare hare)
Hm, hm (gurur brahma)
Hm, hm (gurur vishnu)
Hm, hm (gurur devo)
Hm, hm (maheshwara)
My sweet lord (gurur sakshaat)
My sweet lord (parabrahma)
My, my, my lord (tasmayi shree)
My, my, my, my lord (guruve namah)
My sweet lord (hare rama)