Thursday, July 12, 2018

Self-Appointed COG Prophet Claims To Know Everything About Atheists



Why is it that certified liars who have self-appointed themselves as COG leaders, prophets, teachers and self-appointed scholars think they know everything about everything? Why do they feel the need to lambast others outside their groups when the Church of God community is one of the biggest messes that can ever be imagined? Arrogant and despotic leaders are wrecking peoples lives.  Hundreds and hundreds of splinter groups all doing what they want with nothing truly unifying them.  On and on they go casting stones from their fragile glass houses.

Anyway, back to the antics of the self-appointed and improperly doubly blessed Elijah Bob Thiel. He claims to know WHY there are atheists.  The problems with Thiel's exposes starts in the very first sentence.  For many years now he has mocked the magazine Christianity Today as "improperly named" because he thinks they are not real Christians.  Like any good Armstrongite, he believes there are no Christians outside the Armstrongite circle of Church of God's. But anytime he finds an article that supports his erroneous beliefs he latches on to its proof he is correct.  Hypocrisy is never something he thinks about when he opens his mouth.

False teacher Thiel writes in Why are there atheists? 

At the Christianity Today website, an author (Shawn Graves) asked and provided some answers to the question, Why are there still atheists?
A lot of ink has been spilled over whether God exists. Within this context, some theists like to point out that “God has made it plain” that he exists, that “God’s invisible qualities … have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse” (Rom. 1:19-20). They urge us to remember that the “heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands” (Ps. 19:1). In a recent Christianity Today article, Jim Spiegel cites these passages and writes: “This naturally prompts the question: If the evidence for God is so abundant, then why are there atheists?” 
Spiegel asserts that for many atheists, it’s not “cool, rational inquiry” that led to their atheism. Rather, in many cases it’s complex moral and psychological factors that produce atheism. For example, Spiegel points to research suggesting that some prominent atheists had broken, defective relationships with their fathers. Others live in perpetual disobedience and rebellion—resisting lifestyle changes required upon adopting theism. And still others confess that they just don’t want there to be a God. Spiegel contends that immorality has cognitive consequences—it impedes one’s ability to recognize that theism is true. 
No doubt he’s right. Surely some people accept atheism due in part to such powerful motivational factors. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/marchweb-only/whytherearestillatheists.html
Then the craziness begins. He believes that the reason evolution came into being was that there were a bunch of fornicating sex-obsessed men who could not keep their pants zipped up.  Nevermind the fact that many COG leaders had the same problem, but that is another story to contemplate.
Now, actually one of the reasons that there are evolutionary atheists is, believe it or not, in the 19th century various male “intellectual” were looking for excuses to not have to abide by biblical standards of sexual morality. And back then, some of them even admitted that is why they embraced the concept that life randomly evolved without a creator God.
Next, he blames evangelical Christians as being people with no morals:
I would also add hypocrisy to the list. The fact that evangelicals, for one example, are more likely to be involved with fornication than the general public, despite biblical admonitions against it, turns people off.
Fornication in the Church of God has been going on for 80 some years now and very actively as many know.  Then look at the immoral lives of many of the COG leaders and higher up ministers. Don't look at or blame evangelicals till your own house is in order!

War apparently also creates atheists, at least in the improperly self-appointed scholar Thiel's eyes.
 War is another factor. Many non-believers point to religions such as Islam, Catholicism, and Protestantism as major causes of war, which turns many people off to the idea that there is a truly loving God. But of course, all scholars realize that early Christians would not participate in carnal warfare. And in my opinion, this is still true of faithful Christians today .
Next, he takes a dig at Bart Ehrman:
There are also scholars, for example, like Bart Ehrman, who started out as Protestant but when they learned more about church history, realized that Protestantism simply did not fit with much of the Bible. And while he may be more of an agnostic than an atheist, the fact that most of what is considered by the world to be Christianity, is not Christianity, and this turns many off of religion (though it does not necessarily make them atheists). 
Thus, the improperly named scholar Thiel proclaims that it is "...illogical to be an atheist."
But I would like to add that it is illogical to be an atheist. While there may be many reasons that people may doubt the existence of a personal God, such as the one that the Bible teaches about, the reality is that any that conclude that there cannot be a creator/god are being foolish:
1 The fool has said in his heart,”There is no God.” (Psalms 14:1, NKJV)
I can honestly say that I would rather sit at the table and have a conversation with Bart Ehrman than I would at a table with a COG leader running off their self-righteous mouths. They seem to forget that Jesus would do the exact same thing. Eating dinner with prostitutes, tax collectors, and unbelievers was his thing to do.  Can you imagine any  COG leader doing that today?

