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

[Quintessence]

In other words, your position here is literally self-defeating.

If that's how you interpret it and feel it would work in your own life, sure. That's not how this "position" - in quotes because this your term - plays out in mine. I didn't realize we were engaged in battle with victory and defeat conditions.

But since we are, what did I loose? Ah, no need to answer. Whatever you say, yes. Also, no.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I see everyone is being very gentle about this topic, so far. But I can't forget that there are still "Christian Nationalists" in the US (including in Congress), or that Iran and some other Muslim countries are boardering on theocracies.

In the United States, Christian Nationalism has been described as a "national renewal project that envisions a pure American body that is heterosexual, white, native-born, that speaks English as a first language, and that is thoroughly patriarchal." These are all (with the exception of the "white" and "English") thoroughly reflective of a biblical world-view, in much the same way that these same way the Islamic countries admire most of the same qualities.

I do not think it is possible to say that you want your nations laws (which apply to everyone) to also reflect your own particular religious beliefs, and not suppose, at the same time, that other religious beliefs must somehow therefore not be "true" enough.

More than 80 countries around the world favour a specific religion, either as an official, government-endorsed religion or by affording one religion preferential treatment over other faiths, according to a new Pew Research Center analysis of data covering 199 countries and territories around the world.

Islam is the most common government-endorsed faith, with 27 countries (including most in the Middle East-North Africa region) officially enshrining Islam as their state religion. By comparison, just 13 countries (including nine European nations) designate Christianity or a particular Christian denomination as their state religion.

But an additional 40 governments around the globe unofficially favor a particular religion, and in most cases the preferred faith is a branch of Christianity. Indeed, Christian churches receive preferential treatment in more countries – 28 – than any other unofficial but favored faith.

As the world (or at least the first world, western nations) become increasingly cosmopolitan and multi-cultural, I see this as problematic, and I also suggest that it demonstrates to some extent my comments in the OP, 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."

Now, some may argue that the reason for such favouritism is "social harmony," but I put it to you, how can it be called "harmonious" to reduce some (often large) component of your society as of lesser value?

 

[MikeF]

I see everyone is being very gentle about this topic, so far.

Man, it feels like you just called us a bunch of sissy's. You're really itch'n ta start somethin, ain't cha.

 

[Quintessence]

I do not think it is possible to say that you want your nations laws (which apply to everyone) to also reflect your own particular religious beliefs, and not suppose, at the same time, that other religious beliefs must somehow therefore not be "true" enough.

Do you know why do you believe this?

Are you really not familiar with both/and thinking? Relativism and pluralism? Anything that isn't black-and-white, this-or-that, true-or-false binary thinking?

I think part of why you are just not getting the responses you want is because a lot of us - myself included - occupy the both/and pluralism space. One can support one's own ideals without presuming that those who think differently are somehow "false" or "incorrect" or "sinners" or whatever. That religious tolerance exists at all is proof enough of such.

 

[JustGeorge]

Many? Hinduism and Buddhism, yes. But what others do you find compatible with atheism?

I've met a good number of atheist Druids. Atheism and Paganism aren't incompatible, either.

In all honesty, any that are not Abrahamic.

I fully consider the Abrahamics faulty, even crippled due to this eccentricity of theirs.

If I'm not mistaken, some Jews consider themselves atheist(and focus more on the cultural aspect).

I've met a few Christians that don't actually believe in Yahweh/Jesus, but honor the morality of the faith and accept it as part of their culture(though its not a common outlook, for sure).

I see everyone is being very gentle about this topic, so far. But I can't forget that there are still "Christian Nationalists" in the US (including in Congress), or that Iran and some other Muslim countries are boardering on theocracies.

In the United States, Christian Nationalism has been described as a "national renewal project that envisions a pure American body that is heterosexual, white, native-born, that speaks English as a first language, and that is thoroughly patriarchal." These are all (with the exception of the "white" and "English") thoroughly reflective of a biblical world-view, in much the same way that these same way the Islamic countries admire most of the same qualities.

I do not think it is possible to say that you want your nations laws (which apply to everyone) to also reflect your own particular religious beliefs, and not suppose, at the same time, that other religious beliefs must somehow therefore not be "true" enough.

More than 80 countries around the world favour a specific religion, either as an official, government-endorsed religion or by affording one religion preferential treatment over other faiths, according to a new Pew Research Center analysis of data covering 199 countries and territories around the world.

Islam is the most common government-endorsed faith, with 27 countries (including most in the Middle East-North Africa region) officially enshrining Islam as their state religion. By comparison, just 13 countries (including nine European nations) designate Christianity or a particular Christian denomination as their state religion.

