Actually, the Raelians aren't the only religious movement to disbelieve in God. Most prominently, Buddhist scriptures have been saying the same thing for centuries. (Although that doesn't stop some Buddhists from believing in God / gods anyway.) Then there is also the question of what constitutes a god? Although religions like Shinto and Daoism may have beliefs in supernatural spirits and forces, it would be misleading to apply the western term "God" in its current usage.

On the other hand, considering the etymology of the word God, which comes from the German word "Gott" and the Old Norse word "Goth" (hard th, not soft). These words are derived from the Prot-Indo-European term "ghut-" mean...

Actually, the Raelians aren't the only religious movement to disbelieve in God. Most prominently, Buddhist scriptures have been saying the same thing for centuries. (Although that doesn't stop some Buddhists from believing in God / gods anyway.) Then there is also the question of what constitutes a god? Although religions like Shinto and Daoism may have beliefs in supernatural spirits and forces, it would be misleading to apply the western term "God" in its current usage.

On the other hand, considering the etymology of the word God, which comes from the German word "Gott" and the Old Norse word "Goth" (hard th, not soft). These words are derived from the Prot-Indo-European term "ghut-" meaning "that which is invoked," coming from the Sanskrit term "huta" of the same meaning, which was an epithet for the Hindu god Indra.

If God is that which we invoke, then the Raelians do indeed have their own Gods, invoking something or someone beyond our normal lives as the solution to our questions of faith. In this sense, God is that which is worshiped, and it becomes impossible to separate the question of God from the question of worship.

I normally want a religious movement to be at lest a couple hundred years old before I start calling it a religion, simply for the practical purpose of narrowing the field down to the major players. I'm willing to make exceptions. I don't know enough about the Raelians. Perhaps I should learn more?

Do they worship? How? Therein lies their "God."

Indeed. Buddhism is a much older atheistic religion; however, there is a lot of mysticism contained in their practices. The Raelian philosophy is very similar to that of Buddhism and they often describe their beliefs as "Buddhism without the mysticism." Interestingly, many Buddhists have converted to Raelism.

They do not worship in the sense that they render religious reverence to a supernatural being(s), nor do they follow a specific doctrine. The creators, which they call Elohim, are not supernatural, but are normal human beings as you and I are. Unlike many religions where their creator is seen as perfect and often fe...

Indeed. Buddhism is a much older atheistic religion; however, there is a lot of mysticism contained in their practices. The Raelian philosophy is very similar to that of Buddhism and they often describe their beliefs as "Buddhism without the mysticism." Interestingly, many Buddhists have converted to Raelism.

They do not worship in the sense that they render religious reverence to a supernatural being(s), nor do they follow a specific doctrine. The creators, which they call Elohim, are not supernatural, but are normal human beings as you and I are. Unlike many religions where their creator is seen as perfect and often feared, Raelians view the Elohim as a child would view his or her parents.

The Raelians' say that their goal is to "inform, not to convince," therefore, I doubt that seeking credibility is on their list of priorities. Furthermore, if you follow the link to the article, there's a link to a video interview of a representative or the movement where he explains why they chose Las Vegas for their new headquarters.

***

My apologies if none of this makes any sense as I have been up for many hours studying for my final exams.

Sorry, that was a typo. My doctors tell me I should sleep more and clip less.

But it is an interesting video. I hope you don't mind continuing a bit of discussion along these lines...

First, I should note, that having done first hand research on the cave paintings in Dunhuang, Turpan, Datong in China, and in other places across Asia, that there are no UFOs depicted. What has been mistaken for a UFO is in fact simply a parsol. It is a realistic depiction of the kind of parasol used to shelter some members of the Asian aristocracy. Despite its passing resemblance to a UFO in a 1950s sci-fi movie, I think that is no more than coincidence.

The greatest distinction I see between Buddhism and R...

Sorry, that was a typo. My doctors tell me I should sleep more and clip less.

But it is an interesting video. I hope you don't mind continuing a bit of discussion along these lines...

First, I should note, that having done first hand research on the cave paintings in Dunhuang, Turpan, Datong in China, and in other places across Asia, that there are no UFOs depicted. What has been mistaken for a UFO is in fact simply a parsol. It is a realistic depiction of the kind of parasol used to shelter some members of the Asian aristocracy. Despite its passing resemblance to a UFO in a 1950s sci-fi movie, I think that is no more than coincidence.

The greatest distinction I see between Buddhism and Raelianism is that, unlike Buddhism, Rael asserts quite a few concrete facts, which he would have us believe are literal true instead of metaphor. Buddhism, on the other hand, negates the substantiality of the universe, and thus all that may seem to be dogma should actually be interpreted as complex metaphor. Thus while Raelianism relies on a belief in unknowable facts (Such as that man was created by aliens) Buddhism can be seen as providing only a philosophical framework within which one analyzes their life and the world around them.

By this I mean no criticism of Raelianism, of course, nor of Buddhism, but merely am interested in the relationship. However, I am concerned that with the so many literal assertions, posited as objective facts, it would be very easy for Raelianism to become uncritically dogmatic. (As a researcher on religions, I see this as a distinct possibility after Rael's death, when control of his ideas passes into the hands of others.)

I'm not too familiar with Buddhism or its similarities to Raelism so I can only go by what was stated in the video.

I think Raelism, just like any other religion, requires a certain article of faith; therefore, it is prone to dogma. I remember reading somewhere--though I can't remember where--where Rael expressed his concern about his teachings possibly being distorted after his death.

Below are a few links which you may interesting:

Prophets & Ancient Evidence[video] - This video explains a little bit about the relationship between Raelism and the Judeo-Christian religions.

[url=http://www.raelianews.org/request.php...

I'm not too familiar with Buddhism or its similarities to Raelism so I can only go by what was stated in the video.

I think Raelism, just like any other religion, requires a certain article of faith; therefore, it is prone to dogma. I remember reading somewhere--though I can't remember where--where Rael expressed his concern about his teachings possibly being distorted after his death.

Below are a few links which you may interesting:

Prophets & Ancient Evidence[video] - This video explains a little bit about the relationship between Raelism and the Judeo-Christian religions.

Contact Newsletter[pdf file] - In the first part of this document Rael explains a little bit about his philosophy. Perhaps you can make some comparisons with your knowledge of Buddhism.