The Church of God should be on its knees begging forgiveness for destroying the lives of its members and ripping out any bit of spirituality that they may have originally had when they joined the church. The families that had marriages ripped apart because immoral divorce and remarriage doctrines, the thousands of lives lost due to faith "healing" thanks to the church deciding doctors were agents of Satan, to the hundreds, if not thousands that have died from suicide over the decades due to the way the church treated them, to the  people gunned down in church thanks to filth from Rod Meredith's sermons, and to its continued path of making church members feel like unworthy worms in God's sight.

Here is what the improper scholar says that makes atheists fools:
One of the reasons that it is foolish to conclude that there is no God is because humans should realize that we are finite beings. No human has been to ever place in the universe, no human has lived forever, no human has been to every possible dimension that may exist in the universe. Since no human has done that, for any human to conclude that there cannot be a god or any type is illogical. Why? Because no human has enough possible proof that God cannot exist. Doing so with limited “evidence” is foolish. 
Furthermore, if the laws of bioscience are accepted as valid, one can easily prove that something outside of those laws (God) was necessary for life to begin and to continue. Amino acids simply did not randomly line up, become alive, realize that they had to eat, realize that they had to have a means to eat, immediately have a way to utilize food (like a properly developed digestive system), realize they had to reproduce for survival of life, and have the means to do so. It is illogical to conclude otherwise. 
He concludes with this:
But, despite the fact that some claim to be atheists, God’s existence is logical.
Faithful people throughout the centuries of the church have struggled with faith due to doubt and questions.  It is not something that is wrong.  The entire belief system of Judaism allows people to question and dialogue over belief and unbelief. Even in scripture people have been allowed to question and wrestle with God.  Armstrongism taught its followers to never question and be blindly obedient.  Wrestling with sculpture has never been an aspect of the Armstrongite version of the church.

Armstrongism and a lot of Christianity come up with lots of non-spiritual reasons why it exists: fear, guilt, shame, and the need or desire for authority in one's life.  Many, if not most are unwilling to think critically.

One question that might be asked is:  If it is so absolutely vital to get church right, why does God have to speak through contradictory and competing middlemen who have muddied the waters for 3,000 years? 

Better yet, the question we should all be asking is why would God be speaking through the rebellious  "Problem Child" Bob Thiel?






31 comments:

Byker Bob said...

Bob Thiel might be taken more seriously if all of his recitations and logic didn’t always appear to point the way to Bob Thiel as ultimate source and solution. Interesting usage of how salesmanship can be used to exploit the atheist phenomenon. Actually, what he has presented is relatively shallow and contains nothing new. (Yawn!)

BB

Miller Jones said...

http://godcannotbecontained.blogspot.com/2018/02/wrestling-with-god.html

Anonymous said...

[Thiel] believes that the reason evolution came into being was that there were a bunch of fornicating sex-obsessed men who could not keep their pants zipped up. Nevermind the fact that many COG leaders had the same problem, but that is another story to contemplate.

Anyone who has seen top ACOG leaders in action could reasonably conclude that these men must be atheists, as there is no way a god of justice could let their abuse of the brethren go unpunished.

Anonymous said...

Bob doesn't seem to understand his own logic.

He makes a standard case for the existence of a creator who is responsible for the creation of our universe and its contents.

This, however, in no way proves that the creator is any kind of omniscient entity, and certainly does not prove that an omniscient deity is in special personal contact with its Extra Most Appropriatest Prophet, Bitter Bob Thiel.

DennisCDiehl said...

“Science and religion, then, are competitors in the business of finding out what is true about our universe. In this goal religion has failed miserably, for its tools for discerning “truth” are useless. These areas are incompatible in precisely the same way, and in the same sense, that rationality is incompatible with irrationality.”

― Jerry A. Coyne, Faith Versus Fact: Why Science and Religion Are Incompatible

“I argue that the toolkit of science, based on reason and empirical study, is reliable, while that of religion—including faith, dogma, and revelation—is unreliable and leads to incorrect, untestable, or conflicting conclusions. Indeed, by relying on faith rather than evidence, religion renders itself incapable of finding truth.”

