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

[Audie]

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

You say a lot of things of no value

​

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

Regards

Ask a question that makes sense

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

​

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

Regards

I cannot think of one, but that might be my prejudice. But just as I provided an answer to my question, perhaps you could provide an answer to yours, and we could discuss that?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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

Well, as you said, that's your opinion. There's little evidence to suggest that "universal insight" actually even has any reified meaning.

But surely your third point cannot be serious: "God-judgment--religious choice?" A human making a religious choice is not and cannot be God (or she wouldn't be a human making the choice).

Now, I'd ask you to expand on this seeming deepity: "technique of conjoint revelational evolution."

 

[danieldemol]

Including "preference of belief over reason." Which not only glosses over that religions like Dharmic religious individuals have the highest education demographic

is that relative to other religions or relative to atheists?

and do more for advancing the sciences and reasoned discourse than atheists as a demographic do

Well they are a larger more organised group, which gives them access to greater resources, but I see no reason atheists couldn't surpass them given sufficient numbers.

, but also the value of empiricism (and methodological naturalism) as the benchmark for reason as a whole is inofitself an unverifiable belief.

It is a belief which has so far produced greater results than any alternative i know of in my view.

In my opinion.

 

[fantome profane]

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

If I can ask, hypothetically if someone had the audacity to claim that the tooth fairy did not exist, would you have the same objection? It seems to me it would fit, if anything there is more evidence for the tooth fairy than I have seen for any deity.


*Not that I am making any claims about the existence of any Deity nor any of the Fae (with or without a dental fetish)



(please don’t mistake my reticence as wisdom on my part, I assure you it is just cowardice.)

 

[Colt]

Well, as you said, that's your opinion. There's little evidence to suggest that "universal insight" actually even has any reified meaning.

But surely your third point cannot be serious: "God-judgment--religious choice?" A human making a religious choice is not and cannot be God (or she wouldn't be a human making the choice).

Now, I'd ask you to expand on this seeming deepity: "technique of conjoint revelational evolution."

“Conjoint revelation” is referring to the revelation of spiritual truth that has been ongoing throughout evolution coming from a number spiritual influences. The Cosmic Mind spirits have influenced all mind.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

“Conjoint revelation” is referring to the revelation of spiritual truth that has been ongoing throughout evolution coming from a number spiritual influences. The Cosmic Mind spirits have influenced all mind.

Ah! Sadly, I haven't met the "Cosmic Mind spirits." Can you tell me where I can find them?

 

[SalixIncendium]

If I can ask, hypothetically if someone had the audacity to claim that the tooth fairy did not exist, would you have the same objection? It seems to me it would fit, if anything there is more evidence for the tooth fairy than I have seen for any deity.

I emboldened a portion of what you said for emphasis, because this is key.

There is subjective evidence for god(s), but no objective evidence. For most, god(s) is a personal experience. Just because you haven't experienced something directly doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Conversely, any evidence of the tooth fairy is squashed once a child learns who is actually placing the money under the pillow.

 

[fantome profane]

I emboldened a portion of what you said for emphasis, because this is key.

There is subjective evidence for god(s), but no objective evidence. For most, god(s) is a personal experience. Just because you haven't experienced something directly doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Conversely, any evidence of the tooth fairy is squashed once a child learns who is actually placing the money under the pillow.

Fair enough. Of course people claim subjective personal evidence for many many things, including fairies ghosts monsters etc.

*Someone could even claim they know there is no God because they have had a revelation, or it came to them in a dream, or they just feel it etc.


*Again, this hypothetical someone is not me.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

is that relative to other religions or relative to atheists

Well they are a larger more organised group, which gives them access to greater resources, but I see no reason atheists couldn't surpass them given sufficient numbers

It was a demographic PewResearch study series which includes multiple religions and atheists, not by gross population but by average ratios.

There was a US national one where Hindu placed highest and a global one where Jews placed highest.

And another where the overall faith of scientists is overwhelmingly Catholic. (With the *big* exception of biologists because, to be honest, a human creating God or gods and natural selection makes very little sense together.)

It is a belief which has so far produced greater results than any alternative i know of in my view

'Greater' is a value judgement that can only be assessed on shared goals. And while methodological naturalism without question has utility for a lot of shared goals, the belief that anything outside its applicability is valueless is an insubstantial opinion. And I'm not talking about God of the gaps because I'm not a theist, but even in so called "soft sciences" like sociology and psychology where you simply can't use empiricism on its own to get the type of results chemistry or biology can. Because there's entire portions of its methodology which are untestable.

Something inherently ascientific is not necessarily without value. Just depends on shared goals and thus desired utility.

 

[PearlSeeker]

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

It seems that the groups you mention had no significant affect on the nationally representative survey data.

