• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Legitimate reasons not to believe in God

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
The problem with your thinking is that you value this weak evidence that supports your existing beliefs but ignore the evidence that counters your belief. That is a bias that critical thinkers avoid.
There is no evidence that counters my belief, but there is evidence that supports it.
If your interest was to have the most likely understanding of what is true you would be open to all the evidence. Notice you never cite anything that would be evidence for Hinduism being true even though it has many bits of evidence that you use for your Bahai beliefs.
Why would I be citing evidence for Hinduism being true? I am not a Hindu, I am a Baha'i. A Hindu would most likely cite the Gita as evidence for Hinduism being true, I would if I was a Hindu.
Using your thinking approach anyone can believe any religion is true. And they do. You don’t give other religions the time of day even though they are as valid as yours.
I believe that all the religions are true, and they are just as valid as my religion, but over time the truth in those religions has been obscured by human misinterpretations and misunderstandings.

“It is an indisputable fact that religions have always changed in the course of their long history. Religion, unless it has become a faith of the ‘dead letter’, is a living thing, and to be living means to assimilate, to absorb and incorporate foreign matter. All religions have done this, and the clear source of revelation has become a broad stream made up of many tributaries. In the course of their history all religions have incorporated beliefs and practices alien to them in essence and have thereby departed from their source, the revelation. The religious heritage has been constantly increased, while the revelation has been obscured by human misinterpretations and misunderstandings.”
(Udo Schaefer,The Light Shineth in Darkness: Studies in revelation after Christ, pl. 80)
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
How would you know? An imaginary God is the same as this.
So God is a spirit and can make material things, but he can't make a material thing that he can embody. But he makes other spirit beings, the manifestations, that do enter into a physical body and can reflect God perfectly? Not to mention that people live on as spirit being after their physical body dies? How can anyone "know" this stuff? All they can do is take the word of their chosen prophet.
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
No, I would not regret that. Why would I? Or maybe you're suggesting that I would be punished for that. If that happened, I would regret ever having been born with the gift of reason into a universe with a hiding god who respects faith over reason, where it would be my downfall.
How many people in the various religions tried their best to live up to the rules and beliefs of that religion? But if the Baha'is are right a large percentage of them were believing the wrong thing.

A Hindu dies and asks, "When do I get reincarnated?" "You don't. Reincarnation isn't true." A Jew asks, "What is all this? Heaven? Are you telling me Jesus was true?" "Not exactly... Jesus, Muhammad, the Bab and Baha'u'llah were all true and you missed them all." Then the poor Christian, "Yes, I made it into heaven. My sins have been forgiven, and I was true to Jesus to the end." "Sorry, you denied the return of Christ, Baha'u'llah. You're lucky there is no literal hell. But we do have a special place for those that rejected Baha'u'llah. It's down that dark road a bit, a little further from God, than the Baha'is." And all religion can play that game... that they are the true ones, and the others are wrong.
 
Last edited:

F1fan

Veteran Member
There is no evidence that counters my belief, but there is evidence that supports it.
See what I mean about bias? Critical thinkers point out contrary evidence quite often.

Why would I be citing evidence for Hinduism being true?
Because you are a Baha'i and not a Hindu.

I am not a Hindu, I am a Baha'i.
I know, that's why you will be blind and ignore evidence that is good enough for your Baha'i beliefs, but you reject as good enough for Hinduism.

Don't you think it odd that there are so many Hindus that are content in their beliefs?

A Hindu would most likely cite the Gita as evidence for Hinduism being true, I would if I was a Hindu.
Right, you admit to letting your adherence to a religion guide your thinking about it, and as a means to reject other religionbs.

I believe that all the religions are true, and they are just as valid as my religion,
Great, you are also a Jew and Hindu, excellent.

but over time the truth in those religions has been obscured by human misinterpretations and misunderstandings.
You confirm that in your posts.

Any chance you are wrong in how you think about other religions? Or do you see yourself at better at assessing the religions of other believers than they are?
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Don't you think it odd that there are so many Hindus that are content in their beliefs?
I do not find it odd that there are so many Hindus, given Hinduism is the oldest religion in the world, and religions grow over time.

What religion was on earth first?

