Intelligent people do not believe in god(s) or practise a religion

Well, if so, you won't be alone, my friend.

Goodnight, I'm turning in.

 

But I love my Bloodthirsty God

And I enjoy what he gives me

 

aww, you called me a friend! are you *sure* you want to be friends with the likes of a Xian lol!

 

I think I figuerd out where you and I differ grately, Libertine. It is about you calling God the "screenwritter". You see free-will as meaning God has WRITTEN the script. I see it as God has READ the script.

I also agree with you 100% about time being relative!

Now, don't take my thoughts on free will that God created us and leaves us alone until we die. I think there are things that have, do and will happen that we have no control over! However, our responses to those is where free-will comes into play. Whether good or bad, we don't control everything but I think we have free-will to choose how we react which alters future events and also I beleive we can call on God to help us, and he will, at least sometimes. But then again, clalling to God is a choice.

 

Have any theists commented who don't believe in free-will? I don't. I don't see how you can be a theist and think God isn't everything you experience. If God created everything...what material did God have to work with but Itself? How can there be anything but God? It's not like God was just sitting next to a pile of random chemicals and one day thought, "Hmm...I wonder if..." and then created the universe.

So we are God, and we inhabit just a tiny experience in the realm of existence. Our choices are necessarily pre-determined by God, us, then. We have no choice but to make whatever choices we make. We are a small part of God, everything, observing itself, learning about itself. Why is that so absurd when humanity is obsessed with itself. Of course God, the Almighty, is obsessed with Itself; it's all there is to be obsessed with.

What can we learn from ourselves if we don't indulge in any possibilities we can imagine? So when it comes to malevolence...it's almost inevitable that a God that is dissecting itself will engage in violence in order to learn about itself. It's unreasonable to expect it not to.

 

Answer this question, Rayne. DOES BOB HAVE ANY OTHER ALTERNATIVE OPTION TO CHOOSE TO DO OTHER THAN THAT GOD KNOWS HE WILL DO?

And if you say "Bob" wants to...then I answer by saying "God" knew "Bob" would want to and thus, "Bob" had NO CHOICE BUT to "want to" because "God" made it part of "his plan" and thus, "God" is in control of "Bob's wants" and thus, there is no "free will".

As a matter of fact, "God" knew "Bob" would choose "Hell" MILLENIA before he even created the universe.

From the CREATION OF EVERYTHING--- BOB WAS DAMNED TO HELLFIRE. Poor "Free Will" Bob!

How in the world could we be in charge of helping to write a "script" that we are the "actors" in, before we were even born? If "God" supposedly "read" the script, as you put it, MILLENIA before you were born then how is it EVEN LOGICALLY CONCEIVEABLE that you are any more "free" than a wind-up toy?

We "know" what a wind-up toy will do, and so does its creator, but HE WAS THE ONE THAT MADE IT THAT WAY!

WE CAN ONLY DO THAT WHICH "GOD" ALLOWS US TO DO AND NOTHING MORE! THAT IS NOT FREEDOM!

TELL ME: CAN WE DO ANYTHING OTHER THAN WHAT "GOD" ALLOWS US TO DO?

 

pOP, I am an atheist and a naturalist, but I have to agree with you. Pantheism is the most logical form of belief in "god". I suppose in that aspect even I would believe in "god".

As Frank Lloyd Wright once said, "I believe in God, only I spell it Nature."

An Omni-Max, Transcendent "deity" and true "Free Will" are LOGICALLY AND RATIONALLY INCONSISTENT.

 

I would say that Bob will make the desicion that Bob wants to make, the only thing is God already knows what it is. It is still bob's choice, and if he were to make another choice, then God would know that! If bob makes a choice and decides later to change his choice, God knows that! So you are right, Bob cannot surprise God! I agree with you there. We are on the same page about everything except if that taps into our free will or not...

