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

[PearlSeeker]

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?

You and Moon having a private party?

How did you start believing that Moon is a divine being?

 

[Quintessence]

You and Moon having a private party?

How did you start believing that Moon is a divine being?

That doesn't really answer my question. How would me responding to these help you address what my religion is, to you, since it's not about teaching truths, isn't a social club, and isn't just folkloric? Are religions that focus on practice just not religions, in your view?

 

[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.



John

think about a painter does he at any time get assistance to paint the picture from nobody? If there is 5,000 strokes of the brush involved, is even one stroke accomplished by the means of nobody? Did nobody make the frame and the canvas? Did nobody assemble the canvas and frame onto the easel? Did the paints show up by themselves to assist the painter? Who made the paint brushes? Nobody? Everything that is accomplished to paint the picture is always accomplished by somebody, nobody assists the painter in any way! Even if a robot assisted the painter to paint the picture the robot is designed and built by somebody. I worked at many jobs for over 50 years and I never got any assistance to build anything from nobody! If the painter cannot acquire the assistance of any kind to even the smallest degree, even one stroke from nobody who does something as complicated as a human body? Who designs it? Who creates it? It took man how many years to create automobiles like we see today? The human body is much more complex than an automobile. If a person cannot get assistance to build anything to the smallest degree how does life that we see on earth exist? If you want to see what life would look like with the assistance of nobody look at any other planet.

 

[Jainarayan]

I absolutely don't believe that. Siva emanated this diversity, something for everyone, including all the variations of non-belief.

This goes for me too, and I dare say the overwhelming majority of Hindus. We believe our religion/way/path/beliefs are correct and true for us, not necessarily for anyone else. The beliefs of others are correct for them. Problems arise when one person or group, or another tells others their way is incorrect or false.

 

[Vinayaka]

This goes for me too, and I dare say the overwhelming majority of Hindus. We believe our religion/way/path/beliefs are correct and true for us, not necessarily for anyone else. The beliefs of others are correct for them. Problems arise when one person or group, or another tells others their way is incorrect or false.

Actually one of the reasons I'm a Hindu. Not the primary reason, but a confirmation of what I already believed. The idea of 'one truth for all' never did make any sense to me.

 

[PearlSeeker]

That doesn't really answer my question. How would me responding to these help you address what my religion is, to you, since it's not about teaching truths, isn't a social club, and isn't just folkloric? Are religions that focus on practice just not religions, in your view?

To answer that I need more information. That's why I asked.

 

[walt]

think about a painter does he at any time get assistance to paint the picture from nobody? If there is 5,000 strokes of the brush involved, is even one stroke accomplished by the means of nobody? Did nobody make the frame and the canvas? Did nobody assemble the canvas and frame onto the easel? Did the paints show up by themselves to assist the painter? Who made the paint brushes? Nobody? Everything that is accomplished to paint the picture is always accomplished by somebody, nobody assists the painter in any way! Even if a robot assisted the painter to paint the picture the robot is designed and built by somebody. I worked at many jobs for over 50 years and I never got any assistance to build anything from nobody! If the painter cannot acquire the assistance of any kind to even the smallest degree, even one stroke from nobody who does something as complicated as a human body? Who designs it? Who creates it? It took man how many years to create automobiles like we see today? The human body is much more complex than an automobile. If a person cannot get assistance to build anything to the smallest degree how does life that we see on earth exist? If you want to see what life would look like with the assistance of nobody look at any other planet.

 

[Trailblazer]

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

I believe that was probably true until the Revelation of Baha'u'llah.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

what do you think is important that Jesus says?

First, I am not remotely convinced that Jesus actually said everything that is attributed to him. The writers of the Gospels wrote quite some time after Jesus was dead. If I asked you to quote, verbatim, a speech of some length that you heard 10, 20 or even 50 years ago, I have very little confidence that you could do it. As someone who has acted, I can tell you how hard it is to correctly remember something that you rehearsed for many weeks, and performed for perhaps longer, after even a few years. To think that the disciples could remember so much from a period of 1-3 years, 35 to 80 years after his death is, to me, a tad hard to swallow.

That Jesus may, however, have actually said some "good things" and given good moral and/or spiritual advice does not in any way offer evidence for the existence of God, nor that God was his "father."

