A question for all religious believers -- why is your religion more true than any other?

[JustGeorge]

I guess you mean by that that there is more pluralism in rural Iowa, but that isn't the case by Abrahamics in rural Iowa.

I know about the demographics about the rural areas of America being conservative Christian strongholds. My father however grew up in Des Moines to a Quaker family.

Rural Iowa isn't more pluralistic, typically. It tends to be more heavily Christian and conservative(those in combination). The Christianity tends to be more cultural, and they are not always very open to what they perceive as 'outsiders'. You're less likely to find folks admitting that their way isn't the only way.

Urban Iowa has a lot of cultural Christians, some practicing Christians, a fair amount of atheists, and a smattering of everything else. While you will find some that believe their way is what's true, you'll also run across more who have grown up with more diversity and are content to admit that there may be more ways to approach life and its questions than just what they're familiar with.

 

[Truthseeker]

I actually loved going to that school. Beautiful campus (it was a boarding school, so we lived there) -- 350 acre working farm, only 155 students covering grades 7-13, so about 20 students (all male) per GRADE, not per class. Religion was not really much a part of school life -- liberal Quakers don't push on anybody -- although we did have assembly on Sundays, which were modestly Christian but little "doctrine." The school had Jewish students and a few from other religions. The cost, today, for a boarding student is about $65,000 CDN per grade.
View attachment 87533

I like to see such an idyllic version of my religious background. My father was a Quaker minister. He was an independent thinker. After all these years, my father is the relative I miss. He's been gone these 30 years.

 

[Truthseeker]

Rural Iowa isn't more pluralistic, typically. It tends to be more heavily Christian and conservative(those in combination). The Christianity tends to be more cultural, and they are not always very open to what they perceive as 'outsiders'. You're less likely to find folks admitting that their way isn't the only way.

Urban Iowa has a lot of cultural Christians, some practicing Christians, a fair amount of atheists, and a smattering of everything else. While you will find some that believe their way is what's true, you'll also run across more who have grown up with more diversity and are content to admit that there may be more ways to approach life and its questions than just what they're familiar with.

That description of those in urban Iowa is an apt description of my father. He was an independent thinker. He's my relative that I miss now after 30 years of him being gone. I didn't know that would be the case.

 

[Trailblazer]

That description of those in urban Iowa is an apt description of my father. He was an independent thinker.

My father was also an independent thinker, and that is probably where I get that trait from, since I took after my father more than my mother.

Back in the days when gays were not accepted in society my father had many gay friends....
Also, back in the days when over 95% of people in the U.S. were Christians, my father was an atheist....

My mother told me all that later, long after my father had passed away in 1964.

I see you are up late. I have to go eat dinner now and get to bed since I have worked all day and I need to get enough sleep.

 

[stvdv]

It does seem to me that all of the religious people I know accept that their creed, their religion's essential beliefs, are correct, while all others -- because they obviously don't agree with the central tenets of their sect, must be somehow lacking

A question for all religious believers -- why is your religion more true than any other?​

I disagree:
"my Religion is not more true than any other"

 

[Soapy]

There is no such thing as ‘

• more true than any other​

Something is either true or else it is false. There is no middle ground with truth.

But, something can be more FALSE than something else… in other words, something that is false CAN contain MORE elements that are true than another version. However, the completeness of it is FALSE.

Christianity that is called ‘Trinity’, for instance, contains much more ‘truth’ than any other religion BUT ULTIMATELY ‘trinitarian’ CHRISTIANITY, is FALSE. But don’t be shocked by what I’m saying… I mean that the TRUE RELIGION IS Christianity BY NAME… that is, We must believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and that GOD is the Father, the ONLY TRUE GOD.

Now, we call this belief ‘Christianity’ but the ideology is not what is taught. The basic is taught - yes… BUT A NEW TITLE is what is needed since ‘CHRISTIANITY’ by ACT OF TEACHING is false since it teaches that Jesus Christ IS GOD. And such a teaching is NOT A TEACHING that:

• ‘The Father is the ONLY TRUE GOD’

Jesus never taught that he was equal to the Father… Jesus taught that the Father was greater than himself. Jesus taught that he was granted power by his Heavenly Father… much more is taught that Jesus is subordinate to the Father, GOD… but Christian’s hate the idea that Jesus is subordinate so they hate the idea and try to make Jesus EQUAL TO GOD!!!