As far as can we do anything other than what God allows us to do, no. But we should look at that answer a little deeper. At this moment, I cannot go out into my dad's garage and build an airplane. The idea isn't even feasible for several reasons (I know nothing about how a plane works, I know little about engines in genera, lack of supplies, lack of tools etc). There is nothing that allows me to do this. However, I could go out there and build a box, I could build a bookshelf, or I could stay right here and type this or I could go to my room and play my guitar. It is possible for me to do those things, so I beleive I am allowed to... I think we have more than one option, in almost every case at least. So just because I choose to sit here and type, doesn't mean me playing my guitar is just as unfeasible as me guilding an airplane in my dad's garage. So we can't do what we aren't "allowed" to, but I think we ARE "allowed" to do more than one thing.

 

Again you're comparing an omni-max, infinite "god" with a human being and a human situation. The analogy doesn't follow.

Also, you stated that "God" already knows the future, so I pose these questions:

If the script hasn't already been written completely, then how does "God" know the outcome?

If the script has already been written, then it is predetermined what the action will be before it "happens". How does that allow for "free will"?

By definition, if someone has free will, then at any point in time they may either choose to do a certain thing or choose not to do it.
By definition, an omniscient God knows everything that will happen in the future, including all of the choices he will make at any future point in time and exactly how and why he will make that choice.
By the definitions of "knowledge" and "choice", if one knows for certain what choice one will make in the future, one will not be able to make the opposite choice.

In other words, "God" supposedly allows the man to choose what is behind door #1, #2 or #3, but ALREADY knows in advance what is behind those doors AND which door the man will choose before the man even existed to choose it, because he made the man in such a way that the man would choose that door. A person acts "freely" only when that person is the sole originating cause of the act and genuinely could have done otherwise. But, as we can see, theism does not allow for this.

If I create a robot it can only do what it is programmed to do. I can accurately predict its every movement and what it will do and will not do, but even the robot could surprise me by shorting out or catching on fire, etc.. "God" created humans, knows before he created them what choice they will make and cannot AT ANY TIME by surprised by future events.

This "God" creates and sets in motion all things, gives us power to "choose", gives us the "choices", BUT knows beforehand what we will choose, and then precedes to punish us for choosing that?

He "created" us in such a way that we would "choose" that option!

So, I guess some people were "created" to go to hell, because they were "created" in such a way that "God" knew how they would choose before he even "created" them and did it anyway.

That's not free will and it sure as hell ain't mercy!

We can only do what "God" programmed us to do. "He" created this machine and knows how it operates and what the final outcome will be. It may "appear" that we have free choice in the matter, but the reality of the matter is that not a hair falls from our head lest "He" wills it.

Secondly, you mentioned earlier about "god's" human emotions. How could "god" be angry, sad, mad, etc...when he already knows what is going to happen. How could "he" truly react to anything?

Thirdly, do you still want to argue that "God" can do the logically impossible? If so, I've got a few questions.

 

To try to answer your first question, I don't think God wanted Hitler to kill millions of people. But hitler did it as a result of several series of desicions he made. God can see the future, but that doesn't mean he chooses to control it. If fortune tellers could really tell the future, they could know what would happen, but they wouldn't have any control over it. But I think that no matter what one of us says to the other, we are gonna disagree on that subject there.

Second, I will answer that with another imperfect human relating analogy, only you may agree that this one does fit better than the others I have used. I know for a fact that my loved ones are going to die. I know all my family, my friends, my pets, and all that jazz is going to happen (although I don't know the day or time). It is unavoidable. Not right now, but THEN will I feel the pain of their passing from this life. I know that in 2008, Bush is out of office. Am I having any celebrations right this moment? no. Will I be enthusiatic when he leaves? YOU BETTER BELEIVE IT!!! I know that this fall I am starting college. Am I nervous now? No. Will I be on the first day of classes? You betcha! I hope that helped explain it, and really there is no way to explain those types of attributes outside of humanlike characteristics.