Hinduism is the world's oldest religion, according to many scholars, with roots and customs dating back more than 4,000 years. Today, with about 900 million followers, Hinduism is the third-largest religion behind Christianity and Islam. Roughly 95 percent of the world's Hindus live in India.Oct 6, 2017

Hinduism - Origins, Facts & Beliefs - HISTORY
 

Brickjectivity

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Godels theorem does not invalidate truth statements. It isn't making a rebuttal of truth. It says there are axioms that cannot be proven using the system. If you take the reals or the number system do you think it invalidates all mathematics. That we should call NASA and tell them the space missions didn't work because they used Newtonian gravitational equations and it must have been God who steered the ships because all math is no longer true?
Is 2+2 not 4 anymore?
I didn't say it invalidated truth statements but that you cannot prove truth to be true. Induction requires some trust in intuitive results, because you cannot prove that things do not change at the extremes. You intuit and presume they will not with the smallest number of axioms possible. It is analogous to building something with the fewest number of parts hoping to prevent failure. What Godel says that within any system trying to prove its every axiom you need too many axioms -- so many that the system will be inconsistent, so no system can prove itself to be complete.

Is quantum mechanics now not a truthful description of reality? No, it still is. Repeated experiments continue to produce expected results in all sciences. And math still works. Truth is not part of Godels theorem.

And there is no evidence for a theistic God.
Keeping in mind we are still talking about item #1 of the OP. I have in no way ever said in this thread or any other that quantum mechanics was not a description of observations or that math didn't work. I objected that no such proof in #1 could exist whether there was God or not.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
I do not find it odd that there are so many Hindus, given Hinduism is the oldest religion in the world, and religions grow over time.

Zoroastrians might not agree with you...

What religion was on earth first?

Hinduism is the world's oldest religion, according to many scholars, with roots and customs dating back more than 4,000 years. Today, with about 900 million followers, Hinduism is the third-largest religion behind Christianity and Islam. Roughly 95 percent of the world's Hindus live in India.Oct 6, 2017

Hinduism - Origins, Facts & Beliefs - HISTORY

The widespread acceptance of Hinduism without a clear prophet does challenge some of your thoughts on how people determine the truth of their chosen religion, though.

And while it's completely fair to call it the oldest surviving religion, there are older (if less codified) beliefs, including the Aboriginal Dreamtime. Again, these are not prophet driven, dogmatic religions, and are even more entangled with general cultural considerations.

I don't say any of this with any 'right' or 'wrong' answers, I just think things are less consistent and clear than they might appear at first glance in terms of religion, mythology, their spread and their survival.
 

Truthseeker

Non-debating member when I can help myself
I do not find it odd that there are so many Hindus, given Hinduism is the oldest religion in the world, and religions grow over time.

What religion was on earth first?

Hinduism is the world's oldest religion, according to many scholars, with roots and customs dating back more than 4,000 years. Today, with about 900 million followers, Hinduism is the third-largest religion behind Christianity and Islam. Roughly 95 percent of the world's Hindus live in India.Oct 6, 2017

Hinduism - Origins, Facts & Beliefs - HISTORY
How about this one:
  • Most forms of Hinduism are henotheistic, which means they worship a single deity, known as “Brahman,” but still recognize other gods and goddesses. Followers believe there are multiple paths to reaching their god.
Didn't know that.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Zoroastrians might not agree with you...
It is not me who says that Hinduism is the oldest religion, that is what is generally believed.

Hinduism is generally believed to be the world's oldest religion and was founded more than 4,000 years ago. It's difficult to trace its origin because it has no founder and is a compilation of several belief systems. Unlike Christianity or Judaism, Hinduism is not an organized religion. As such, it is sometimes referred to as the "family of religions" because of its accommodating nature. Hinduism was birthed out of a fusion of two cultures. At some point, around 1500 B.C, the Indo-Ayran people migrated to the Indus Valley, located in modern-day Pakistan, where their culture and language merged with the natives of that region. Hinduism evolved out of that unique context and grew to accommodate both cultures as they morphed into one people.

The 7 Oldest Religions In The World
The widespread acceptance of Hinduism without a clear prophet does challenge some of your thoughts on how people determine the truth of their chosen religion, though.
Hindus believe that Krishna was God, but Baha'is believe that Krishna was a Manifestation of God who is tied to Hinduism.

Krishna (/ˈkrɪʃnə/; Sanskrit: कृष्ण IAST: Kṛṣṇa [ˈkr̩ʂɳɐ]) is a major deity in Hinduism. He is worshipped as the eighth avatar of Vishnu and also as the Supreme god in his own right. He is the god of protection, compassion, tenderness, and love; and is one of the most popular and widely revered among Indian divinities.

Krishna - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › K


Baha'is believe that universal Manifestations of God are one of the three kinds of Prophet.