And I do not consider everything Jesus is supposed to have said was good or "important." Forgiving others is a very good precept in my view, but taking no thought for tomorrow is pretty lame, and will do little to help build funds to send your kids to school, or support yourself when you've retired.

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing what Jesus actually said. All we have are the words of those who wrote the New Testament.
That said, I agree that those words are more essential than my words or the words of most anyone.

 

[Echogem222]

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!

I believe in my religion, Flawlessism because it actually acknowledges the, "Why does suffering exist" question in a way that makes sense and isn't ignoring it, but it also acknowledges that it could be wrong, which is why it can be improved through trial and error. Flawlessism is fully a religion and fully a philosophy, if one part of it is proven wrong, it can just be edited and fixed using philosophical reasoning, so it has a higher amount of reasonability to have faith in that many religions I've seen do, which claim some type of divine authority with no concrete evidence. Not only all that, but it offers a way through the suffering in life in a way that I see as the most hopeful, yet also most reasonable.

But to understand Flawlessism correctly requires a lot of research into philosophy and other things, not just understanding the teachings in Flawlessism, so it's age restricted to 18 and up to prevent indoctrination of minors who are too young and therefore too prone to not understand it correctly. I have not heard of a single religion which is restricted to 18 and up, it's always religions that claim anyone can understand it with just a little bit of time. To me, such methods sound like scams, the "too good to be true" promise I'm sure many of us here are familiar with. Simply said, I understand that since things like science require a lot of education to understand in-depth, why should religion be any different? To imply that it should be to me seems like ignoring the way reality truly is, the suffering which exists in life that makes everything more difficult.

I'm not trying to offend anyone with this reply, but these are just my views.

 

[Trailblazer]

And I do not consider everything Jesus is supposed to have said was good or "important." Forgiving others is a very good precept in my view, but taking no thought for tomorrow is pretty lame, and will do little to help build funds to send your kids to school, or support yourself when you've retired.

Matthew 6:34 NIV
Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.

That verse does not mean we should not plan for the future and live accordingly. It only means that we should not worry about what is going to happen tomorrow. I can vouch for that since I have an anxiety condition. Living in the present is the only way I survive.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Matthew 6:34 NIV
Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.

That verse does not mean we should not plan for the future and live accordingly. It only means that we should not worry about what is going to happen tomorrow. I can vouch for that since I have an anxiety condition. Living in the present is the only way I survive.

I would have preferred you kept the entire context.

Matthew 6:25-34

25 Therefore I say unto you, Be not anxious for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than the food, and the body than the raiment? 26 Behold the birds of the heaven, that they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; and your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are not ye of much more value than they? 27 And which of you by being anxious can add one cubit unto [a]the measure of his life? 28 And why are ye anxious concerning raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin: 29 yet I say unto you, that even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. 30 But if God doth so clothe the grass of the field, which to-day is, and to-morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith? 31 Be not therefore anxious, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed? 32 For after all these things do the Gentiles seek; for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things. 33 But seek ye first his kingdom, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you. 34 Be not therefore anxious for the morrow: for the morrow will be anxious for itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.

All-in-all, I think this is foolish nonsense.

 

[Trailblazer]

All-in-all, I think this is foolish nonsense.

In the sense that we are not birds or lilies of the field, it makes no sense to compare us to them.
We have to live in the present with the future in mind, but we don't have to worry about the future.

Of course this is a parable so I don't think it is meant to be taken literally.

 

[Quintessence]

To answer that I need more information. That's why I asked.

Fair enough.

No, I do not have "private parties" with Moon. I, like those of many other religions that involve personal and/or private practice, hold ritual where we worship our gods. It is not a "party." It is "private" in that it takes place in my own home, on private property, and I do not invite others. Home worship is routine for many religious traditions, especially for religious minorities. The closest I could get to any sort of group ritual is at the local Unitarian Universalist fellowship, which is not specific to Paganism or Druidry. Most contemporary Pagans thus honor their gods in private, on their own, or perhaps with their family or trusted close friends. It is dominated by solitary practitioners, a trend that has only increased based on the data gathered by scholars by Helen Berger who have kept an eye on the demographics of these religious traditions. I could go into a lot of words about why this is, because it directly relates to the countercultural nature of contemporary Paganism as a religious movement, but that's neither here nor there.