Last, I DO beleive God can do the logically impossible, reason being he created logic (what occurs within our limitations) but he isn't bound to what is within our logic.

 

Then why did "God" create Hitler in such a way that Hitler would choose to do those things? He was obviously only obeying his brain chemistry and who controls that?

"God" DID write the future. It's in his book. Omniscience concerning the past and present (properly defined relative to Earth) is not a great problem, but omniscience regarding the future implies it has been determined somehow, someway by something or someone. That is possible only in a deterministic world. Suppose that you could say that if god created everything, then your past, present, and future actions are also god's creation. This would negate any claims to free will.

Again, this is a fallacious analogy for TWO reasons: 1) You are comparing yourself to an omni-max who controls everything. If you could see into the future and have a vision that if your Dad went to the store, crossed railroad tracks and hit a train, would you not try to stop that from happening? IF you could control it, you would (morally).
2) The other problem with these examples is that you DON'T KNOW that Bush will leave 2008--something could happen and he could leave sooner or stay later. You don't KNOW that you'll start college this fall. You don't KNOW you'll be there on the first day...etc..etc. You don't KNOW these things. You ASSUME based on certain data that you have available to you. "God" doesn't ASSUME, he KNOWS. And he KNOWS EVERYTHING that WILL happen and exactly the way it will happen. No assumptions. No predictions.

So, since "God" is unbound by logic, could he CHANGE what he KNOWS is going to happen?

 

Sorry my response is delayed, I have been somewhat busier lately than what I normally am (which would be not busy at ALL).

Well, Hitler's brain chemestry was controlled by his mother and father's DNA, but also hitler's father used to beat his mom (who was a jew), and evidently, this made him hate Jews and think they are weak, or so I have been told. But I don't think God MADE Hitler into a killing machine. I think many factors contributed, but I don't think every action anyone takes in their life should be blamed on God. I think Hitler was who he was because of: The way he was taught as a child, his genetic makeup, the fact that the people of Germany let his take the power, and several other factors I am sure contributed. I am not saying everyone would have done the same thing as Hitler in that exact situation, I am just saying we all have differant personalities that causes us to act different ways. I wouldn't say that God made hitler the killing Machine he was though.

We have both have already stated our views on omniscience NUMEROUS times, and have not changed our views, nor do I now. But the whole discussion seems to be going around in circles so can't we please agree to disagree on it? We are both seriously just restating our previous thoughts and it comes back to the same thing: You think your way, and I think mine and neither one seems to be going to budge on theirs any time soon.

Okay, so you are not willing to accept another one of my analogies, which is perfectly fine with me. I wasn't trying to write a perfect analogy, as I stated, just give a general scenario. But you seem to think it is still too far out there, so okay that is fine with me.

"...could God change what he knows is going to happen?" Interesting question. I suppose that if God were going to change it, he would have known in the first place... So that seems to have the exact type of question format as "could God create a rock so heavy he couldn't lift it". "Cound God do something that limits his unlimitable powers thus contradicting him no matter what he can do..." So if God could change it, then he wouldn't be omniscient because he would have forsaw the change, but if he couldn't he would be proven less than all powerful, huh? But just like the rock question I don't know how to answer it. But basically the question seems to be like "can God surprise himself".

 

So, you want to call the "Omniscience" argument a stalemate?

I could go along with that, but you have admitted that you can't explain some of it, yet you still hold on to that belief?

So, if we tackle other areas, you could use the same method.

This could go on forever.

Perhaps, you should tell me why you even believe in "God" in the first place. I mean, what CONVINCED you?

 

Yeah, I think that a stalemate would be best, because it seems we are both willing to debate but have found no reasons to change our views.