How and what? Here are some things from findings reports:

This report demonstrates that religion among U.S. adolescents is positively related to participation in constructive youth activities. In addition, those who participate in religious activities seem to be less likely to participate in many delinquent and risk behaviors, as seen in the following areas:... "​

​

Areas mentioned: substance abuse, safety and danger, crime and violence, school problems, constructive activities and supervision.

In sum, regular religious service attendance, high subjective importance of faith and many years spent participating in religious youth groups are clearly associated with safer, healthier, more constructive lifestyles for U.S. teenagers — even after holding constant the effects of nine other control variables.​

​

From another report:

The 31 percent of all 12th graders who attend religious services weekly and the 30 percent of high school seniors for whom religion is very important are significantly more likely than non-attenders and the non-religious to​

◆ have positive attitudes toward themselves​

◆ enjoy life as much as anyone​

◆ feel like their lives are useful​

◆ feel hopeful about their futures​

◆ feel satisfied with their lives​

◆ feel like they have something of which to be proud​

◆ feel good to be alive​

◆ feel like life is meaningful​

◆ enjoy being in school​

​

Source:

Reports // Youth and Religion // University of Notre Dame

The National Study of Youth and Religion is a research project directed by Christian Smith, Professor in the Department of Sociology at the University of Notre Dame and Lisa Pearce, Assistant Professor of Sociology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. This project, generously...

youthandreligion.nd.edu

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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.

Okay, yes.
We start with the following 3 axiomatic assumptions.
The universe is real.
The universe is orderly.
The universe is knowable.

The problem is then if real, orderly and knowable can be done with only one methodology, that always produces correct positive answers?
The short answer is no!
Nobody has solved the is-ought problem for the different versions of wrong.
That if religion is wrong cognitively, doesn't mean it is wrong morally and that you can't use religion to cope as human.

What you guys as non-religious try to do, have nothing to do with that you are atheists.
It has to do with this:

Science has limits: A few things that science does not do - Understanding Science

undsci.berkeley.edu

 

[Colt]

Ah! Sadly, I haven't met the "Cosmic Mind spirits." Can you tell me where I can find them?

In your mind.

“The seven adjutants have been given the following names: the spirit of wisdom, the spirit of worship, the spirit of counsel, the spirit of knowledge, the spirit of courage, the spirit of understanding, the spirit of intuition—of quick perception.”

Often a person may sense the guidance of the right answer to life’s problems yet choose not to take the leading of the spirit. Often they don’t realize that it’s the spirit seeking to guide them.

 

[danieldemol]

That if religion is wrong cognitively, doesn't mean it is wrong morally and that you can't use religion to cope as human.

I dont think all religion is wrong morally, but I do believe that Judaism, Christianity, Islam and the Baha'i faith contain texts with immoral teachings.

I believe people can use religion to cope as a human, but I dont personally follow any of the organised religions, although I have a degree of respect for Secular Humanism, Buddhism and Unitarian Universalism.

What you guys as non-religious try to do, have nothing to do with that you are atheists.

I'm not an atheist. I believe atheism is logical, but do not personally adhere strictly to logic.

Hope that helps you form a better picture of what I'm like.

 

[PearlSeeker]

I dont think all religion is wrong morally, but I do believe that Judaism, Christianity, Islam and the Baha'i faith contain texts with immoral teachings.

Despite some primitive violent parts in the scriptures this generally doesn't affect today's believers as the survey in my post shows:

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

I’m saying that atheist can and do have values, they just refuse to credit the source. You say a lot of things of no value Is there a way in which all Atheism people are similarly wrong, please? Regards Ask a question that makes sense

www.religiousforums.com

 

[1213]

...get the CO2 out of the air so we can keep breathing...

Without CO2, plants don't grow. And if plants don't grow, they don't produce O2. And without O2 you will die. CO2 is very important and it is irrational to be against it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Without CO2, plants don't grow. And if plants don't grow, they don't produce O2. And without O2 you will die. CO2 is very important and it is irrational to be against it.

But different levels have different effects.

 

[syo]

When a person accepts modern abrahamics, they are wrong. Modern abrahamics belong to the dust bin.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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

How can, "I don't believe in gods" be wrong? That is the sine qua non of atheism. That is what is true about all atheists, and if it's not true for a given person, he's not an atheist.

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.

Not a problem for the humanist, who has eliminated the problems religious belief causes for believers. Religion is never more important than love for the humanist, and never corrupts his understanding of what love is and entails. Likewise with justice and mercy. The humanist doesn't use such words to describe a deity that requires blood sacrifice and is willing to torture forever without the possibility of parole for the mistake of not guessing to believe in a particular god. I think you'll find the words and deeds of humanists to be more in accord with one another than those of the believers who claim the Golden Rule for themselves as they go on demeaning and oppressing various groups like LGBTQ+, women, and atheists.

