Is there a way in which all religions are similarly wrong?

[SalixIncendium]

So, I have to believe that Fairies, The Loch Ness Monster and Yetis exist ?

You don't have to believe anything exists. But to come on a religions forum and announce that no gods exist without a shred of evidence is just bad form and insulting to those who believe.

How do you prove something doesn't exist?

I don't know. Maybe you should figure that out before you go around claiming something doesn't.

 

[Altfish]

I don't know. Maybe you should figure that out before you go around claiming something doesn't.

Someone makes a claim that gods exist.
I say gods don't exist in the same way fairies don't exist, so prove to me gods exist.

The burden of proof is with those making the claim.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So, I have to believe that Fairies, The Loch Ness Monster and Yetis exist ?
How do you prove something doesn't exist? What about Russell's teapot, does that exist?

Real, as opposed to fictional.

Real is in your mind, just like God. You can't point to God and you can't point to real. Your real is a fictional, unreal idea you believe in.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Someone makes a claim that gods exist.
I say gods don't exist in the same way fairies don't exist, so prove to me gods exist.

The burden of proof is with those making the claim.

So prove something is real.

 

[SalixIncendium]

The burden of proof is with those making the claim.

Exactly, and you came into this thread making the claim that gods don’t exist.

The burden of proof is on you.

 

[Kenny]

Yes, I think that is true. Every religion gives preference to belief over reason.

The flaw is found in your opening statement.

1) It automatically invalidates spirituality - which then invalidates reason, if one uses reason, one wouldn't invalidate spirituality.
2) Spirituality doesn't "give preference to belief over reason". Belief can supersede reason - but one doesn't discard reason just because one believes.

So, when one starts with a purely hypothetical position and then finishes the thought as if it were true, then one isn't using reason.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Exactly, and you came into this thread making the claim that gods don’t exist.

The burden of proof is on you.

Or that something is real. I can't wait for that one.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Or that something is real. I can't wait for that one.

Yeah, we kinda gleaned right over that one, didn’t we?

 

[Audie]

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. What would falsify love?

Look at it this way-
Art is love. If the painting is a forgery, it's not
not art or love.
If I loved someone whose affection was a
fraud, my feelings would vanish.
Like a drop of water on a hot stove.

The saying that "god is love" ( weird concept) .
" God" is as fake as a still- wer Van Gogh.

The God is false, is the "love" part real?


In this I must admit the American concept of
"Love" is very alien to me and and means very little.

As for taking seriously anything based on false premise
that seems really stupid to me.

 

[Audie]

The religions may be wrong but they serve a different purpose than science. They solve problems concerning peace and happiness. Even if the cure is placebo it works.

See some research how religion affects life for example:

Specifically, religiousness in U.S. youth has been associated with academic success (Elder & Conger, 2000;Regnerus, 2000;Smith & Denton, 2005), prosocial behavior and volunteerism (Donahue & Benson, 1995), and in some populations, enhanced self-esteem (Elder & Conger, 2000). Religiousness has also been associated with reduced externalizing and delinquent behavior (Benda & Corwyn, 1997;Blakeney & Blakeney, 2006;Elder & Conger, 2000;Elifson, Peterson, & Hadaway, 1983) and internalizing behavior (Smith & Denton, 2005).​

​

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272160282_Soul_Searching_The_Religious_and_Spiritual_Lives_of_American_Teenagers

Solve??
Like how. What.
Religions are very demonstrably the source and
inspiration for vast conflict and horror.

Your selective " association" of religion and academic success takes, does it, into account the religions like JW
the are so against it, those that prohibit it?
The ones, fundamentalist USA. say that promote anti intellectual ignorance as essential to salvation.

Your facile one sided presentation does more to negate yiur claims than support them.
as essential to,p salvation

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Look at it this way-
Art is love. If the painting is a forgery, it's not
not art or love.
If I loved someone whose affection was a
fraud, my feelings would vanish.
Like a drop of water on a hot stove.

