A question for theists

[Meryuma]

ffs, "theist" doesn't mean "exclusivist monotheist". Nor does "religious person" mean "theist" or vice versa.

Are you not an atheist to every religion besides your own?

No, I am not an atheist to every religion besides my own.

[Rodrania]

Really, I feel you'll hate me for this, but the simple answer is this:

Faith.

One believes in something because they have faith on it, there isn't much of a scientific explanation. Why is my religion the right religion? Because I just feel and believe it is, and I feel good when praying to my god. Why are other religions wrong? This really depends on the religion you believe in, but faith also applies, the other religions just don't make me feel like my current one. How come I was the lucky one to be born in the correct religion? This depends, but faith also applies, and so on.

[Novus America]

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.

The question should not be which is the "right" Religion. But the religion the fits you best. All relgions are flawed. But you can find one you find fits you best.

Some Hindus describe it as like looking through different facets of a diamond. Each facet a different way to try to find the truth. One is not necessarily better or worse for everyone. Find the one best for you.

[The Foxes Swamp]

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.

ridiculous is your assumption that i care what you think about anything.

[Pandeeria]

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.

No, your original post was ridiculous. Quite ridiculous.

[Betoni]

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.

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 that according to you is rebuked by layman thinking? And most importantly why is it relevant? By what unassailable truth is existence only the property of the Universe?

[Risottia]

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

You think you can discuss theology and philosophy while not knowing the ontological argument, or even knowing what "ontological" means?

Wikipedia is your friend, if you need a cursory glance.

By what unassailable truth is existence only the property of the Universe?

By the definition of "Universe", which is the English rendition of "universum". Definitions are tautologies, hence true.

Really, don't people study Latin anymore?

[Nariterrr]

ffs, "theist" doesn't mean "exclusivist monotheist". Nor does "religious person" mean "theist" or vice versa.

So, two religions can be right at the same time?

[United Marxist Nations]

ffs, "theist" doesn't mean "exclusivist monotheist". Nor does "religious person" mean "theist" or vice versa.

So, two religions can be right at the same time?

If you haven't already, can you respond to those of us who don't rely on rationality for our belief?

[Nariterrr]

So, two religions can be right at the same time?

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.

[Quokkastan]

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.

I'm not sure that, as an atheist or rationalist, I'm required to do that.

[Quokkastan]

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.

How edgy. It would be more compelling if you hadn't cared enough to reply.

[Novus America]

ffs, "theist" doesn't mean "exclusivist monotheist". Nor does "religious person" mean "theist" or vice versa.

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?

[Quokkastan]

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?

What methodology do you use to access validity?

[Nariterrr]

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?

That would be oxymoronic, as then there would be no need to follow any specific religion.

[Novus America]

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?

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? Does it make you a better person? If it does does that not alone demonstrate some validity, at least to the person who benefits?

[Quokkastan]

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?

Ah yes, the "flowers on the chain."

[United Marxist Nations]

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 idea of facts is not rational.

[Novus America]

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.

Well you could still have need to follow one. If following one is better to you than following many why not? Some people do prefer to follow several, others one. Why should everyone have to follow only one? Some might want to, others might not. Others might want to form their own system from many.

Or on the mountain analogy, there might be mutiple routes to reach the top, but you still need to find the right one for you to pursue.

Or say you want to go from San Fran to NYC. Is there only one way to make the trip? Of course not. You could drive, fly, take a bus, a train, even sail a boat. And there are many roads, many airlines and air routers, many different planes, cars, busses and boats you could choose from. But you still have to choose the way you want to make the trip. There is not one right way, but you have to choose a way. Or a combination of ways. But you have to still make choices.

Of course I could be wrong. But those are just some ways I think one can look at religion.

[Novus America]

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.

But we do not know all the facts. It is not necessarily irrational to seek something you do not know exists. Discovery is all about seeking out the unknown. Speculation is not neccearily irrational either. Before we had proof of nuclear fission were the early atomic scientists irrational to believe it? Despite not yet having proof? Was it irrational for expolrer stop seek out new lands they did not have proof existed? Or philosophers to develops new philoshical theories that they can not objectively prove?

Nor are we perfectly rational. We see the world through the tint of our own irrationality. What you deem rational might not in fact be rational.

[Novus America]

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."

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.

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.

[Quokkastan]

Ah yes, the "flowers on the chain."

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.

[Great Feng]

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.

Yeah I posted that on here after someone in the other thread told me about the miracles and showed me links but I was too damn lazy to edit.

[Hombassador IV]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBsA2ETp7JA&t=82

[Novus America]

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.

Well how o we find the "living flower"? And if we found it how would we even know we had? Is there only one living flower? His logic is circular as he assumes that there is a chain, and the flowers on it are false, that one living flower does exist somewhere not on the chain, despite not knowing any of this to be actually the case. He makes up the premises and therefore the conclusion. All his ideas were just as made up and a fantasy as any religion.

And all philosphy, all tradition, all culture, all language, it is all made up by humans. But does that make it all invalid?

True, the ideas about religion are made up by humans, but they are based on something. And maybe none of the paths we do know go uphill. But that does not mean we cannot explore these paths. And even if we never reach the top of the mountain perhaps we find something else interesting. Or maybe it is not the destination but what we make of the journey that matters. Maybe we actually are better off finding the bottom of the valley and not the top of the mountain

The point is we are all looking for something. We do not even know what it is, or where it is. But we can still look. And even if we never find "it" we might find something else of value.

It was after all alchemists the created chemistry. They never found a way to change lead into gold by mixing chemicals. But by seeking to chemically change lead into gold they found a lot of differnt things about our world. By seeking out a fantasy they found many truths. And now we know it is in fact theoretically possible to change lead into gold, though not by mixing chemicals. But their search helped formed our basis for the knowledge.