“Religion could never be made compatible with science without diluting it so seriously that it was no longer religion but a humanist philosophy. And so I learned what other opponents of creationism could have told me: that persuading Americans to accept the truth of evolution involved not just an education in facts, but a de-education in faith—the form of belief that replaces the need for evidence with simple emotional commitment.”

“All of this suggests that lack of religious belief is a side effect of doing science. And as repugnant as that is to many, it’s really no surprise. For some people, at least, science’s habit of requiring evidence for belief, combined with its culture of pervasive doubt and questioning, must often carry over to other aspects of one’s life—including the possibility of religious faith.”

“Many people require more than just evidence before they’ll accept evolution. To these folks,evolution raises such profound questions of purpose, morality, and meaning that they just can’t accept it no matter how much evidence they see. It’s not that we evolved from apes that bothers them so much; it’s the emotional consequences of facing that fact. And unless we address those concerns, we won’t progress in making evolution a universally acknowledged truth.”

― Jerry A. Coyne, Why Evolution Is True

― Jerry A. Coyne, Faith Versus Fact: Why Science and Religion Are Incompatible
― Jerry A. Coyne, Faith Versus Fact: Why Science and Religion Are Incompatible
― Jerry A. Coyne, Faith Versus Fact: Why Science and Religion Are Incompatible

DennisCDiehl said...

“To many, evolution gnaws at their sense of self. If evolution offers a lesson, it seems to be that we’re not only related to other creatures but, like them, are also the product of blind and impersonal evolutionary forces. If humans are just one of many outcomes of natural selection, maybe we aren’t so special after all. You can understand why this doesn’t sit well with many people who think that we came into being differently from other species, as the special goal of a divine intention.”

― Jerry A. Coyne, Why Evolution Is True

“But the most important reason to concentrate on religion rather than other forms of irrationality is not to document a historical conflict, but because, among all forms of superstition, religion has by far the most potential for public harm. Few are damaged by belief in astrology; but, as we’ll see in the final chapter, many have been harmed by belief in a particular god or by the idea that faith is a virtue.”

“As for the claim that science is a kind of “faith” because it rests on untestable assumptions, depends on authority, and so on, this involves either a deliberate or an unconscious conflation of what “faith” means in religion versus what it means in everyday life. Here are two examples of each usage: “I have faith that because I accept Jesus Christ as my personal savior, I will join my late wife in heaven.” “I have faith that when I martyr myself for Allah, I’ll receive seventy-two virgins in paradise.” “I have faith that the day will break tomorrow.” “I have faith that taking this penicillin will cure my urinary tract infection.” Notice the difference. The first two statements exemplify the religious form of “faith,” the one Walter Kaufmann defined as “intense, usually confident, belief that is not based on evidence sufficient to command assent from every reasonable person.” There is no evidence beyond revelation, authority, and sacred books to support the first two statements. They show confidence that isn’t supported by evidence, and most of the world’s believers would reject them.”

“If nearly two-thirds of Americans will accept a scientific fact only if it’s not in clear conflict with their faith, then their worldview is not fully open to the advances of science

"In religion, faith is a virtue. In science, faith is a vice."

Jerry A. Coyne, Faith Versus Fact: Why Science and Religion Are Incompatible

"All scientific progress requires a climate of strong skepticism."



― Jerry A. Coyne, Faith Versus Fact: Why Science and Religion Are Incompatible

― Jerry A. Coyne, Faith Versus Fact: Why Science and Religion Are Incompatible


Anonymous said...

There's a major flaw in Bob Thiels prophesys and his accompanying self appointed role of modern day prophet. Bob believes that God, like the Gestapo ministers, is micro managing peoples lives. That is, the ACOG ministers have God in their image. Hence Donald Trump and others are identified in the Bible. In reality God is a God of self responsibility and freedom (from other men). It's inherent in the parable of the talents. Hence the details of the future are determined by people, not some control freak god.
Other than Gods masterplan, the future is mostly unknown, and doesn't need to be known.
No Bob the illuminator of the near future is required.

Anonymous said...

