Nariterrr wrote:Are you not an atheist to every religion besides your own?
No, I am not an atheist to every religion besides my own.
Advertisement
by Meryuma » Mon Aug 29, 2016 12:40 pm
Nariterrr wrote:Are you not an atheist to every religion besides your own?
Niur wrote: my soul has no soul.
Saint Clair Island wrote:The English language sucks. From now on, I will refer to the second definition of sexual as "fucktacular."
Trotskylvania wrote:Alternatively, we could go on an epic quest to Plato's Cave to find the legendary artifact, Ockham's Razor.
Norstal wrote:Gunpowder Plot: America.
Meryuma: "Well, I just hope these hyperboles don't...
*puts on sunglasses*
blow out of proportions."
YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
by Rodrania » Mon Aug 29, 2016 12:44 pm
by Novus America » Mon Aug 29, 2016 12:53 pm
Nariterrr wrote:Because the previous thread was locked and because the mods told me I could, I'll be putting this discussion up. -
There are five main religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism) and 4,195 smaller religions. That means that, statistically, you have a 1 in 4,200 chance, or 0.0002% chance of being a member of the correct religion, assuming that the correct religion is existing. Why is it that your religion, your one religion, that you happened to be born in, is the right religion? And how come every other religion, which says that it preaches the truth, is wrong? How come you were the lucky one to be born in the correct religion? Are you not an atheist to every religion besides your own?
I think this is probably the reason I'm agnostic. I find it hard to understand how people think that the religion that they so happen to be born in is the correct religion and then use anecdotalism and false equivalences to try to explain their beliefs. If there are 4,200 answers on a test, and you have no before knowledge, you are VERY likely to get it wrong. Sure, not all religions regard every other religion as 'wrong' but that doesn't invalidate the question, as you still practice your belief system as the true belief system. I'm agnostic because I don't know. I don't know how the universe was created, nor do if something intelligent created it, but I don't go around making assumptions that aren't based on logic or reason.
by The Foxes Swamp » Mon Aug 29, 2016 1:01 pm
Quokkastan wrote:The Foxes Swamp wrote:im a theist and i know what god isnt but i dont know what god is.
Not to be cruel, but that's ridiculous.
"I believe in kurfufflemorphs."
"What's a kurfufflemorph?"
"They're not lions, tennis balls, or potatoes."
It's okay to believe in something you don't fully understand. I believe in the accuracy of certain equations that I haven't been able to get my head around, because people who know more about math than I do tell me they work. But you do have to in some sense know what something is to believe in it.
by Pandeeria » Mon Aug 29, 2016 1:33 pm
The Foxes Swamp wrote:Quokkastan wrote:Not to be cruel, but that's ridiculous.
"I believe in kurfufflemorphs."
"What's a kurfufflemorph?"
"They're not lions, tennis balls, or potatoes."
It's okay to believe in something you don't fully understand. I believe in the accuracy of certain equations that I haven't been able to get my head around, because people who know more about math than I do tell me they work. But you do have to in some sense know what something is to believe in it.
ridiculous is your assumption that i care what you think about anything.
Lavochkin wrote:Never got why educated people support communism.
In capitalism, you pretty much have a 50/50 chance of being rich or poor. In communism, it's 1/99. What makes people think they have the luck/skill to become the 1% if they can't even succeed in a 50/50 society???
by Betoni » Mon Aug 29, 2016 1:35 pm
Risottia wrote:Imperial Esplanade wrote:
Quite true, but that does not discredit the notion that there can be something unbound by the finite nature of our Universe, which was my point.
Considering how existance is a property the objects of the Universe (which means "all, everything"), no, the notion that there can be (aka exist) anything outside the Universe is nonsensical as it relies on an unjustified induction. Basically, the same error of the ontological argument over and over again.
by Risottia » Mon Aug 29, 2016 3:20 pm
Betoni wrote:If you're actually going to make sense you'll have do to better than referring to an error in another argument. What is this ontological argument
Betoni wrote:By what unassailable truth is existence only the property of the Universe?
by Nariterrr » Mon Aug 29, 2016 6:27 pm
Meryuma wrote:ffs, "theist" doesn't mean "exclusivist monotheist". Nor does "religious person" mean "theist" or vice versa.
by United Marxist Nations » Mon Aug 29, 2016 6:29 pm
The Kievan People wrote: United Marxist Nations: A prayer for every soul, a plan for every economy and a waifu for every man. Solid.
St. John Chrysostom wrote:A comprehended God is no God.
by Nariterrr » Mon Aug 29, 2016 6:34 pm
by Quokkastan » Mon Aug 29, 2016 6:37 pm
The New Sea Territory wrote:Quokkastan wrote:Well... no.
"Humanity" is an ultimately arbitrary grouping, but that doesn't mean you need faith to believe in it. The concept of humanity is a lot like the concept of a "nation," it is fairly subjective as these things go, but it does refer to something in reality, and as a practical consideration it's quite necessary.