But an additional 40 governments around the globe unofficially favor a particular religion, and in most cases the preferred faith is a branch of Christianity. Indeed, Christian churches receive preferential treatment in more countries – 28 – than any other unofficial but favored faith.

As the world (or at least the first world, western nations) become increasingly cosmopolitan and multi-cultural, I see this as problematic, and I also suggest that it demonstrates to some extent my comments in the OP, 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."

Now, some may argue that the reason for such favouritism is "social harmony," but I put it to you, how can it be called "harmonius" to reduce some (often large) component of your society as of lesser value?

If you were hoping to hear from Christian Nationalists, you should have been more specific in who you aimed the thread at.

 

[Kenny]

No idea of what that would mean.

That there is more than just life in this body.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Man, it feels like you just called us a bunch of sissy's. You're really itch'n ta start somethin, ain't cha.

I rather think that you are projecting. I don't associate the word "gentle" with "sissy." I try to be gentle myself.

But, I was careful to put this thread into a debate-friendly sub-forum, so I shouldn't think that a little "back-and-forth" would be too out-of-place.

As a keen observer of news, troubles between nations and individuals, at home and abroad -- and as a humanist deeply interesting in finding a better way forward for humanity than we seem to be witnessing at the moment -- I think my comments are worthy of discussion. Uganda is busily trying to kill LGBTQ people, and many red states in the US are mounting formidable barriers against many of those people, too. And, to say truth, it appears very much to me that those are examples of finding "an enemy" that we can all gang up on together, which is an old ploy.

There's no need for me to bring up the American "pastors" who laid claim to "God's wrath against homosexuals" for natural disasters. There are lots: John McTernan blamed Hurricane Sandy on Obama's support for same-sex marriage; Cindy Jacobs claimed 2011 earthquake and tsunami that killed 16,000 in Japan on the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell;" Tony Perkins often claimed natural disasters were God's wrath on homos (go figure why his own home was destroyed by flood in 2016). There are so many more.

These are all people, each and every one, who are making the implicit (and often explicit) claim that their religious beliefs have something important and universal to say, and that nations and their governors had better pay attention, "or else!" Are these things not worth discussing? Or evening having a debate about?

 

[sun rise]

If I'm not mistaken, some Jews consider themselves atheist(and focus more on the cultural aspect).

The word "Jew" is an ethnic designation determined typically by martrilineal descent. Not all Jews practice the religion of Judaism and in fact my parents were atheists as was I for a time.

 

[LuisDantas]

That there is more than just life in this body.

Oh, you are talking about another life(TM)?

I have long concluded that it is not a subject matter of significance for any constructive purposes, be those pragmatic, religious or however one may define "spiritual".

It is sort of obvious, really.

 

[LuisDantas]

I've met a few Christians that don't actually believe in Yahweh/Jesus, but honor the morality of the faith and accept it as part of their culture(though its not a common outlook, for sure).

I'm not so sure myself. At least here in Brazil people just aren't often truly asked whether they believe in god or Jesus; it is usually taken for granted and there is a social penalty associated with going against that flow.

Most Brazilian atheists are probably technically registered as Catholics or Christians of other denominations, if only because it is such a hassle to request Apostasy. AFAIK some data bank in the Vatican says that I am a Catholic; I was baptized as such and sent to Eucharisty without being consulted.

It would not surprise me in the least to somehow find out that anywhere around, say, a third or even more of the nominal Christians in Brazil are crypto-atheists, passive nominal "believers" who just don't much care either way, or simply never found themselves in a position to truly consider the matter.

 

[sun rise]

I'm not so sure myself. At least here in Brazil people just aren't often truly asked whether they believe in god or Jesus; it is usually taken for granted and there is a social penalty associated with going against that flow.

Most Brazilian atheists are probably technically registered as Catholics or Christians of other denominations, if only because it is such a hassle to request Apostasy. AFAIK some data bank in the Vatican says that I am a Catholic; I was baptized as such and sent to Eucharisty without being consulted.

It would not surprise me in the least to somehow find out that anywhere around, say, a third or even more of the nominal Christians in Brazil are crypto-atheists, passive nominal "believers" who just don't much care either way, or simply never found themselves in a position to truly consider the matter.

I suspect that a goodly portion of those saying they are "nones" were "social" Christians who went to church to be seen as being upstanding believers but who really did care very much. Now there's no social pressure to pretend to believe at least outside the "BIble belt".