There's a major flaw in Bob Thiels prophesys and his accompanying self appointed role of modern day prophet. Bob believes that God, like the Gestapo ministers, is micro managing peoples lives. That is, the ACOG ministers have God in their image. Hence Donald Trump and others are identified in the Bible. In reality God is a God of self responsibility and freedom (from other men). It's inherent in the parable of the talents. Hence the details of the future are determined by people, not some control freak god.
Other than Gods masterplan, the future is mostly unknown, and doesn't need to be known.
No Bob the illuminator of the near future is required.

Near_Earth_Object said...

What does Coyne mean by "religion". Is he talking about Buddhism? Shintoism? Druidism? It would help if he were clearer.

Evolution is not incompatible with Christianity. That ship already sank. The fact that there are many Christians who do not understand this is a matter of progressive education.

Disbelief in evolution as a critique of the Christian faith is the equivalent of the "God of the Gaps" arguments. Sort of an "Atheism of the Gaps." It works well until it goes away. Disbelief in evolution by Christians will eventually go away.

Evolution is simply true. Several denominations endorse it. It is a tool God used to manage the flora and fauna of the earth. The Bible doesn't contain a Darwinian treatise because that is not what the Bible is about. This is not rocket science.

DennisCDiehl said...

NEO notes: "Evolution is simply true,,,,, It is a tool God used to manage the flora and fauna of the earth. The Bible doesn't contain a Darwinian treatise because that is not what the Bible is about. This is not rocket science."

Evolution is indeed true. Details always to follow. You can't possibly know, however, that it is "a tool God used...." One can say that but it can never be proven unless a Deity comes along and says "Yes I did!", without the middlemen of course. That is the kind of connection religion tries to make with science for the credibility Coyne is speaking of.

By religion Coyne simply means the belief in gods and the theology that goes with it no matter the specific Hebrew, Islamic, Christian or any other belief, twist or spin that allows for the possibility that, while unlikely, Elves are responsible for all we see and give us our purpose.

Hoss said...

I remember a similar discussion on another blog over 10 years ago. I believe the whole generalization of "what atheists want" has to do with such a claim by one proponent of evolution. I'm not certain, but it may have been Thomas Huxley ("Darwin's Bulldog") who spoke of a life free from morals.

Anonymous said...

I worked designing electronic equipment. I never witnessed a piece of equipment design itself, or heard of a smartphone that evolved. There is absolutely no evidence or proof of a mechanism whereby things design or upgrade themselves. Rather, external intelligent input is always required. Those embracing evolution are simply unable to exercise the independence to say no to the approval and warmth of the herd. This is like people who denied Christ because they feared being put out of the synagogue.
You can all hold hands and sing Kumbaya, but you don't have truth on your side.

Byker Bob said...

I don’t know. Smashing pumpkins said “The world is a vampire”. Personally, I disagree. I believe that God created the universe from what some would call nothing, but it is in reality all elements of Himself. That is the only way there could be omniscience. In a very real way we can say that God is the universe and all of its processes, Creator and created. This is why observant Jewish scholars throughout the ages have been of the opinion that the concept of God is just too big and expansive for mankind to comprehend. To quantify is to limit.
Too bad religious teachers are frequently the chief limiters.

BB

Miller Jones said...

I agree with NEO, Coyne (like many of his theist counterparts) presents us with false dilemma. NEO and I aren't the only Christians/theists who embrace and accept evolution as true, and the fact that we exist means that there is at least one alternative to the either/or of Coyne and his allies on one side and Fundamentalists and their allies on the other side.
That science and religion are "competitors" is the opinion of some (perhaps even the majority), but it is not the reality of everyone. People make the two disciplines incompatible. Evolutionary science is completely compatible with my Christian faith.
Evolution does NOT gnaw at my sense of self. Indeed, it is inspirational to me to contemplate the fact that I am related to all other living things.
I would also say that it is an opinion (not an established fact) that evolutionary forces are "blind and impersonal." Of course, we may be talking semantics here. It depends on what Coyne actually means by that statement. If he means that the principles and mechanics of evolution are universally applied to all living things, then we are in agreement. However, if he means that evolution does not favor some life forms over others and that there isn't any meaningful purpose related to those principles and mechanics which govern the process, then we are of very different opinions about what the scientific evidence demonstrates.
My belief in God is based on faith and logic, but I concede that it is NOT scientifically demonstrable at this time. However, if we say that science excludes the possibility of God, we are also operating outside of the realm of science (which requires open-mindedness and skepticism - in true science, certainty is always susceptible to new evidence).