I started accepting reality/nature/universe and its various aspects as sacred/gods/divine when I was liberated from the theological cage I was indoctrinated into by the culture I grew up in. I was simply ignorant and didn't know any better, to keep it short and simple.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

In the sense that we are not birds or lilies of the field, it makes no sense to compare us to them.
We have to live in the present with the future in mind, but we don't have to worry about the future.

That is the whole point: if you are careful about planning for the future, you have much less reason to worry about it.

Of course this is a parable so I don't think it is meant to be taken literally.

Actually, it's not a parable at all. It is purported to be Jesus speaking at the "Sermon on the Mount," so these are meant to be actual instructions that should be followed. I suspect that plucking out the offending eye might be metaphorical, but in general, this is really a sermon -- advice about how to live in a way that Jesus (or the person who wrote the text) thinks will be beneficial for his listeners.

 

[Trailblazer]

That is the whole point: if you are careful about planning for the future, you have much less reason to worry about it.

You can plan for some things but not for everything.
I planned for my financial future so now I will never have to worry about money again even if I choose to retire right now.
However, I did not plan to have my husband die so suddenly and leave me a widow, and no planning would have prevented that.

Actually, it's not a parable at all. It is purported to be Jesus speaking at the "Sermon on the Mount," so these are meant to be actual instructions that should be followed. I suspect that plucking out the offending eye might be metaphorical, but in general, this is really a sermon -- advice about how to live in a way that Jesus (or the person who wrote the text) thinks will be beneficial for his listeners.

That is news to me, but I am sure you know the Bible better than I do. I only know a smattering of verses.
It is a Sermon I would not want to take too literally, so I can only hope people know better.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

You can plan for some things but not for everything.
I planned for my financial future so now I will never have to worry about money again even if I choose to retire right now.
However, I did not plan to have my husband die so suddenly and leave me a widow, and no planning would have prevented that.

Of course you can't plan for everything. That is hardly a reason to plan for nothing, though, is it? As with anything to do with the future, although we can't know how it will turn out, we do have a lot of ideas about "how thing's usually turn out," and we can at least tentatively include that in our planning.

Think of how life insurance works: no actuary has any idea of when you, me or any other individual (including himself) will die -- however, he has a very, very strong grasp of how many people in a given population will live for any length of time in the future, and can thus safely plan how much money must be in the pension fund.

 

[Trailblazer]

Of course you can't plan for everything. That is hardly a reason to plan for nothing, though, is it?

Of course not and my financial advisor will testify to that. Many years ago he told us (when there was an us) that we were in the top 5% of people who will have enough money for retirement.

As with anything to do with the future, although we can't know how it will turn out, we do have a lot of ideas about "how thing's usually turn out," and we can at least tentatively include that in our planning.

How things usually turn out is that a married couple retires and starts to 'enjoy life' if they planned well enough for that retirement and have ample funds. They might even enjoy life for a number of years, but as we both know people get sick and people die, and as much as people don't like to think about it one spouse will be left behind.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Fair enough.

No, I do not have "private parties" with Moon. I, like those of many other religions that involve personal and/or private practice, hold ritual where we worship our gods. It is not a "party." It is "private" in that it takes place in my own home, on private property, and I do not invite others. Home worship is routine for many religious traditions, especially for religious minorities. The closest I could get to any sort of group ritual is at the local Unitarian Universalist fellowship, which is not specific to Paganism or Druidry. Most contemporary Pagans thus honor their gods in private, on their own, or perhaps with their family or trusted close friends. It is dominated by solitary practitioners, a trend that has only increased based on the data gathered by scholars by Helen Berger who have kept an eye on the demographics of these religious traditions. I could go into a lot of words about why this is, because it directly relates to the countercultural nature of contemporary Paganism as a religious movement, but that's neither here nor there.

I started accepting reality/nature/universe and its various aspects as sacred/gods/divine when I was liberated from the theological cage I was indoctrinated into by the culture I grew up in. I was simply ignorant and didn't know any better, to keep it short and simple.

Sorry, I didn't mean to offend you with "private party". It was not meant literally...

So your religious truth is that reality/nature/universe and its various aspects are sacred/gods/divine. You actually have faith in this. You just don't teach anyone (other than yourself). So your religion is actually a religion (not just folklore).