The Three Kinds of Prophets
And while it's completely fair to call it the oldest surviving religion, there are older (if less codified) beliefs, including the Aboriginal Dreamtime. Again, these are not prophet driven, dogmatic religions, and are even more entangled with general cultural considerations.
Baha'is do not believe that Hinduism is the oldest religion that ever existed, we believe that there were religions that preceded Hinduism. We also believe that there were religious cycles that preceded the Adamic cycle of religion, and there were many religions in those cycles, although no trace of them remains since this was before the art of writing developed.

TABLE: BAHA'I SACRED HISTORY

I. PREVIOUS UNIVERSAL CYCLES - of which no trace remains

II. PRESENT UNIVERSAL CYCLE

· A. ADAMIC CYCLE, CYCLE OF PROPHECY - lasted approximately 6,000 years

1. Adam 1. Indian religious figures
2. Noah - Krishna
3. Abraham
4. Moses 2. Zoroaster
5. Jesus 3. Buddha
6. Muhammad
+ Other unknown or unspecified prophets

Ages and Cycles
 

Truthseeker

Non-debating member when I can help myself
Baha'is do not believe that Hinduism is the oldest religion that ever existed, we believe that there were religions that preceded Hinduism. We also believe that there were religious cycles that preceded the Adamic cycle of religion, and there were many religions in those cycles, although no trace of them remains since this was before the art of writing developed.

TABLE: BAHA'I SACRED HISTORY

I. PREVIOUS UNIVERSAL CYCLES - of which no trace remains

II. PRESENT UNIVERSAL CYCLE

· A. ADAMIC CYCLE, CYCLE OF PROPHECY - lasted approximately 6,000 years

1. Adam 1. Indian religious figures
2. Noah - Krishna
3. Abraham
4. Moses 2. Zoroaster
5. Jesus 3. Buddha
6. Muhammad
+ Other unknown or unspecified prophets

Ages and Cycles
Moojen Momen is a careful Baha'i scholar.
Baha'is believe that universal Manifestations of God are one of the three kinds of Prophet.

The Three Kinds of Prophets
I get a page not found for the link.

Here's the quote:

The Three Kinds of Prophets

QUESTION: HOW MANY kinds of divine Prophets are there?

Answer: There are three kinds of divine Prophets. One kind are the universal Manifestations, which are even as the sun. Through Their advent the world of existence is renewed, a new cycle is inaugurated, a new religion is revealed, souls are quickened to a new life, and East and West are flooded with light. These Souls are the universal Manifestations of God and have been sent forth to the entire world and the generality of mankind.

Another kind of Prophets are followers and promulgators, not leaders and law-givers, but they are nonetheless the recipients of the hidden inspirations of God. Yet another kind are Prophets Whose prophethood has been limited to a particular locality. But the universal Manifestations are all-encompassing: They are like the root, and all others are as the branches; they are like the sun, and all others are as the moon and the stars.
‘Abdu’l-Bahá, "Additional Tablets, Extracts and Talks"
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
I didn't say it invalidated truth statements but that you cannot prove truth to be true. Induction requires some trust in intuitive results, because you cannot prove that things do not change at the extremes. You intuit and presume they will not with the smallest number of axioms possible. It is analogous to building something with the fewest number of parts hoping to prevent failure. What Godel says that within any system trying to prove its every axiom you need too many axioms -- so many that the system will be inconsistent, so no system can prove itself to be complete.
A formal system being incomplete tells us nothing about the universe or reality. Are you now wrestling with weather all deities, Krishna, Zeus, Romulus....are all real or not? Are you unable to decide if Islam is the true word of God because of this? Or do you have religious opinions?




Keeping in mind we are still talking about item #1 of the OP. I have in no way ever said in this thread or any other that quantum mechanics was not a description of observations or that math didn't work. I objected that no such proof in #1 could exist whether there was God or not.


Again, Godels work does not render us unable to say things don't exist. Do you struggle with belief in Hercules? Or do you know he's fiction. Are you having a hard time admitting Muslims exist as a people? If Revelation happened and dragons, deities and so on were all fighting and it was the end of the world would you be unable to say "looks like it's true"?

We don't see any of that. Everything else follows predictable rules of probability so no evidence for Gods there. The text looks like syncretic mythology taken from older nations which would make them myth. Godel doesn't really come into play here.
 

Brickjectivity

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
A formal system being incomplete tells us nothing about the universe or reality.
I didn't claim so.