Near_Earth_Object said...

Dennis:

I cannot prove there is a God through the analysis of the material realm. Just as you and Coyne cannot disprove that there is a God through the analysis of the material realm. (On balance, I believe the material universe is more supportive of the existence of God than against it but this does not amount to proof.) So we are at a stalemate.

What I can tell you is that there is a model of theistic evolution that reconciles the scientific fact of evolution with the existence of God and statements of the Bible. One of the variants is found in the book "Adam and the Genome" by Venema and McKnight.

It is a charade to pretend that evolution and belief in God are utterly opposed and contradictory. This leads only to shadow boxing. Like I said, that antiquated ship sank a long time ago.

DennisCDiehl said...

"I cannot prove there is a God through the analysis of the material realm. Just as you and Coyne cannot disprove that there is a God through the analysis of the material realm."

Correct, One can't prove God does not exist but that is not my responsibility. Too bad any actual God goes to so little effort to prove that he/she/it exists either. I can't prove Elves and Fairies also don't exist, unlikely as that might be in light of the evidence. However, many find all the evidence they need to believe in them as we know. Those who believe in them have a need to do so. To not believe in them would leave a terrible hole in their lives and perhaps their pocketbook.

But one can prove the Bible is not the inerrant Word of God. One can prove the Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses and that some of the books attributed to specific authors were not written by those authors in the least. One can prove that both the Birth accounts of Jesus and more so the death stories are muddled, contradictory and in many ways cobbled together from Old Testament scriptures because no one knew anything about either much. One can prove that doctrines evolve just as life does from simple to complex over time. Of course, right now as they read this , someone is saying "You can't prove any of that," and they say it because it is too threatening to consider that you can. Therefore, you never can prove it...to them.

Besides, each individual has to do their own homework and that others convinced them is not how it seems to work.


I consider myself to be atheist because of knowing the Bible very well which seems to be one of the routes taken towards waking up to the reality of Biblical origins and composition.

Back to the actual topic. Bob Thiel's view on atheism is a very contrived and shallow view. But then Bob is invested as are Pack, Flurry and Weinland in being right, which they are not and time will prove this to be so.

I also can't think of one person over the years of Banned who have changed their perspectives because of what others bring to this table. Comments range from the well thought out and sincere to WTF? While most here have moved on from any COG, the fun is seeing where they admit to having ended up. Some won't even let you know that.

Anonymous said...

No one sums it up better than Jesus himself with whitewashed tombs description.

Anonymous said...

"Correct, One can't prove God does not exist but that is not my responsibility. Too bad any actual God goes to so little effort to prove that he/she/it exists either"

Oh my. This comment blew me away. Because, in my view, the proving of God's existence is absolutely everywhere and in everything. It's a mind-blowing intelligence far beyond human rational thinking or reason to even begin to comprehend.

I have a textbook on biology I look at just for fun. I'm not a biologist, though I am very skilled at science. The smallest, tiniest, inconceivable motorized cellular life form that exists is absolutely unfathomable in it's intricate circuitry. And the precision - the enormous precision - that it takes for billions of such intricate designed cellular life forms within a life form is mindblowing. And, this is just one example of what are literally zillions.

So why is my take different than your take? We're both humans. We both have the same eyes and mind. We both see the same colors, and speak and think the same language. I am no different than you. My make up is no different than yours. I am NOT better in any way shape or form than you are, I do NOT consider myself any more of a person than you or you any less than a person than me. Why is it that we have come to such radically different conclusions? We both see, feel, sense, taste, and touch the same world. We both piss and poop the same way. We both probably snore, and we both probably say the same word when we stub our toe. We're both HUMAN. But we see the world totally differently. It's such an enigma!

I think it's just what life's experience has individually led us to our own opinions. Regardless of the fact of what you do see or what you do not see, or what I see and what I do not see, there are some things that I believe we have in common.

1. We both love to have fun.
2. We both are in awe of the colors of the sky.
3. We both are in awe of the smells and tastes of our world.
4. We both love a good, hearty laugh.
5. We both love to learn.
6. We all want to love and be loved.
7. We all seek only what the truth is, whatever, and whoever, that is.