 

[MikeF]

I rather think that you are projecting. I don't associate the word "gentle" with "sissy." I try to be gentle myself.

Perhaps I'm projecting. Yet still, you raised the issue of everyone being gentle and followed it with "but", which I interpreted as being dissatisfied with the gentle handling of the topic.

From my experience, the word “sissy” can be used to indicate being gentle when gentleness is considered inappropriate (in the eyes of the name-caller), not being tough enough, being weak.

But, I was careful to put this thread into a debate-friendly sub-forum, so I shouldn't think that a little "back-and-forth" would be too out-of-place.

As a keen observer of news, troubles between nations and individuals, at home and abroad -- and as a humanist deeply interesting in finding a better way forward for humanity than we seem to be witnessing at the moment -- I think my comments are worthy of discussion. Uganda is busily trying to kill LGBTQ people, and many red states in the US are mounting formidable barriers against many of those people, too. And, to say truth, it appears very much to me that those are examples of finding "an enemy" that we can all gang up on together, which is an old ploy.

There's no need for me to bring up the American "pastors" who laid claim to "God's wrath against homosexuals" for natural disasters. There are lots: John McTernan blamed Hurricane Sandy on Obama's support for same-sex marriage; Cindy Jacobs claimed 2011 earthquake and tsunami that killed 16,000 in Japan on the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell;" Tony Perkins often claimed natural disasters were God's wrath on homos (go figure why his own home was destroyed by flood in 2016). There are so many more.

These are all people, each and every one, who are making the implicit (and often explicit) claim that their religious beliefs have something important and universal to say, and that nations and their governors had better pay attention, "or else!" Are these things not worth discussing? Or evening having a debate about?

I think many religious believers also share your concerns over these types of troubling events. These types of belief were not specified in the OP, though. The OP was a rather soft-shoed call for religious believers to explain why they feel their religion is the right one, or rather, more true than any other. So, when the Buddhist provides their rationale for why Buddhism is more true than other religions, how are you going to work in your concern about LBGTQ folks getting murdered in Uganda or that of John McTernan blaming Hurricane Sandy on Obama's support for same-sex marriage?

What is the objective, ultimately? Is it to reach out to those who feel natural disasters are God’s way of punishing a country for turning away from God in order to change their mind on this belief through debate? How receptive do you think someone who holds these views will be to having their beliefs about God’s intentions challenged by someone who states off the bat that they do not even believe in God. To my mind, that is simply a bridge too far.

To be honest, I really do not know what the best approach would be if the goal is to reach those who harbor a religious based ill-will towards others with the hope of replacing that ill-will with empathy and tolerance. My first inclination would be to try and work within their religious framework in order to find some common ground of shared values, and then build from there. For example, instead of challenging Christianity, work within the Christian framework to encourage them to be a more tolerant, empathetic, and accepting Christian.

Anyway, given human psychology, if the hope is to change hearts and minds, I think debate will have the exact opposite effect and simply result in folks becoming deeply entrenched in their position, quite immune to whatever the other has to say.

If the goal is to not change hearts and minds, then what comes to my mind is to assume the goal is to pick a fight with those who hold views you find abhorrent (the ones you listed above) and simply yell at them.

ETA: Maybe not yell at them, rather, to chastise them publicly for their abhorrent beliefs.

 

[soulsurvivor]

Notwithstanding the fact that Jesus said His work was finished here and He was no more in the world, how would anyone know it was Jesus if Jesus returned?

I did not say it would be Jesus. It is the Christ who would return.

 

[Quintessence]

These are all people, each and every one, who are making the implicit (and often explicit) claim that their religious beliefs have something important and universal to say, and that nations and their governors had better pay attention, "or else!" Are these things not worth discussing? Or evening having a debate about?

Sure. Why isn't any of this the opening post? I am now just even more confused as to what this thread is supposed to be about.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

I'm not at all surprised.

And I'm not surprised that you're not surprised.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Wow! I was not aware that you were such an expert on the various views to be found within the ranks of Judaism.

Come to think of it, you might benefit in learning of folks such as H.E. Archbishop Emeritus Dr. Antje Jackelén ...

Archbishop Emeritus of the Church of Sweden and an Adjunct Professor of systematic theology/religion and science at the Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago. [source]​

The source does not mention about her views. Nothing much on Wikipedia other than the mention of the dissertation. I will try to find out. I am aware that there are atheistic views in Judaism. I would try to find out that too.