Again, Godels work does not render us unable to say things don't exist. Do you struggle with belief in Hercules? Or do you know he's fiction.
Hercules has characteristics and so can be disproved, he isn't merely unproven. To disprove him requires no formal system, and proving his existence would be easy if he did exist.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
It is not me who says that Hinduism is the oldest religion, that is what is generally believed.

My point about Zoroastrianism isn't that it was older than Hinduism. Whilst old, it is not older then Hinduism.
My point was that you said that religions grow over time. Zoroastrianism is an ancient, still surviving religion, but it's certainly not one that has grown over time, and it is in decline even as we speak.
I would suggest the reason for it's growth...or lack thereof...is tightly entwined with the fate of the Persian Empire, and the rise of Islam. It's a prophet driven, ancient, and still surviving religion, so it seems to meet the criteria you're suggesting would indicate belief and growth, but this has not occurred.

Hinduism is generally believed to be the world's oldest religion and was founded more than 4,000 years ago. It's difficult to trace its origin because it has no founder and is a compilation of several belief systems. Unlike Christianity or Judaism, Hinduism is not an organized religion. As such, it is sometimes referred to as the "family of religions" because of its accommodating nature. Hinduism was birthed out of a fusion of two cultures. At some point, around 1500 B.C, the Indo-Ayran people migrated to the Indus Valley, located in modern-day Pakistan, where their culture and language merged with the natives of that region. Hinduism evolved out of that unique context and grew to accommodate both cultures as they morphed into one people.

The 7 Oldest Religions In The World

Believe me, I'm well aware of Hindus place as the oldest surviving religion, and it's less dogmatic structure in comparison to the Abrahamic religions.

Hindus believe that Krishna was God, but Baha'is believe that Krishna was a Manifestation of God who is tied to Hinduism.

Krishna (/ˈkrɪʃnə/; Sanskrit: कृष्ण IAST: Kṛṣṇa [ˈkr̩ʂɳɐ]) is a major deity in Hinduism. He is worshipped as the eighth avatar of Vishnu and also as the Supreme god in his own right. He is the god of protection, compassion, tenderness, and love; and is one of the most popular and widely revered among Indian divinities.

Krishna - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › K


Baha'is believe that universal Manifestations of God are one of the three kinds of Prophet.

The Three Kinds of Prophets

Baha'is do not believe that Hinduism is the oldest religion that ever existed, we believe that there were religions that preceded Hinduism. We also believe that there were religious cycles that preceded the Adamic cycle of religion, and there were many religions in those cycles, although no trace of them remains since this was before the art of writing developed.

TABLE: BAHA'I SACRED HISTORY

I. PREVIOUS UNIVERSAL CYCLES - of which no trace remains

II. PRESENT UNIVERSAL CYCLE

· A. ADAMIC CYCLE, CYCLE OF PROPHECY - lasted approximately 6,000 years

1. Adam 1. Indian religious figures
2. Noah - Krishna
3. Abraham
4. Moses 2. Zoroaster
5. Jesus 3. Buddha
6. Muhammad
+ Other unknown or unspecified prophets

Ages and Cycles

That's somewhat interesting, but I have no idea how Baha'i ideas of religion really apply to my point. As I mentioned, Hinduism is the oldest codified religion, but there are surviving mythological beliefs, such as the Aboriginal Dreamtime, that have been orally passed down, lack prophets, and are considerably older than Hinduism.
The growth, survival, or otherwise of these is consistently tied to the fate of the peoples with whom these religions originated, and with secular cycles of conquest, trade and migration. I see little correlation to the presence of prophets.

Theologically, I daresay I lack the deep knowledge of others here, for all that I have a broad smattering of knowledge. But religious history is an interest of mine, and the ability to trace the religious history in much the same way one can trace cultural ascensions, merges, and movements appears altogether...well...mundane, in the spiritual sense of the word.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
I didn't claim so.

You did. You claimed the statement "there is no proof God exists" is subject to knowing truth which is unknowable and one must know all facts about the universe. But since facts can change.....etc/.......and tied this to Godel.



Hercules has characteristics and so can be disproved, he isn't merely unproven. To disprove him requires no formal system, and proving his existence would be easy if he did exist.


