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

[Audie]

Neither side has objective evidence, therefore neither can accurately make a true claim about their existence.

Since you bring the word "real" into the mix, can you prove to me that anything in transactional reality is "real?"

No accurate claim that Batboy has no secret lab
on the moon.

" transactional reality"?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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".

Okay, so you are one of the believers in that a defection makes it a fact.
Fair enough, the definition of God is the creator of the universe, so it is fact that God is the creator of the universe.
We are doing philosophy and we have been doing longer than Christianity and just because you can read a definition, doesn't solve anything.

So start here and solve this one, which is as old as science:

Evil demon - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The modern versions are a brain in a vat, a Boltzmann Brain and the simulation hypothesis. And there even older ones that the Evil Demon.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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.

And I would say that you are evil and that I say it makes it a fact. You are doing magical thinking. That you say something doesn't make it a fact

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No accurate claim that Batboy has no secret lab
on the moon.

" transactional reality"?

Just say out of it. It is philosophy and it is so unreally, that you are not even reading this. It is all a bad dream. Just sleep on and soon you will wake up, out of the transactional reality. This is just a bad dream.

 

[SalixIncendium]

" transactional reality"?

The reality perceived in waking consciousness…relative reality.

 

[Audie]

The reality perceived in waking consciousness…relative reality.

Right

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Right

I didn't understand it. What does it mean?

 

[SalixIncendium]

Right

I didn't know I was being quizzed...

Do I get a prize?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Religion is too vast a topic to have a unifying rightness or wrongness. We are used to the dominating proselytic monotheistic approaches because that's what most religious practitioners believe. But there's very little connecting something like Christianity or Islam to something like Taoism or animism.

Including "preference of belief over reason." Which not only glosses over that religions like Dharmic religious individuals have the highest education demographic and do more for advancing the sciences and reasoned discourse than atheists as a demographic do, but also the value of empiricism (and methodological naturalism) as the benchmark for reason as a whole is inofitself an unverifiable belief.

 

[Colt]

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.

I’m saying that atheist can and do have values, they just refuse to credit the source.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I’m saying that atheist can and do have values, they just refuse to credit the source.

I’d have to disagree with this. I’ve seen many atheists credit the parents for their values.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I’m saying that atheist can and do have values, they just refuse to credit the source.

I do credit the source, in fact. The source is three-fold: my evolution, the cultural influences of my community, and my responses to my own thoughts and behaviours.

 

[an anarchist]

If there is no spiritual force of any kind, then, all religions are wrong and atheists are right, right?

 

[danieldemol]

It's the earth we are turning into an ash heap, not the moon and Mars. Does being needlessly, and in this case misguidedly insulting help your cause?

Going to the moon and Mars has not turned the earth into an ash heap in my view, so it would seem my remark was justified.

In my opinion.

 

[Audie]

I’d have to disagree with this. I’ve seen many atheists credit the parents for their values.

That, though our culture developed our values
over the millenia.
Like other cultures.

 

[Audie]

If there is no spiritual force of any kind, then, all religions are wrong and atheists are right, right?

What is a "spiritual force"?

A religion can't very well be either right or wrong.

You are not making much evident sense

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

I prefer to think that all religions are similarly right and that they are a valuable and special part of culture and society. They inspire people to make famous works of art, write great works of literature and give many people a sense of meaning and purpose in this life. Why should we deny them that pleasure for the wrongs it has done? Religion, just like every organization, has some good, has some bad, but overall when applied correctly can guide a moral and just life for every person in society - no matter what religion they practice.

 

[paarsurrey]

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.

​

Is there a way in which all Atheism people are similarly wrong, please?

Regards

 

[danieldemol]

The modern versions are a brain in a vat, a Boltzmann Brain and the simulation hypothesis. And there even older ones that the Evil Demon.

I believe the proposers of all these theories treat the senses as determiners of reality in practice. If they didn't they would discontinue eating, breathing etc and die.

So their pragmatic acceptance of the sensory world as real in spite of theoretical objections would seem to give us common ground to work with in my view.

 

[Colt]

I do credit the source, in fact. The source is three-fold: my evolution, the cultural influences of my community, and my responses to my own thoughts and behaviours.

IMOP this is the truth about morals and values:


“The human mind does not create real values; human experience does not yield universe insight. Concerning insight, the recognition of moral values and the discernment of spiritual meanings, all that the human mind can do is to discover, recognize, interpret, and choose.

The moral values of the universe become intellectual possessions by the exercise of the three basic judgments, or choices, of the mortal mind:

1. Self-judgment—moral choice.
2. Social-judgment—ethical choice.
3. God-judgment—religious choice.

196:3.15 Thus it appears that all human progress is effected by a technique of conjoint revelational evolution.“ UB 1955