So in my thinking, taking time to see what we all have in common, whether believers or unbelievers, can lead us to see that if we look past all of the crap that swirls in the toilet of life, there are a few things that are always constants. And if we look at the constants - there's nothing that can stop us from getting along in the unity of what we have in common, and not what we don't. We'll never be able to convince each other of what we perceive as a divine entity. But we will always be able to see what love in action is, and embrace it, and live it. :)



Anonymous said...

There you have it folks! It has just been proven to us through inanimate objects made from metal, stone, plastic and wood that living things composed of cells cannot mutate, morph, or evolve!

You’re a cartoon, 9:06!

Allen Dexter said...

Like you, Dennis, I have become an atheist because I know the Bible and history very well. It's an unending study with me. I'm only interested in facts, not suppositions and dogmatic statements based on nothing but "faith." All those sureties of the past turned out to be just so much speculation that never panned out. yet, they're hung onto tenaciously. Those interpretations of the stupidest book in the whole mess, Revelation, just won't go away. We're afflicted yet today by some idiots nightmare or mad mind wanderings.

Anonymous said...

Anon9:06AM wrote:

"There is absolutely no evidence or proof of a mechanism whereby things design or upgrade themselves."

Well, it sure is a good thing then that evolution is not a process that "designs" or "upgrades" anything. Life just adapts to fill niches. Liquids aren't guided by some kind of intelligence, but they do the exact same thing. Funny how water adapts to perfectly fill the exact shape of a pothole, no matter how complex that shape might be. How does it know how to do this? Amazing! Water is so intelligent.

Near_Earth_Object said...

Dennis wrote:

"I consider myself to be atheist because of knowing the Bible very well which seems to be one of the routes taken towards waking up to the reality of Biblical origins and composition."

How does disproving only the Christian God make you an atheist? Isn't it possible that there is another God that you know nothing about? Maybe you have jumped the gun.

Your attack on the Bible is based on a model of what the Bible is that you have presumed. Instead of understanding some of the flaws of your model and seeking to revise it, you have retained it as a fixed concept so you can have an easy target for debate. This is like people who believe in BI and will never let that go. For them the world must revolve around their concept of BI.

I think you should read Venema's book and come back with the arguments against.

People who believe in Christianity have a significant commonality of belief. People who are atheists are atheists in different ways and for different reasons and display different behaviors.

Atheism is one of the easiest things for God to fix - and he will fix it when it suits him.

Hoss said...

"...illogical to be an atheist", "God’s existence is logical" - statements never made by Spock

Anonymous said...

So living organisms have become self aware like the Terminators Skynet, and are now improving their own design. Where's the proof? Oh, it's just blind faith.

Dennis Diehl said...

NEO, I'm only dealing with the Bible God for now. Everyone knows Voltron exists.

Byker Bob said...

Want to see evidence of real time evolution, 7:28? Try antibiotic-resistant gonorrhea, tuberculosis, mrsa, or AIDS.

As goes awareness, there is a deep synergy, a sensing of vibrations and wavelengths amongst the created. Your philodendron may not be aware of Terminators Skynet, (I'm sure you were being facetious) if that's what floats your boat, but most likely thrives in your livingroom if you enjoy Strauss waltzes rather than Beethoven or Black Sabbath.

BB

Near_Earth_Object said...

Dennis: If you are only dealing with the Bible god, however you may define that god, you cannot claim to be an atheist or even an agnostic. You might be able to wear the mantle of an anti-Christian.

nck said...

5:25

We know for sure BB came to some Hindu Budhist conclusions on the nature of God, which must be conceptually true, but are not discussed in christian theology. Therefore my point that young Jesus working in Sephoris with his father must have been talking to traders from the East and Hoehism (what thai) was not an abberation in early Christian thought at all.

It is people like 3:14 that make consider the value of christianity at times, although personally I am only able to jump the lions den or smolthering ovens when this other figure not being sadrech or abednecho talks to me first and face to face. Not one minute earlier and not by any other witnessing to me that it happened to him.

Nck

Byker Bob said...

Was it the panentheism, nck?

BB

nck said...

Yes yes.

The Vedas speak of atoms and energy.

Hinduism is mistaken for having many gods.

There is only one atman though and manifestations of atman.

Nck

nck said...

Whoops Brahman.

Atman would be aryan for atmen ( german breathing)

Nck