It's "practical consideration" is only necessary if you assume it is worth considering. "Humanity" as a vague ideal is assumed good, without any basis.
by Quokkastan » Mon Aug 29, 2016 6:39 pm
The Foxes Swamp wrote:Quokkastan wrote:Not to be cruel, but that's ridiculous.
"I believe in kurfufflemorphs."
"What's a kurfufflemorph?"
"They're not lions, tennis balls, or potatoes."
It's okay to believe in something you don't fully understand. I believe in the accuracy of certain equations that I haven't been able to get my head around, because people who know more about math than I do tell me they work. But you do have to in some sense know what something is to believe in it.
ridiculous is your assumption that i care what you think about anything.
by Novus America » Mon Aug 29, 2016 6:42 pm
by Quokkastan » Mon Aug 29, 2016 6:44 pm
Novus America wrote:Nariterrr wrote:
So, two religions can be right at the same time?
Why not? At least partially right. After all even if we found the "true" religion/belief system we would have corrupted it. All existing relgions and belief systems are run by humans, interpreted by humans, expressed in our imperfect languages.
Thus all different and flawed attempts to find the truth. But perhaps not completely wrong either. And since the truth is so far beyond our understanding there could certainly be mutiple valid if imperfect ways to look at it. Is there only one correct way to get to a destination? Only one correct route to climb a mountain?
by Nariterrr » Mon Aug 29, 2016 6:47 pm
Novus America wrote:Nariterrr wrote:
So, two religions can be right at the same time?
Why not? At least partially right. After all even if we found the "true" religion/belief system we would have corrupted it. All existing relgions and belief systems are run by humans, interpreted by humans, expressed in our imperfect languages.
Thus all different and flawed attempts to find the truth. But perhaps not completely wrong either. And since the truth is so far beyond our understanding there could certainly be mutiple valid if imperfect ways to look at it. Is there only one correct way to get to a destination? Only one correct route to climb a mountain?
by Novus America » Mon Aug 29, 2016 6:52 pm
Quokkastan wrote:Novus America wrote:
Why not? At least partially right. After all even if we found the "true" religion/belief system we would have corrupted it. All existing relgions and belief systems are run by humans, interpreted by humans, expressed in our imperfect languages.
Thus all different and flawed attempts to find the truth. But perhaps not completely wrong either. And since the truth is so far beyond our understanding there could certainly be mutiple valid if imperfect ways to look at it. Is there only one correct way to get to a destination? Only one correct route to climb a mountain?
What methodology do you use to access validity?
by Quokkastan » Mon Aug 29, 2016 6:54 pm
Novus America wrote:Quokkastan wrote:What methodology do you use to access validity?
Well honestly I have no objective measure of doing so. Some things that totally deny science like say young earth creationism I think can be said to be invalid. Because it has been in fact proven wrong.
I guess the best way is does it give its followers some benefit? Does the religion give you some greater sense of internal peace and purpose in life you do not have without it? If it does does that not alone demonstrate some validity, at least to the person who benefits?
by United Marxist Nations » Mon Aug 29, 2016 6:56 pm
Nariterrr wrote:United Marxist Nations wrote:If you haven't already, can you respond to those of us who don't rely on rationality for our belief?
Rationality is the basis of all facts, if something cannot be rationally explained, then there is no reason to believe in it. Saying 'because I have faith' is ignoring the question, because the basis of faith, especially in the context of an all-powerful diety we have no proof of, is irrational.
The Kievan People wrote: United Marxist Nations: A prayer for every soul, a plan for every economy and a waifu for every man. Solid.
St. John Chrysostom wrote:A comprehended God is no God.
by Novus America » Mon Aug 29, 2016 7:00 pm
Nariterrr wrote:Novus America wrote:
Why not? At least partially right. After all even if we found the "true" religion/belief system we would have corrupted it. All existing relgions and belief systems are run by humans, interpreted by humans, expressed in our imperfect languages.
Thus all different and flawed attempts to find the truth. But perhaps not completely wrong either. And since the truth is so far beyond our understanding there could certainly be mutiple valid if imperfect ways to look at it. Is there only one correct way to get to a destination? Only one correct route to climb a mountain?
That would be oxymoronic, as then there would be no need to follow any specific religion.
by Novus America » Mon Aug 29, 2016 7:07 pm
Nariterrr wrote:United Marxist Nations wrote:If you haven't already, can you respond to those of us who don't rely on rationality for our belief?
Rationality is the basis of all facts, if something cannot be rationally explained, then there is no reason to believe in it. Saying 'because I have faith' is ignoring the question, because the basis of faith, especially in the context of an all-powerful diety we have no proof of, is irrational.
by Novus America » Mon Aug 29, 2016 7:13 pm
Quokkastan wrote:Novus America wrote:
Well honestly I have no objective measure of doing so. Some things that totally deny science like say young earth creationism I think can be said to be invalid. Because it has been in fact proven wrong.
I guess the best way is does it give its followers some benefit? Does the religion give you some greater sense of internal peace and purpose in life you do not have without it? If it does does that not alone demonstrate some validity, at least to the person who benefits?