That’s an odd claim!!! ‘Equal to God’?!!! God has an EQUAL?????

Now WHO might want to be EQUAL TO GOD?

Who bug the Father of the Lie…. Satan, the devil, the DECEIVER… who misled the world and desired to sit on the Mount of God!!

He FAILED … and stands condemned. So he now desires to further mislead the world into believing that Jesus is God … Equal to God, so that if it were possible, Jesus would accept the plaudits and condemn himself.

 

[Marwan]

God has many Messengers. All religion is Truth. They all proclaim and testify and praise God and pray to Him. Religion is Religion is inspired by God. The Quran is from God. Mohammad is certainly a True Messenger of God. The Quran did not come from a human.

The Quran is the Highest Divine Scripture in all human history.

 

[PearlSeeker]

If religions don't teach truths then they are just social clubs and folklore.

 

[shunyadragon]

I meant in my spot in the world: urban Iowa.

Urban cities of the USA are more pluralist and varied in their religious beliefs, but non the less the ancient Abrahamic religions dominate our world.

 

[shunyadragon]

If religions don't teach truths then they are just social clubs and folklore.

It is questionable which of the many diverse conflicting religions and their divisions teach the illusive "truth" from the fallible human perspective. The ancient tribal Abrahamic religions indeed teach ancient folklore and mythology. As far as 'social clubs' the dominant reason (95%+) people believe is it was basically some variation of the religion of their parents and peers.

It is highly subjective that any one religion or division thereof could rationally determine the "Truth" of their belief over the other possible choices. I find it truly rare that anyone makes any objective independent effort to compare and understand the different possible beliefs in terms of a universal perspective of God's relationship with humanity over the millennia. An independent search would reveal the cracks in the foundation of all ancient religions.

I do find that many theists are aggressively opposed to atheism, and blame the atheists for everything they are opposed to such as science, and all the evil and immorality in society. Atheism is just a belief there are no Gods, and represent less than about 4% of the USA.

 

[JustGeorge]

Urban cities of the USA are more pluralist and varied in their religious beliefs, but non the less the ancient Abrahamic religions dominate our world.

"dominate our world"

Perhaps its because I just rolled out of bed, but I've read this different than what you likely intended...

Abrahamic faiths might have the greater number of adherents in this locale, but I can't say I feel like they dominate my world. Other than when I'm on RF and participating in a thread like this, I rarely think of them at all!

 

[Truthseeker]

My father was also an independent thinker, and that is probably where I get that trait from, since I took after my father more than my mother.

Back in the days when gays were not accepted in society my father had many gay friends....
Also, back in the days when over 95% of people in the U.S. were Christians, my father was an atheist....

My mother told me all that later, long after my father had passed away in 1964.

I see you are up late. I have to go eat dinner now and get to bed since I have worked all day and I need to get enough sleep.

I'm not sure if I got that from my father. He was often absent because he was making his rounds with people in his congregation, so among my two parents my mother was present, but my father was often absent. Also at the time without getting into specifics, I disliked my father. I don't understand it myself, but I couldn't stand the sound of his voice. Thankfully, by the end of his life I got along with him better than my other brothers. He loved me anyway as I felt this way, I believe now. I remember watching a NFL Conference championship game in the early 90s between the Cowboys and the 49ers, and were both rooting for the Cowboys. He died in the early hours of November 23rd of 1993. This was just one day after the anniversary of the assassination of Kennedy, who was someone he admired. I didn't even know he was going to die soon. I woke up on the morning of the 23rd, and Sara told me that my dad had died. My mother herself didn't know he was about to die, so I was not told he was in the hospital. He told her he felt like he was dying as he lay in bed in the hospital, but she discounted that this was going to happen. They didn't do an autopsy of his brain, but I believe he died of Parkinson's. I didn't feel much of anything at the time about his death.