I will agree that I can't answer EVERYTHING. But could you about evolution? What if someone asked a question about your beleifs that you can't answer. Would you still beleive it?
What beleifs would oyu be reffering to? The only ones I have not answered are like "Could God creat a rock..." type questions. I can give you an answer for that now, if you want me to! I am not sure if this would be 100% correct, but if you realy want an answer for that type of question here you go: Yes. God COULD create a rock so heavy he couldn't lift it because then he would be limiting himself, and it wouldn't belittle his powers if he could restrict himself. He could make it so he couldn't pick up a pebble, and it would be the same thing. That is my answer to that, and any other similiar questions asking a similiar type question.

Nothing had to convince me of a God, I was born believing it. I am sure you were too. In fact, I have yet to ask an athiest the question (I also asked you) "When did you become an athiest" and gotten a reply of "I have been one since birth". I am sure this might apply to some people (your kids, for example) but it is VERY VERY uncommon. We are born knowing there has to be something bigger than us. I have questioned everything my parent's ever told me, including the existance of a god. But I have found out, that to me it seems the only logical thing to beleive for the following reasons:
1.) every culture, except certain individuals, beleive in one or many Gods. The native Americans, Hindu's, Pagans, Christians, Jews, Animism (sp.), any other tribal group, etc. So there has to be a reason for this. Animals don't worship gods! But if we have evolved from them why did we develope this idea, and wouldn't it be something that would bring us down, and be counter-evolutionary if it is nothing but Dogma?
2.) I find the probability that so many accidents could all happen that would, in the first place, help us, in the second place, occur to make everything so complex. The odds are just too astronomical! I can't beleive gievn any amount of time all that "chance" would ever just happen!
3.) Evolution is still full of holes. The only beleif regarding the missing links that could make a lick of sense MIGHT be the hopeful monster theory, and I the probability of that happening just once to be just as astronomical as the theory itself.
4.) I have personally spoken to God, and think that he has spoken back to me before. Not audibly, although I wouldn't say that would never happen, just that I have felt him leading me to do or not to do certain things. But you would have to beleive in a spiritual being to beleive that in the first place.

I am sure there are others, but I don't wanna rack my brain thinking of them. I hope I answered all your questions.

 

No, I don't think anyone was "born believing it". Since babies don't have the self-awareness to "believe" such and since we are taught it as children, it is nothing more than an indoctrination. Every is born without any belief in god, but there is no concept in that infantile brain. Thus, it could logically be said that everyone is born atheist (weak form-- "without belief").

This is merely because we haven't evolved past the mentality to attribute unknown phenomena to the "supernatural" (which can't even be proven to exist itself). Volcano gods are no more and sooner or later the "sky daddy" god will vanish.

There is much more chaos in the world than the slight patterns of "order". And you can even see that order itself can happen in small increments even in chaotic situations. The odds are not "astronomical". You are ignoring billions and billions of chaotic situations throughout the universe and honing in on what you perceive to be some sort of perfect order in ours. But, appearance are deceiving, especially when one counts the "hits" and ignores the "misses".

The "missing link" is ridiculous. There is no "missing link". There could be several different species related to homo sapiens. "Noah's Ark" is ridiculous! Finally, just because evolution is far from complete does not mean that we should just fill those holes with the "supernatural".

I see no evidence for believing in a "spiritual being" and subjective feelings don't change my viewpoint. Son of Sam believed the a supernatural dog was telling him to kill. Several people have had "feelings" that they said came from "God" while others had "feelings" that contradicted them and they said their feeling was from "God".

 

If there is no missing link how do you propose that there are no half amphibeans and half reptiles? Or half birds half mammals? How could a bird have had a baby that had solid bones, a mamal digestive tract, fur rather than feathers, and all that stuff. Yes, I relize there are billions of things going on that don't appear to be orderly, like birth defects, and the like. However, have you ever seen any of these things, or heard about any of these things, happening to our ADVANTAGE? I mean real doccumented evidence. Because evolution proposedly happens so slowly, there is no way to study it, and no way to use the scientific method on it. These half bird/half mammals and these half fish/half amphibeans have yet to be found. The geologic collum has never been found in its entirety and most of the time things are situated in no real order. In the swiss alps, every layer WAS found, but completely upside down! How does evolution explain this? You have said there is a lot of evidence supporting evolution, and so do many other evolutionists, but I have never heard of any and none past that point. So why don't you tell me why you beleive in evolution, besides finding anything spiritual to be too out there or whatever. What evidence is there?