So does Yahweh? The Christian scripture is the Bible. The OT is so full of Yahweh's characteristics that Francesca Stavrakopoulou. Professor of OT has written a new book about his body parts, voice and other mentioned in the original Hebrew OT. Called God - An Anatomy. Proving his existence would also be easy. He rides a chariot of smoke and fire (depending on the time of day), wrestles with Jacob and many other direct appearances. The NT has angels, possesions, miracles, saints rising from the dead, and many other events.w

Hercules had a God father and mortal mother. Jesus was also a demigod and the only evidence for him are 1 story, Mark (used to write the other gospels) which is highly fictive, uses OT narratives verbatim - Psalms, Kings, and is all Hellenistic theology - dying/rising savior provides salvation to followers. Greek. see below for example

You can still take a modern, Aquinas, Agustine (neither are canon and just theologians) versions of God (which uses Platonic theology) and say a theistic deity would also be known by it's interaction.
And there is no evidence of any warping of probabilities, therefore quantum mechanics/nature is the only thing at play here. For every person who claims a deity saved them from a tornado there is an elementary school hit by a tornado with several dead children. Theism is not evidenced.



Hellenistic Ideas of Salvation, Author(s): Paul Wendland

Source: The American Journal of Theology , Jul., 1913, Vol. 17, No. 3 (Jul., 1913), pp. 345-351

Published by: The University of Chicago Press Stable URL: Hellenistic Ideas of Salvation in the Light of Ancient Anthropology on JSTOR

"Christian and Hellenistic ideas of redemption cannot be sharply separated."

"The deity's resurrection from the dead gives to the initiates, who see their own destiny prefigured in his adventures, hope of a life after death."


The consciousness of estranecment between man and God, and a longing to bridge this chasm, are fundamental to all religions of redemption. In the development of antiquity from the sixth century B.c. on, this type of thought, for which the way is already pared in the older elements of popular faith, confronts us a definite and vigorously increasing religious movement. Reformers, prophets, and puritans propagate a profounder piety, which often mystic in character. The ecstatic Dionysus religion becomes the most important factor in this development. In this religion t common people, the poor and the needy, directly attain a more profound and personal relation to the deity. The believer loses his individual consciousness in enthusiasm and receives the divinity into himself. In moments of orgiastic ecstasy he experiences the ultimate goal of his existence, abiding fellowship with the god, who, as redeemer and savior will free him through death from the finiteness, the suffering, and the exigencies of the earthly life. Orphism sets forth this religious experience in a mystic theology which exerts a strong influence upon Pindar and Empedocles, for example, and which suggested to Plato his magnificent treatise on the dest of the soul.

According to Posidonius the soul has a heavenly origin. It is an offshoot from the fiery breath of God held captive in the prison-house of the body through birth into the earthly world, but destined for return to its higher home. Only he who in life preserves the divine part from defilement will ascend after death above the lower spheres and rise to the divine source. Our reverence for the starry heaven above us and for the wonders of the cosmos proves the human soul's relation to the heavenly world, and this mystical consciousness of likeness with the divine begets an other-worldly ideal of life.

From the second century A.D. on we possess rich source materials regarding the mystery cults and the profusion of new religious developments which grow out of the syncretism of the time. These sources acquaint us with the prevailing religious tendencies of antiquity in its declining period. Purification and rebirth, mystical union of the believer with the deity and the hope of bliss in the future world, revelation and charismatic endowment which essentially constitute redemption-these are the motives dominating the rites, sacraments, faith, and teaching of this syncretism. As enjoined in the liturgy of the Phrygian mysteries.

The deity's resurrection from the dead gives to the initiates, who see their own destiny prefigured in his adventures, hope of a life after death…. the soul, conscious of its divine origin, strives for redemption from its foreign and unrelated companion, the body. It seeks deliverance from things sinful, material, and mortal. But the fundamental motive in these various representations is the same; it is longing for elevation above the earthly world and its ruling powers, i.e., for deification. The end of redemption is a life of eternal blessedness. The redeemer is the deity to whose service one devotes his whole life in order to obtain his help and favor.

But notions and expressions akin to Hellenistic mysticism are already present in, the Pauline doctrine of redemption. Sin is traced back to the flesh and to the natural man. According to Rom. 8:19-22 perishable, degenerate creation looks for deliverance from transitoriness and for the revelation of the sons of God. As the apostle fervently longed for freedom from the body of death (Rom. 7:24), so also redemption is for him deliverance from aiv e'VeCrd, (Gal. 1:4). This leaning toward a "physical" and cosmic extension of redemption is an approach to Hellenistic conceptions. Paul's representa- tion of the believer as living and suffering in Christ, as crucified, buried, and raised with him, recalls the similar way in which the Hellenistic mystery-religions relate the believer to the dead and risen god (Attis, Osiris, Adonis). Thus Paul actually appears to be indebted to Hellenistic mysticism for certain suggestions. As Plato used Orphism, so Paul appropriated forms of expression for his faith from the mysticism of the world to which he preached the gospel.