Ah yes, the "flowers on the chain."
by Quokkastan » Mon Aug 29, 2016 7:24 pm
And is your chain neccesarily the same as mine? When we both look the same flower do we in fact see the same flower? If I look at the flower from above, and you from the side we are seeing the same flower, in different but not invalid ways.
by Great Feng » Mon Aug 29, 2016 7:27 pm
Yumyumsuppertime wrote:Great Feng wrote:This thread is full of people who are do damn edgy.
Now I'll copy I something I wrote to reply to this last time but never could post it in this thread because it was locked:
This is a question I have considered myself many, many times.
I, as a Christian, have often studied religion from a non-theistic point of view and recognize how much people are influenced by culture.
And often, the religion changes with that culture, making that culture more tied to it and since it is tied in with their culture they are more likely to believe it is true.
As a Christian, I see that there are 3 religions most likely to be correct not in any particular order(I will explain about them and why in a moment):
1: Christianity
2: Judaism
3: Buddhism&Taoism
You may have noticed that I did not put Islam on that list. Well with no disrespect to Muslims, from at least what I know, unlike Jesus and the Torah's famous characters or even many famous Buddhist characters, Mohammed did no miracles, at the least not on the scale of them. There are as far as I know no stories of him doing as radical feats that millions/thousands/hundreds of people saw with their own eyes. Most of his feats were done supposedly in private(Going to the caves/mountains. flying to Jerusalem, etc.) and with not many eyewitnesses. In contrast, many of the central figures in Christianity, Judaism, and Buddhism, are supposedly reported to have conducted many miracles in their existence. Jesus...Well...There are enough miracles from him so I don't need to discuss him. Many "Buddhas" did many miracles according to accounts of their lives, as hard to find as some may be. Taoist priests such as Zhang Jiao of the Yellow Turban Rebellion did magic and healing arts in front of hundreds of followers, and there are more eyewitness accounts written into books at the period and in China there are several supernatural events written into the history books and wizards there were respected and many people claimed to have seen them perform such acts. Overall, I believe that Buddhism and Taoism have a surprising amount of evidence for their truthfulness.
For Judaism, the entire history of the people centers around legendary figures leading them from place to place until they settled down, and many accounts of magic and feats were done in that time period and added the Torah, compiling a surprisingly accurate timeline of events in which the Jews somewhat influenced. Their miracles and feats were a lot more important and common among that culture, and they wrote about it in the books. While it is mystifying to find no evidence of the migration from Egypt to Palestine, there is a significant amount of evidence at the very least after that, and many empires of this period also from what I have heard agreed mutually upon what had happened in encounters between Israel and their countries. The Jews were feared as men of magic to their surrounding cultures, not to be underestimated, and many events in Israel's history(Besides perhaps the Exodus) lines up with other culture's descriptions of what happened.
For Christianity, it benefits largely off of the basis of Judaism. And that there are detailed records of Jesus's life in the bible and Christians began appearing right from around the time Jesus is speculated to have lived. And there are predictions that Jesus made that were quite true, and many of his followers told others of what they had witnessed. I admit to being unsure of the Herod babycide but this site looks promising(http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2009/12/08/The-Slaughter-of-the-Innocents-Historical-Fact-or-Legendary-Fiction.aspx#Article). However if Jesus was to have existed then he would have had to have been either a brilliant con artist and among the best the world has ever seen or he'd have to had been the son of god of Christian and/or Muslim scripture. His very life is centered around doing miracles, unlike other historical figures in the Bible who could have existed but not done those miracles. Thus he'd have to had been a genius con artist, or the son of god or as Islam describes, a brilliant prophet if he existed. Either which way, he would be still one of the most influential people to have had ever existed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracles_of_Muhammad
Not that I believe that the number of magical legends that are attributed to one figure or another are proof of the veracity of their theistic claims.
by Hombassador IV » Mon Aug 29, 2016 7:31 pm
by Novus America » Mon Aug 29, 2016 7:45 pm
Quokkastan wrote:Novus America wrote:
Well Marx assumed he had found the one right flower. But had he really? I do not think so as he was himself a very flawed man with flawed ideas. Though perhaps he found the best flower for him.
I think you misunderstood that.
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.
Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower."
Doesn't sound like Marx assumed he had found a flower to me...And is your chain neccesarily the same as mine? When we both look the same flower do we in fact see the same flower? If I look at the flower from above, and you from the side we are seeing the same flower, in different but not invalid ways.
Except for the flower is an illusion. Your flower may not be the same as mine, it stands to reason that it wouldn't be. But it doesn't really matter because the flowers are a fantasy.
The ideas that people have about religion are essentially made up. That would still be, in whole or in part, true even in a world in which a god existed.
You can say things like, "there may be many paths to climb a mountain," but there's no reason to believe any of these paths even go uphill.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Amjedia, Austria-Bohemia-Hungary, Dazchan, Elejamie, Libertarian Negev, Likhinia, Neu California, Outer Bratorke, Sandranation, Shearoa, Three Galaxies
Advertisement