 

First of all there are SEVERAL reasons I regard evolution as more explanatory than supernaturalism. I don't claim to be an expert on evolution either, but I find it more reasonable than the "alternative" provided by Christians. Hikaru Zero may give you the information you seek on that subject in more detail. I only know why I see it as more reasonable than the boogedy voodoo world of "Gawd did it!"

On the flip side, there are advantages to say "I don't know, yet." Rather than creating a dogma from a belief in something that is unexplained as being "supernatural" with no evidence but that it IS unexplained!( Ha ha...that's fucking crazy!), I'll go with science and its historical record of upending myths and superstitions (even though the CHURCH tried to suppress it and did for CENTURIES!)

#1- EVERY prior mystery in history that has BEEN EXPLAINED has ALWAYS been explained NATURALLY. Not ONE prior unknown was shown to validate the MYSTICISM that filled that gap. Not one.

#2- It is pure science that energy/mass are equivalent and energy cannot be created or destroyed but can only change form. Thus, I find it very reasonable to believe that energy/mass always existed in some form. Although this may be "mysterious" we don't need another unproven, unscientific, illogical, supernatural GAP filler (i.e. "God").

#3- There is ZERO evidence for any "God" other than relying on the "unknown" to explain the "unknown." First of all something being "UNKNOWN" does NOT mean it is "INEXPLICABLE" and CERTAINLY doesn't mean it is "SUPERNATURAL", but humans throughout time always like to play make-believe and fill the gap with their ghosts, goblins and gods until science proves otherwise.

#4- Intermediary "links"? What about the Archaeopteryx? It had a thoroughly reptilian skeleton with a bony tail, teeth, and four paws with jointed fingers (not merely the horny skin growths at the middle joint that a few modern birds have). And it has feathers. If that's not an intermediate, what is? More recently, evidence is accumulating that some dinosaurs had hair and feathers. If we'd lived 100 million years ago, we might have put birds, mammals and reptiles in the same class or at least put the divisions very differently from today. Therapsids are the intermediates between reptiles and mammals, crossopterygians and ichthyostegids are the intermediates between fish and amphibians, and so on.

#5- Natural Selection explains "advantages" to me just fine.

#6- The Second Law of Thermodynamics (which creationists piss and moan about as refuting evolution) is about entropy, which is defined as (Heat Absorbed in a process)/Temperature Entropy can decrease locally if it increases elsewhere. Intuitive notions of “disorder” are of no relevance whatsoever. Any discussion of the Second Law that does not specifically define entropy and show how it relates to evolution is worthless.

#7- It is a FACT that there are at least 30 locations where the entire geological column can be observed on EVERY continent (with the possible exception of Antartica). **Please give me your source for your Swiss Alps claim** It's not that I don't believe it, I do, but I want the source, if you don't mind.

#8- The other reasons I believe in evolution is that it is consistent with the other sciences: Biology, Paleontology, Geology, Zoology, Anthropology...etc..etc.

#9- When science is wrong, it changes to fit what is right. When "creationism/religion" is wrong, it tries to force the facts inside it's little apologetic box. It claims to KNOW that "Creation" happened and then go from there--from the "outside in" so to speak. "The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it!" REAL Science explores from the experimental point of "here now to the outside".

#10- Order takes longer to produce than disorder. It takes seconds to shake a box of multi-layered sand particles into disorder; it takes days, months, years, etc. for that same box of sand particles to settle down into muliple, distinct layers.