The relationship of Christianity to Hellenism appears closer in the Ephesian letter. Here Christ is the supreme power of the entire spirit-world, exalting believers above the bondage of the inferior spirits into his upper kingdom (1: 18-22). Christians must struggle with these spirits, among whom the sKoopoipdrope6 (astral spirits) are named. In like manner from the second century on Christ is more frequently extolled as a deliverer from the power of fate.' When Ignatius regards Christ's work as the communication of ryv^oaR and &0c9apria, and the Eucharist as food of immortality, he, like the author of the Fourth Gospel, shows the influence of Greek mysticism. Irenaeus' realistic doctrine of redemption also has, in common with Greek mysticism, the fundamental notions of deification, abolition of death, imperishability, and gnosis.
 

muhammad_isa

Veteran Member
I can list the logical possibilities for the universe's past, but I can't rule any of them in or out. The universe may have always existed or may have come into existence uncaused. Or, it may have a prior source that is either conscious (a deity) or not (a multiverse), either of those also either having always existed or coming into existence from nothing. That's the best that reason can do at this time. Picking one of those and calling it the case is unjustified by evidence or reason..
It is only unjustified, if one believes that what we know about Jesus and/or Muhammad is unreliable or delusion, imo.

Of course, it is possible to argue there is no absolute proof .. but one does not require absolute proof to reach a conclusion.
Faith is all we have .. it is only irrational to believe in God if one concludes the existence of God to be unlikely.
 

muhammad_isa

Veteran Member
..perhaps in the 8th century what Muhammed believed was the best he could do without modern knowledge..
..but he claimed that the Qur'an was not from him .. that an angel revealed it, and was from God.

The question is why modern people believe in these concepts and texts..
Many reasons .. because many people believe that Muhammad was not a fraudulent poet, neither was he deluded.

In many Muslim countries we are seeing citizens wanting freedoms beyond what the religious tradition allows, and thses citizens face imprisonment and execution. The world condemns these religious/cultural traditions that are obsolete in modern sensibility. Out of curiosity, do you support the revolution in Iran? Do you think the citizens have a right to oppose the harsh leadership of Iran, and challenge their hardline Muslim authority?
I am from the west .. I lean towards western values .. I believe in democracy.
The issues in question are cultural and political, as well as religious.
The global nature of the modern world is challenging for many countries.
China is not a Muslim country, but feel threatened by western values too.

Right. It's called compartamentalism. It's where people can be skilled thinkers about some things, and suspend reasoning where it comes to ideas that involve culture, identity, conformity, etc. We have discussed this already..
You are projecting on to others what you imagine is going on in their minds.

But those who are determined to hold rational understnading about all things in life, they do reject the influences of irrational social and cultural beliefs, and examine concepts with an independent mind..
Some people follow tradition, and some people examine and modify their beliefs.
In the UK, there are many Muslim specialists in the hospitals, and they often observe 5 times prayer.
They have a rational belief in God, despite your claims of mere tradition.

Is this all you have to say? I asked if all texts have validity at face value to your mind. If you dont want to answer my questions just don't ansewer..

You asked:
Can you really argue that one text is more or less credible at face value?

The texts have different origins. Each text needs to be assessed for what it is .. what it is claimed to be ..who wrote it, and why etc.

I answered about Muhammad above. The human mind is not a machine, it is subject to social influences, drugs, illness, emotions, available resources, stress, etc. We can't diagnose Muhammad but his views can be said not to be factual or valid if written today..
Why?
What does the modern world have to do with anything?
What in the Qur'an is "factually wrong" ?

What you describe here is a result of your learned religious behavior, and it is satisfying in part due to how the human brain evolved to experience ritual..
No .. it is about people's piety, and what effect it has on them.
People who are purifying their bodies and minds continually for a few weeks .. you know that this has an effect being a Buddhist.

And we critical thinkers can't believe any of it because we are requiring facts, and there is not sufficient evidence.
"critical thinker" means empiricist in this context.

That is an exceptionally low standard. A person can be ignorant but sincere, so what they write must be divine..
You are twisting my words.
I said that the NT is believed to be written by sincere people who do not lie, whose beliefs may not be totally inerrant.
Most people do not believe that it was written by Jesus or the disciples.

This low stndard seems to me an excuse for you to assign the Quran divinity, and thus worthy to interpret at face value.
The Qur'an is not the NT .. it is believed to be inerrant, and does not have multiple authors. The source is from Muhammad himself, who claimed it NOT to be his own words.