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.

Does that only apply to atheists? How about theists doing exactly that? Do you ever give them that message? I don't, because I don't consider their claims that gods exist offensive. But I also don't give that message to fellow atheists, even those who insist that gods don't exist, because why would I? Should I feel insulted?

you came into this thread making the claim that gods don’t exist. The burden of proof is on you.

He gave his argument. It's an ad ignorantiam fallacy if you take it at face value. To paraphrase, "Nobody has proved that gods don't exist to me, so I conclude that they don't."

Did religion fill the oceans with plastic, and the soil and air with toxins, or did we achieve that through the use of science and reason?

Religion and authoritarianism are the chief antagonist to the humanist vision, which is naturalistic and pro-life (in the fullest sense of the phrase, not its most embryonic sense). Abrahamic religion teaches that the world is base and transitory and was created as a playground for man. Let's hear from Christians in government:

• "We don't have to protect the environment, the Second Coming is at hand" - James Watt, Secretary of the Interior under Reagan (note his position and responsibilities)
• "My point is, God's still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous." - Sen. Inhofe, R-Okla
• "The Earth will end only when God declares it's time to be over. Man will not destroy this Earth." - Rep John Shimkus, R-Ill.

You won't find comments like that coming from humanists.

My answer to you is that we will never solve the problems we face right now, until we stop pointing the finger at each other, and learn to develop the best in ourselves while facing up to and mitigating the worst. My answer to myself is that we can only do this when we stop playing God, and humbly ask for His or Her help.

Every believer is playing God when he takes the liberty of speaking for one. It's the people he accuses of wanting to be gods by rejecting religions that want to control him with their unevidenced claims about gods who are humbly making the world a better place for all, including theists. Freedom of (and from) religion is a humanist value.

The atheist contribution is to blight the spiritual experience of the religionists.

If your experience is so easily blighted, it isn't spiritual. You can't blight this humanist's spiritual experience of nature.

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

My conscience is the only source of my values. It issues moral imperatives as well as rewards for compliance and guilt and shame for violation. One learns how to navigate that to maximize satisfaction. I suppose that you will claim that the moral intuitions of my conscience come from a god, but I have no reason to believe that.

 

[Colt]

How can, "I don't believe in gods" be wrong? That is the sine qua non of atheism. That is what is true about all atheists, and if it's not true for a given person, he's not an atheist.

Not a problem for the humanist, who has eliminated the problems religious belief causes for believers. Religion is never more important than love for the humanist, and never corrupts his understanding of what love is and entails. Likewise with justice and mercy. The humanist doesn't use such words to describe a deity that requires blood sacrifice and is willing to torture forever without the possibility of parole for the mistake of not guessing to believe in a particular god. I think you'll find the words and deeds of humanists to be more in accord with one another than those of the believers who claim the Golden Rule for themselves as they go on demeaning and oppressing various groups like LGBTQ+, women, and atheists.

Does that only apply to atheists? How about theists doing exactly that? Do you ever give them that message? I don't, because I don't consider their claims that gods exist offensive. But I also don't give that message to fellow atheists, even those who insist that gods don't exist, because why would I? Should I feel insulted?

He gave his argument. It's an ad ignorantiam fallacy if you take it at face value. To paraphrase, "Nobody has proved that gods don't exist to me, so I conclude that they don't."

Religion and authoritarianism are the chief antagonist to the humanist vision, which is naturalistic and pro-life (in the fullest sense of the phrase, not its most embryonic sense). Abrahamic religion teaches that the world is base and transitory and was created as a playground for man. Let's hear from Christians in government:

• "We don't have to protect the environment, the Second Coming is at hand" - James Watt, Secretary of the Interior under Reagan (note his position and responsibilities)
• "My point is, God's still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous." - Sen. Inhofe, R-Okla
• "The Earth will end only when God declares it's time to be over. Man will not destroy this Earth." - Rep John Shimkus, R-Ill.

You won't find comments like that coming from humanists.

Every believer is playing God when he takes the liberty of speaking for one. It's the people he accuses of wanting to be gods by rejecting religions that want to control him with their unevidenced claims about gods who are humbly making the world a better place for all, including theists. Freedom of (and from) religion is a humanist value.

If your experience is so easily blighted, it isn't spiritual. You can't blight this humanist's spiritual experience of nature.

My conscience is the only source of my values. It issues moral imperatives as well as rewards for compliance and guilt and shame for violation. One learns how to navigate that to maximize satisfaction. I suppose that you will claim that the moral intuitions of my conscience come from a god, but I have no reason to believe that.

Yes, all personality comes from a moral God not math or physics.