 

Sorry I'm jumping in a bit late.

You can't answer everything? I thought God was the answer for everything?

And is Libertine *trying* to answer everything?

If someone asked a question about my personal beliefs that I couldn't answer, would I still believe it? Yes. But, of course, I would set out to find the answer to that question, and if I found the answer to be in conflict with my beliefs, then I would disbelieve it.

Good answer.

My answer would have been, yes, he could create a rock so big that he couldn't move it, but he could still break that rock into two pieces which he could move individually and reassemble somewhere else. Lol. But I like your answer better.

Were you also born believing in the tooth fairy? How about Santa Claus. The Easter bunny?

Then you haven't talked to many atheists.

I have talked to atheists, and asked them this question, and gotten that reply.

Your thesis here is an appeal to the idea that "I haven't ever gotten this answer so it mustn't ever occur." And that is wrong.

Like a mountain?

Or perhaps the collective human subconscious?

Or maybe your mother? Your mother is bigger than you are, and you can even know that before you are born.

But at conception? The only thing you know at conception is, damn, this DNA isn't matching up, I have three of this one gene ...

(lol j/k, that would be down's syndrome)

THIS IS 100% NOT TRUE.

The Buddhist culture does not believe in a higher power.
The Taoist culture does not believe in a higher power.
The Confusciousist culture does not believe in a higher power.
The Nihilist culture does not believe in a higher power.

Animals can't understand the concept of a "God."

Furthermore, I read an article online about a smart monkey that was taught about the concept of God, and was asked the question, and the monkey could respond "Yes," "No," or "I don't know." And the monkey responded "I don't know."

There is a compelling argument that religion stemmed from the human interaction with psychoactive plants.

Eat a psilocybin mushroom by accident, and then trip balls off and see "God" or feel the presence of something godlike. If you're still a very primitive thing, you might confuse it with a vision, and call it real.

And then you might tell your friends, and they might question it, and then they might say "hey maybe there is!" and start believing it.

The universe is too astronomical! We, as humans NOW, can't even CORRECTLY APPROXIMATE the size of the universe!

And get this! The latest in superstring theory posits that this universe is merely one brane out of TWENTY SIX, the interactions of which CAN CAUSE BIG BANGS, and of which MATTER and ENERGY only make up a stunning 4% of the total amount of "stuff" in the universe, which includes dark matter and dark energy, which exist in other branes and don't interact with normal matter except via gravitational fields which cross brane boundaries.

In other words -- Take the chances of life happening on our Earth. Then multiply that by about a billion (the number of places where life might be able to originate in the galaxy -- other planets, etc.) Then multiply THAT by a billion (the number of galaxies in the known universe). Then consider the fact that, we have NO idea what is on the other side of the universe because it (and light from it) is travelling away from us, so multiply that number by two.

Then multiply that by 26 branes.

Then multiply that by the age of the universe. But what's that? Previous estimates made it out to be roughly 15 billion years ago. CURRENT estimates say that it is "at least 986 billion years" but that it is "in all probability far larger." Then multiply that number by 365 days per year. Then by 24 hours per day. Then by 60 minutes per hour. Then by 60 seconds per minute.

What do you get? Some phenomenally large number. 200 billion times a billion times at least 986 billion times 2, times 26, times 365, times 24, times 60, times 60 again.

And you tell me the chances of life happening are less than this number?

Hog, fucking, wash.

Keep in mind, this number is about the MINIMUM number of chances life has to form. We don't even know everything about OUR brane of the Universe, let alone the other 25. Nor we do know about anything beyond even that.

So is the Bible.

Actually, back when I was a panentheist, I believed that I had recieved communication from a goddess as well. Similarly, it wasn't audible. Truthfully, it wasn't even a communication that was recieved, I only felt like that goddess was TRYING to send me a warning, and that the warnings's contents weren't reaching me, but the feeling of being warned was.