Do you think the Uriantia book is divine? It is over 2000 pages of great detail about other planets, other beings in the universe, about Jesus, etc.
No, I don't .. why would I?
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I can list the logical possibilities for the universe's past, but I can't rule any of them in or out. The universe may have always existed or may have come into existence uncaused. Or, it may have a prior source that is either conscious (a deity) or not (a multiverse), either of those also either having always existed or coming into existence from nothing. That's the best that reason can do at this time. Picking one of those and calling it the case is unjustified by evidence or reason. To do so is to believe by faith, or to take a leap of faith.

It is only unjustified, if one believes that what we know about Jesus and/or Muhammad is unreliable or delusion, imo.

Justified and unjustified in this context means according to the rules of critical thinking. I don't think one can go any further in his logical analysis of the history (and source, if any) of the universe than I have, which is identify the six logical possibilities:

[1] Our universe came into being uncaused.
[2] Our universe has always existed and only appears to have had a first moment.

[3] Our universe is the product of a multiverse (any unconscious source) that itself came into existence uncaused.
[4] Our universe is the product of a multiverse that has always existed.

[5] Our universe is the product of a god (any conscious source) that itself came into existence uncaused.
[6] Our universe is the product of a god that has always existed.

What you've done (and every other theist, which is why the god belief is unjustified according to the rules of reason) is to simply pare that list from six to one - probably [6] - on whim. That's where the chain of reasoning is broken, violations being called fallacies. The fallacy is called non sequitur. Going from whaat should be the end of the analysis a step further and dropping five options is irrational in this sense - it's not proper reasoning.

Worse, you've gone further yet and narrowed a god, by which I mean any sentient universe creator, to a specific god, the Abrahamic god as he's known on Earth. That's more non sequitur. When to jump from six choices to one choice to a specific example of that choice, you're taking leaps of faith. That's obviously right for you. You are determined to get to that point, and don't mind whatever leaps you need to make, which I why I have said that this belief meets some need in you not present in atheists or met in atheists some other way. I have no urge to proceed beyond the step of six logical options if I can't do it according to the rules of critical thinking, because I know what that means. It means that I have gone off the reservation regarding from rational to irrational, and I can no longer expect to arrive at sound conclusions. Your need is to get to a god conclusion somehow. Mine is to get to a correct solution according to the rules that reliably generates correct solutions.

I'd like to discuss that difference for a moment. Why are we different in that regard? Why do you have that need? Why don't I? My opinion is because you have lived your life as a theist, which fosters dependence on theism, and I have several decades of secular humanism under my belt, which weaned me from any such proclivity. Eventually, one becomes comfortable with the idea that the universe may contain no gods at all, and then face and eventually accept the very real possibility that we may be vulnerable and not watched over and that consciousness ends with death. We can learn to accept the reality of our likely insignificance everywhere but earth, and that we might be unloved except by those who know us - people, and maybe a few animals. Maybe we weren't created deliberately, and that the universe has no purpose for us.

Because as far as we know, that's how it is. And such acceptance has been liberating. It's liberated me from my natural theistic inclination, which is to understand the universe in terms of patriarchies (children instinctively defer to parental figures, and gods like the Abrahamic god are fathers) and protectors to protect us from the vagaries of nature and from extinction upon death. I just don't think in those terms any more, of somebody watching and judging me or immortal souls.

Of course, it is possible to argue there is no absolute proof .. but one does not require absolute proof to reach a conclusion.

As I've outlined, there are specific rules for reaching sound conclusions. Yes, one can have other beliefs than sound conclusions and call them sound conclusions, too, but they are not if they don't conform to the rules of inference.

Faith is all we have

We do not have to believe anything by faith if we can learn the rules for justifying belief. And it is a cardinal value of critical thought that one NOT believe by faith as we discussed above regarding jumping from six options to one to the Abrahamic god. That's faith, and one can simply refuse to go there once he has understood how not to.

it is only irrational to believe in God if one concludes the existence of God to be unlikely.

You are using your own rules. A god belief is irrational (unjustified) according to the rules of logic.

I have no opinion on the likelihood of a non-interventionalist god. It is neither likely nor unlikely, because the universe would be expected to look naturalistic (godless) in either case. I have concluded that the Abrahamic god does not exist two different ways, but that would be of little interest or value to you, and I'm not interested in trying to move you from Islam to Humanism for two reasons. It would be impossible, and it would be unkind. Were you in your twenties or thirties, then yes, it might still be possible, and the effort would be more valuable to you.

