Are all religions equally false?

[JRMcC]

The claim of reincarnation is no exception to the rule of burden of proof.

Sure, but you're missing the point. It's not that there are some religions that have no falsehoods at all, it's that all religions are not equally false.

It claims that humans are possessed of a 'spirit'. Possibly in reference to a supernatural entity that is the 'life force' behind human life. An unproven claim.

I guess I see what you might be talking about... Like buddhists tried to reason about how it is that we're alive? You can't really blame them for not knowing neurology.
I think the fact that Buddhism teaches the belief in an absolute God and eternal individual souls makes it quite a bit less false than the Abrahamic religions. You don't agree with that?
Is believing in the Tao equally absurd as believing in Poseidon? Nawwww way.

 

[Mycroft]

Sure, but you're missing the point. It's not that there are some religions that have no falsehoods at all, it's that all religions are not equally false.

I didn't imply they did. If you read what I put, I said that all religions seem equally unable to prove their claims.

I guess I see what you might be talking about... Like buddhists tried to reason about how it is that we're alive? You can't really blame them for not knowing neurology.
I think the fact that Buddhism teaches the belief in an absolute God and eternal individual souls makes it quite a bit less false than the Abrahamic religions. You don't agree with that?
Is believing in the Tao equally absurd as believing in Poseidon? Nawwww way.

I'm not going to play Shades of Grey to make you feel better!

 

[LuisDantas]

If you define religion as a practice of faith....a belief in God....they are all true.

Assuming that there is a God and that he somehow approves of all forms of beliefs in his existence, that is.

The first assumption is tentative IMO. The second is reckless at the very best.

 

[LuisDantas]

It also claims reincarnation and human 'spirit'. Back to the drawing board, please.

Excuse me? Which Buddhism are you talking about? Not the one that I learned, that is for sure.

 

[JRMcC]

I didn't imply they did. If you read what I put, I said that all religions seem equally unable to prove their claims.

So you just mean they all make certain claims about the physical world that are unscientific and inaccurate? I would agree with that. I just think that on the whole certain religions make significantly more silly claims than others.

I just think it's absurd to directly say that every religion is equally false.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

A "religion" is too heavy and complicated thing to be described with a simple "true" or "false". Parts of may be true, may be false - but to slap a huge "FALSE" stamp onto everything a religion may be comprised of is pretty meaningless.

I have an idea of what you meant in asking the question - more along the lines of dealing with the main-line beliefs of any given religion (the God or gods believed in, existence and form of an afterlife, human spirit or soul, etc.) And in that vein I would have to state that I believe it is indeed true that no one has got it "right".

 

[JRMcC]

A "religion" is too heavy and complicated thing to be described with a simple "true" or "false".

Agreed. I also think that when people talk about "religion" it's a little bit misleading.

 

[JoStories]

I'm always astonished when I hear supposedly intelligent and knowledgeable people claim that all religions are equally false. I guess you know where I stand now, but I'm wondering if there is anyone here who wants to back up that claim.

Share any thoughts you might have on this, even if you don't want to make that claim.

I don't believe they are all equally false but I do see some as more false, or perhaps the better way of saying it is dangerous, such as Scientology, and weird arse cults. (Forgive me....bad day and the bourbon is very nice). I think most have some truth, although I don't believe any had anything divine to offer. Merely very wise men or women who were more enlightened.

 

[Thief]

Assuming that there is a God and that he somehow approves of all forms of beliefs in his existence, that is.

The first assumption is tentative IMO. The second is reckless at the very best.

Labeling my belief at your discretion is reckless.

Of course my beliefs are considered assumption (forum rules).
There is never to be proof.
You know that.

and no...God does not approve of all forms of belief.....especially the nay saying.

 

[Thief]

Agreed. I also think that when people talk about "religion" it's a little bit misleading.

as when non-believers drawn lines to suit their non-belief?

 

[Thief]

...or a seed of a lie...

Parable of.... the Sower of Seed......anyone?

 

[Awoon]

I'm always astonished when I hear supposedly intelligent and knowledgeable people claim that all religions are equally false. I guess you know where I stand now, but I'm wondering if there is anyone here who wants to back up that claim.

Share any thoughts you might have on this, even if you don't want to make that claim.

What religion does any God practice?

 

[Thief]

Agreed as well.

You agreed to a point of misguidance...

You trust only yourself?

Your trust is then as great as you are.

I say trusting there is Something Greater is more rational.
anything less is misguided.

 

[Vishvavajra]

All religions are equally products of human mind and human culture. That does not mean they are all equally useful.

 

[Thief]

What religion does any God practice?

It seems to be creation.
A high level self discipline.

 

[LuisDantas]

Labeling my belief at your discretion is reckless.

Is it? How so, and why?

I am just not seeing it.

Of course my beliefs are considered assumption (forum rules).
There is never to be proof.
You know that.

I do indeed, and it is not just due to any forum rules.

and no...God does not approve of all forms of belief.....especially the nay saying.

If you say so.

Myself, I just see no need for any complications. Any hypothetical deity is worth paying attention if and only if it turns out to be moral. Simple as that.

 

[Thief]

Is it? How so, and why?

I am just not seeing it.



I do indeed, and it is not just due to any forum rules.




If you say so.

Myself, I just see no need for any complications. Any hypothetical deity is worth paying attention if and only if it turns out to be moral. Simple as that.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
It is sufficient.

I suspect there is a Creator.
and He is quite capable of doing as you see fit and moral.

 

[Desert Snake]

So you just mean they all make certain claims about the physical world that are unscientific and inaccurate? I would agree with that. I just think that on the whole certain religions make significantly more silly claims than others.

I just think it's absurd to directly say that every religion is equally false.

There is too much variation in Xianity, and in Buddhism, most likely, to label them as a monolithic ''religion'', in an argument. they are actually more like umbrella terms.

 

[Desert Snake]

All religions are equally products of human mind and human culture. That does not mean they are all equally useful.

I disagree with your definition of 'useful'.

 

[LuisDantas]

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
It is sufficient.

Are you claiming that such a principle is a reason not to question theism?

That is an interesting idea, and one that I very much see a need to challenge.

I suspect there is a Creator.
and He is quite capable of doing as you see fit and moral.

So do many people. Not sure what you expect that statement to say.