One odd thing is that even while I disliked his voice I was in the meeting house listening to his sermons and his voice didn't bother me then. I like his sermons. His sermons were reasonable and well thought out, and concerned themselves with things like morality, not about dogma. Outside of church he told me that too many Christians didn't pay attention to the Sermon of the Mount and the like. Though he had his psychological troubles, I now admire his approach to the Bible, and he was also a person that wasn't afraid to change his views. Sometime in the 1990s after his death was when I worked to compare the Sermon on the Mount with the Baha'i Writings.

Intellectually in how I approach the Baha'i Writings, I am very much like my father. I wish I could have a conversation with him now.

 

[Vinayaka]

Rural Iowa isn't more pluralistic, typically. It tends to be more heavily Christian and conservative(those in combination). The Christianity tends to be more cultural, and they are not always very open to what they perceive as 'outsiders'. You're less likely to find folks admitting that their way isn't the only way.

Urban Iowa has a lot of cultural Christians, some practicing Christians, a fair amount of atheists, and a smattering of everything else. While you will find some that believe their way is what's true, you'll also run across more who have grown up with more diversity and are content to admit that there may be more ways to approach life and its questions than just what they're familiar with.

We have the same urban rural divide on that here, although rural is slowly improving.

 

[shunyadragon]

"dominate our world"

Perhaps its because I just rolled out of bed, but I've read this different than what you likely intended...

Abrahamic faiths might have the greater number of adherents in this locale, but I can't say I feel like they dominate my world. Other than when I'm on RF and participating in a thread like this, I rarely think of them at all!

I was not referring to you or anyone else personally. but generally in the USA for example Christianity dominates viirtually everything and more and more Christian Nationalism is becoming dominant. In the Islamic world Islam absolutely dominates all governments and all social and cultural affairs, In Africa and many third world countries it is either Evangelical missionary Christianity, the Roman Chuuch or Islam that overwhelmingly dominate. In Islamic countries the rejection of the sciences of evolution overwhelmingly dominates. As a Baha'i there are some Islamic countries it is very edgy that I can travel there. The Bha;is in those countries are severely restricted and persecuted.

This is only part of the story

 

[JustGeorge]

I was not referring to you or anyone else personally. but generally in the USA for example Christianity dominates viirtually everything and more and more Christian Nationalism is becoming dominant. In the Islamic world Islam absolutely dominates all governments and all social and cultural affairs, In Africa and many third world countries it is either Evangelical missionary Christianity, the Roman Chuuch or Islam that overwhelmingly dominate. In Islamic countries the rejection of the sciences of evolution overwhelmingly dominates. As a Baha'i there are some Islamic countries it is very edgy that I can travel there. The Bha;is in those countries are severely restricted and persecuted.

This is only part of the story

Yeah, I know what you meant.

It was just morning meandering.

 

[John D. Brey]

Mind you, as an atheist and a humanist, I am as much interested in how people attempt to use logic to defend their beliefs (some of which I personally find truly indefensible) as I am in those beliefs themselves. To you, that may seem already contentious, but to me it's a matter of intellectual curiousity.

The concept of thought styles in science has been developed by Ludwik Fleck (1979). Fleck claims, and we agree, that a thought style shared by members of a "thought collective" determines the formulation of every concept that underlies observation and description. "If we define the `thought collective' as a community of persons mutually exchanging ideas or maintaining intellectual interaction, we will find by implication that it also provides the special `carrier' for the historical development of any field of thought, as well as for the given stock of knowledge and level of culture. This we have designated thought style" (p. 39).​

​

Lynn Margulis and Dorian Sagan, The Origins of Sex, p. 5.​

Margulis and Sagan quote Ludwik Fleck (who sounds much like Thomas Kuhn, and Kuhn does the foreword to Fleck's book) concerning the fact that a "thought collective" is a particular community of persons, say atheist, humanist, religious folk, who guard their thoughts and beliefs by engaging in a "collective" who are like-minded thinkers working to guard and construct the orthodoxy erected as their particular "thought style."