Since then I have realized that it was just my mind playing tricks on me.

Either way, why does God speak to you then and not me? Hell, my father was a child abuser when I was a kid (until I finally contacted the school about it and they contacted the police). For YEARS, I BEGGED God to do something about it.

Did I even get a "Hi?" No.

Who cares if you have personally spoken to God? That's a subjective experience, and no matter what you say or insist on, it cannot be validated, and it does NOT count in favor of a God's existance.

Even so ... people have spoken to Zeus. And to Aphrodite. And to Mars (not the planet). And to the eight million kami. And even to fucking Raelians, our alien creators.

You are not the only one.

But there can be only one.

So who is right?

Libertine is right. For the past century, creationists have been whining about "the missing link". Yet, time and time again, we have found more and more links that fill in the gaps.

Recently, some creationists talked about a "missing link" that linked amphibians to mammals. It was just recently discovered, as well.

The same thing happened when a creationist said that the blood coagulation system was "irreducibly complex". Then a scientist reduced it. (owned) What did the creationist have to say? He then said "I was wrong about that system being irreducibly complex -- other parts of the human body are."

What's next, the brain? That one will be figured out too, in due time. We actually now have the ability to make blind men see enough to drive cars, and we have the ability to make deaf people hear certain ranges of frequencies.

Did a bird have to have it? Did we evolve from birds now all of a sudden?

Yes. Observe. Viruses and bacteria that are exposed to damaging antibiotics.

But, a miracle! Somehow, they mutate, and live on!

The ones that don't mutate, they die. They are the ones with the disadvantaged mutations.

But look at the avian flu. People are all like "OMG, it's going to mutate into a human form!"

What would give them that idea, if mutations didn't occasionally produce more advantageous results with respect to survival?

Strength is a quality of species that survive. Flexibility is a quality of species that survive. Intelligence is a quality of species that survive. Adaptability, communicability, even FEAR, are all qualities of species that have higher survival probabilities than species that don't.

======

Disclaimer: I mean to critique your arguments, NOT YOU. You rock. =)

 

actually yes they did. i've been looking into this for you.

maybe the buddhism that you understand is atheistic, but not all strands are. many have worshipped the Buddha as a god.

read this and tell me what you think:

http://www.alislam.org/library/books/revelation/part_2_section_2.html

there's a lot of references at the end.

carry on.

 

Buddhism, as the Buddha taught, has the doctrine of Anatta, which means "No Soul," and the Buddha taught that there is not necessarily and higher power of any form or manner.

Anything other than what the Buddha originally taught, which is in the Pali canon, is not true Buddhism, but rather a bastard child that has been influenced by the rest of the world's theism.

Ask any Buddhist monk. The monks know what it's about.

The Buddha himself said that many people are attracted towards religion and beliefs -- that they will ultimately be drawn to place individual humans as Gods. He said this is a product of lack of understanding of the nature of the self and of suffering. As it was explained to me by Darrell Kitchen, a monk who was formerly on the Buddhist board, the Buddhism as is worshipped by the majority is a "dumbed down" sort of Buddhism, which exists only because those who lack intelligence need a "comforter" to worship and praise and bring safety and transitory contentedness to them -- they are not yet ready to accept the implications of the true nature of the self.

Believe me, I am a Zen Buddhist after all. :sunglasse I have looked into it several times in the past.

Also, many who are influenced by Buddhism are also influenced by Shintoism, which believes in the "eight million kami" or various spirits which inhabit the Earth -- a form of animism. There is a surprisingly large number of Japanese, for example, that believe in both "Buddhism" and "Shinto" even though the two beliefs are very different and perhaps even conflicting. It is not right to mix the two, but often Shinto shrines and Buddhist monasteries are thought to be very similar, though they are in fact very different, and so are the belief systems.

Either way -- Taoism and Confusciousism, and Nihilism, also do not recognize any deity.