"Jewish secularism, which describes Jews who do not explicitly reject the existence of God but also do not believe it is an important part of their Jewishness, has a long tradition in the United States." Jewish atheism - Wikipedia

I go farther than that. Of course there have been many notable Jews who rejected the existence of God, Karl Marx being one of them. Disbelief in God or soul is the basic concept of my Advaita Hinduism. All problems start with them. ('My', because Advaitists mostly would not accept that).

 

[sayak83]

I see everyone is being very gentle about this topic, so far. But I can't forget that there are still "Christian Nationalists" in the US (including in Congress), or that Iran and some other Muslim countries are boardering on theocracies.

In the United States, Christian Nationalism has been described as a "national renewal project that envisions a pure American body that is heterosexual, white, native-born, that speaks English as a first language, and that is thoroughly patriarchal." These are all (with the exception of the "white" and "English") thoroughly reflective of a biblical world-view, in much the same way that these same way the Islamic countries admire most of the same qualities.

I do not think it is possible to say that you want your nations laws (which apply to everyone) to also reflect your own particular religious beliefs, and not suppose, at the same time, that other religious beliefs must somehow therefore not be "true" enough.

More than 80 countries around the world favour a specific religion, either as an official, government-endorsed religion or by affording one religion preferential treatment over other faiths, according to a new Pew Research Center analysis of data covering 199 countries and territories around the world.

Islam is the most common government-endorsed faith, with 27 countries (including most in the Middle East-North Africa region) officially enshrining Islam as their state religion. By comparison, just 13 countries (including nine European nations) designate Christianity or a particular Christian denomination as their state religion.

But an additional 40 governments around the globe unofficially favor a particular religion, and in most cases the preferred faith is a branch of Christianity. Indeed, Christian churches receive preferential treatment in more countries – 28 – than any other unofficial but favored faith.

As the world (or at least the first world, western nations) become increasingly cosmopolitan and multi-cultural, I see this as problematic, and I also suggest that it demonstrates to some extent my comments in the OP, 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."

Now, some may argue that the reason for such favouritism is "social harmony," but I put it to you, how can it be called "harmonious" to reduce some (often large) component of your society as of lesser value?

How is this relevant to the OP post? You asked RF people regarding their opinions on whether they believe that their praxis has exclusive claim to truth. Most have said no... which is good isn't it? The reason why religio-national politics in many countries veer towards a synthesis of national and ethno-religious supremacy mongering can be a separate thread (and the reasons are not unobvious....desire for untramelled power by people in politics by riling up base sentiments is an age old demagogic trick). But most of our "gentle" RF people of faith have little to do with it.

 

[Secret Chief]

In seriousness, though, a radically impractical embrace of paradox is something that roots my worldview that I do not often discuss much. In the day-to-day, it is not very useful beyond promoting a sort of cultural humility and respect for the way all peoples tell their stories. Less focus on "oh ho ho, I gotta be right!" and more focus on "oh ho ho, look at this!" Go figure, as curiosity was cultivated in me from a young age far more than authoritarian obey me obey me rhetoric.

That's great; I was serious about the fence (well, unserious too).

 

[LuisDantas]

I suspect that a goodly portion of those saying they are "nones" were "social" Christians who went to church to be seen as being upstanding believers but who really did care very much.

Same here.

Now there's no social pressure to pretend to believe at least outside the "BIble belt".

I wish I could say the same of any part of Brazil.

 

[MikeF]

Science is one useful tool. Of course, we veer into scientism if we argue it's the only useful tool. But that's a topic for another thread.

Well, the subject of the thread seems to be how one gets to the truth of things or assure themselves that the beliefs they have formed are true.

You seem to be saying that science is only *one* tool among some number of other tools that aid us in getting to the truth of things. What specifically are the other truth-finding, truth-verifying tools to which you allude? I would add that we are talking about getting to universal truths, or things that are true outside of personal subjective preference.

I suppose it would also be interesting to see exactly what you think the tool of science is for. To what do we apply this tool and how does it work?

Point being, religious people aren't uniquely irrational or averse to critical thinking. We are all prone to the cognitive biases that cloud our thinking and protect our paradigms of the world.

I thought I fully acknowledged and accepted your point that *all* human beings are flawed and fallible creatures, each uniquely imperfect in their own way. The question then becomes, is there a way to mitigate "the cognitive biases that cloud our thinking and protect our paradigms of the world" that "we are all prone to."

I have suggested that it is the principles and standards of scientific inquiry that enables us to mitigate our flaws and fallibilities in this regard. You seem to feel there are other means outside of scientific inquiry to mitigate human flaws and fallibilities in determining what is true beyond subjective preference. I am anxious to learn what they might be.