Writing in 1935, Fleck recognizes that once "a structurally complete and closed system of opinions consisting of many details and relations has been formed, it offers enduring resistance to anything that contradicts it.". . he asserts that one is hardly even aware of the prevailing thought style in which one is operating. Although scientific thought styles should be more open than, say, religious ones, the dominant thought style . . . "almost always exerts an absolutely compulsive force upon [an individual's] thinking . . . with which it is not possible to be at variance (p. 41). . . Words which formerly were simple terms become slogans; sentence which once were simple statements become calls to battle."​

​

Ibid.​

I have a particular affinity with Fleck's concept since though I am myself a bible-toting Christian, many of my best ideas come from atheists and Jews. I quote the likes of Richard Dawkins, or Daniel Dennett, not (mostly) to demean them, but to show the brilliance of their ideas both within the confines of their own "thought collective," but also to argue that their ideas can apply equally well, or in many case more so, within the confines of my Christian "thought style." Ditto Judaism. Jews here rarely debate me since I too often agree with them and their scriptures. There can be no "calls to battle," when one's interlocutor agrees with you for the most part. Where's the fun in that.



John

 

[Quintessence]

If religions don't teach truths then they are just social clubs and folklore.

If this is true, then perhaps you can help me understand something here.

I worship Moon, and every Full Moon I do ritual. I practice my religion alone, so assuming you are limiting the definition of "social club" only include other humans, this religious practice doesn't constitute a social club. My ritual devotions aren't about teaching truths either, because I'm not doing any teaching of anyone or anything as I sit before Full Moon's light reflecting upon the past, present, and future. And while I will occasionally recite tales of folklore about Moon, storytelling is a valued activity that lies at the core of all religious traditions. So here I have my religion that doesn't care about teaching truths, isn't a social club, and sometimes but doesn't always involve sacred story that you seem to be dismissing as unimportant for some reason. What is my religion, then, to you?

 

[walt]

It does seem to me that all of the religious people I know accept that their creed, their religion's essential beliefs, are correct, while all others -- because they obviously don't agree with the central tenets of their sect, must be somehow lacking.

As a non-believer in any religion, I am curious how it is, what evidence, what logic, leads you to suppose that your particular religion/denomination/sect got it right, while the others did not.

This thread is meant to be a great opportunity for believers of all kinds to engage -- to write apologetics in defense of their beliefs. I'm hoping to see significant essays!

what do you think is important that Jesus says?

 

[walt]

in my reading of Jesus words I find many things that Jesus says.. and I feel his words are especially more essential than my words or the words of most anyone.

 

[walt]

The concept of thought styles in science has been developed by Ludwik Fleck (1979). Fleck claims, and we agree, that a thought style shared by members of a "thought collective" determines the formulation of every concept that underlies observation and description. "If we define the `thought collective' as a community of persons mutually exchanging ideas or maintaining intellectual interaction, we will find by implication that it also provides the special `carrier' for the historical development of any field of thought, as well as for the given stock of knowledge and level of culture. This we have designated thought style" (p. 39).​

​

Lynn Margulis and Dorian Sagan, The Origins of Sex, p. 5.​

Margulis and Sagan quote Ludwik Fleck (who sounds much like Thomas Kuhn, and Kuhn does the foreword to Fleck's book) concerning the fact that a "thought collective" is a particular community of persons, say atheist, humanist, religious folk, who guard their thoughts and beliefs by engaging in a "collective" who are like-minded thinkers working to guard and construct the orthodoxy erected as their particular "thought style."

Writing in 1935, Fleck recognizes that once "a structurally complete and closed system of opinions consisting of many details and relations has been formed, it offers enduring resistance to anything that contradicts it.". . he asserts that one is hardly even aware of the prevailing thought style in which one is operating. Although scientific thought styles should be more open than, say, religious ones, the dominant thought style . . . "almost always exerts an absolutely compulsive force upon [an individual's] thinking . . . with which it is not possible to be at variance (p. 41). . . Words which formerly were simple terms become slogans; sentence which once were simple statements become calls to battle."​

​

Ibid.​

I have a particular affinity with Fleck's concept since though I am myself a bible-toting Christian, many of my best ideas come from atheists and Jews. I quote the likes of Richard Dawkins, or Daniel Dennett, not (mostly) to demean them, but to show the brilliance of their ideas both within the confines of their own "thought collective," but also to argue that their ideas can apply equally well, or in many case more so, within the confines of my Christian "thought style." Ditto Judaism. Jews here rarely debate me since I too often agree with them and their scriptures. There can be no "calls to battle," when one's interlocutor agrees with you for the most part. Where's the fun in that.