The saying that "god is love" ( weird concept) .
" God" is as fake as a still- wer Van Gogh.

The God is false, is the "love" part real?


In this I must admit the American concept of
"Love" is very alien to me and and means very little.

As for taking seriously anything based on false premise
that seems really stupid to me.

So you have evidence that God is false?
As for the false premise, for which it seems stupid to you to use, is not evidence and could be false?

I get it, we just all have think/feel like you and then everything is true.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Many seem to discourage critical analysis of their claims or doctrines. They value faith over rationality.

It's a shame religions like that are taught that it's normal to deny things that have been proven and established through scientific findings.

 

[Fool]

Yes, I think that is true. Every religion gives preference to belief over reason. The Bible claims, within it's own pages, to be revealed truth -- as does the Qu'ran, not to mention Baha'u'llah or the Guru Granth Sahib.

So I'll ask a question: how many human ills have been resolved or ameliorated through scriptural text, compared to how many have been resolved or ameliorated through reason, science and rational inquiry? Is religion curing people of cancer, or is it chemotherapy and surgery? Does Scripture tell you how to get to the moon, or clean up your oceans, or get the CO2 out of the air so we can keep breathing, or is it science that is doing that?

So, my own answer to myself is this: all religions, in my view, are wrong in the same way, in that they insist on belief over reason. And that will never solve the problems we face now, or will face in the future.

When the subject, religion, becomes more important than the object, love(compassion, friendliness, inclusiveness, altruistic..

the subject and objective, or the object and subjective should be in agreement.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Religion was the ethical and moral fabric of cultural evolution around the world long before science began its observation of material reality. The atheist contribution is to blight the spiritual experience of the religionists. IMOP


"Both optimism and pessimism are concept reactions in a mind conscious of values as well as of facts.


"Religion is not grounded in the facts of science the obligations of society, the assumptions of philosophy, or the implied duties of morality. Religion is an independent realm of human response to life situations and is unfailingly exhibited at all stages of human development which are postmoral. Religion may permeate all four levels of the realization of values and the enjoyment of universe fellowship: the physical or material level of self-preservation; the social or emotional level of fellowship; the moral or duty level of reason; the spiritual level of the consciousness of universe fellowship through divine worship." UB 1955

Your quote, highlighted, seems to be making the implication that values, without belief in gods, are impossible. And that is obvious nonsense to anyone who does not believe and yet still has strong values.

And your quote from UB completely ignore the fact that the atheist can enjoy "universal fellowship: the physical or material level of self-preservation, the social or emotional level of fellowship, the moral or duty level of reason, and the spiritual level of the consciousness of universe fellowship" without the need for "divine worship." In fact, having no one they must regard as heretical, they may even be able to enjoy more universal fellowship than theists who must suppose other theists to be in error.

 

[Altfish]

Real is in your mind, just like God. You can't point to God and you can't point to real. Your real is a fictional, unreal idea you believe in.

I certainly can't point to God - why do you think I'm an atheist?
Real means something like - "actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed".

 

[Altfish]

So prove something is real.

I assume you're heading down the Matrix route here but I would say that Australia is real; the Moon is real, I am real.

 

[Altfish]

Exactly, and you came into this thread making the claim that gods don’t exist.

The burden of proof is on you.

No, one cannot prove a negative idea, I state that the claim is false. I'm not making a claim, I'm refuting it.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I certainly can't point to God - why do you think I'm an atheist?
Real means something like - "actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed".

You can point to entities. You can’t point to terms or concepts, like reality, truth, or God.

 

[SalixIncendium]

No, one cannot prove a negative idea, I state that the claim is false. I'm not making a claim, I'm refuting it.

There is no Altfish.

Am I making a claim or refuting it?

 

[Augustus]

Well those are like philosophies, ways of living your life. I am presuming you mean the likes of Buddhism and Jainism

That's what religions are too, and ideologies.

What is the difference between a "philosophy" like Buddhism and a "proper" religion?