That's when I made the transition, and it informed the course of the remainder of my life to my benefit. Just being independent of religion was benefit enough - the hours and dollars consumed by that pursuit were redirected toward learning and doing other things. I learned to live without a god belief as described above. And I learned to think critically and to avoid belief by faith, which has been an incredibly valuable gift, one which immunizes one from indoctrination. Anti-vaxxers who died unnecessarily of Covid paid that price because they couldn't come to sound conclusions from the data available, and embraced unjustified belief (faith).

But what would be the value to reorganizing a life and a mind in the last third of life? Very little. And the cost? It would be psychologically disorienting and perhaps socially disruptive. Also, much more difficult, like somebody trying to quit smoking at seventy compared to at thirty - another transition which has much greater value if it occurs earlier in life for some of the same reasons, such as the thousands of dollars spent on cigarettes and the lower risk of cardiovascular and pulmonary complications.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
My point was that you said that religions grow over time. Zoroastrianism is an ancient, still surviving religion, but it's certainly not one that has grown over time, and it is in decline even as we speak.
My point was that religions need time to grow, and the largest religions, such as Hinduism, Christianity, and Islam, have grown larger over time. That does not mean that all religions grow larger over time. Ethnic religions such as Judaism have not grown very large over time. Clearly, there are many factors that lead to growth of a religion, not the least of which is whether the followers seek to spread the religion.

I ran across this website about Ethnic vs. Universalizing Religions several years ago. It explains the difference between these two kinds of religions. A universalizing religion looks for new members and welcomes anyone and everyone who wishes to adopt their belief system. Throughout history, some of these religions such as Christianity have attempted to convert people to their religion.

By contrast, ethnic religions consist of beliefs that were handed down from generation to generation within an ethnicity and culture and these religions do not try to convert others to their belief system. That is one reason Judaism is relatively small religion, with only about 14 million after over 4000 years. Compare that with Christianity and Islam, who have 2.3 billion and 1.9 billion members, respectively.

The Baha’i Faith is not included on this website but it goes without saying that it is universalizing religion since we look for new members and welcome anyone and everyone who wishes to adopt our belief system.

Ethnic vs. Universalizing Religions: AP Human Geography Crash Course
 

muhammad_isa

Veteran Member
..What you've done (and every other theist, which is why the god belief is unjustified according to the rules of reason) is to simply pare that list from six to one - probably [6] - on whim..
What is a person supposed to do, if they happen to believe in God? Pretend that they don't?
As I've already discussed, creed and detail about what "God is" etc. is a separate issue.
You may call it "a whim" if you like, but it relies on rational inference of circumstantial evidence.
Some people see reasons for disbelief .. lack of empirical proof, for example .. and others see reasons for belief, such as believing that Jesus and/or Muhammad are who they claim to be.
There is no "one size fits all", as you suggest.

..it's not proper reasoning..
I do not say that your reasoning is "improper" .. you have your reasons for disbelief, and you have told me some of them, and I would agree with them .. but my experiences in life are not identical to yours, and I see reasons for belief that clearly you don't.

Worse, you've gone further yet and narrowed a god, by which I mean any sentient universe creator, to a specific god, the Abrahamic god as he's known on Earth..
That is what "the evidence" suggests. If there was no evidence of God, then how could I believe, unless I make up something, or claim that God spoke to me etc.

That's obviously right for you. You are determined to get to that point, and don't mind whatever leaps you need to make..
I do care .. if somebody had an argument that proved beyond reasonable doubt, that Jesus and Muhammad were deluded or fraudulent, I would reject belief.
For me, it makes more sense to believe than disbelieve.

Your need is to get to a god conclusion somehow. Mine is to get to a correct solution according to the rules that reliably generates correct solutions.
My need, is to have a coherent understanding, that Is more likely true than not. I do not expect absolute certainty .. faith is dependent on our actions and intentions.

Eventually, one becomes comfortable with the idea that the universe may contain no gods at all, and then face and eventually accept the very real possibility that we may be vulnerable and not watched over and that consciousness ends with death..
I just can't believe that. It is not that I don't want to believe it.

You are using your own rules. A god belief is irrational (unjustified) according to the rules of logic.
It isn't, you know. Not everybody believes in God due to tradition only. They might believe a creed due to tradition and social factors .. but not the underlying belief in Bible or Qur'an.

Anti-vaxxers who died unnecessarily of Covid paid that price because they couldn't come to sound conclusions from the data available, and embraced unjustified belief (faith).
You shouldn't assume that all believers make "unsound conclusions", just because you are aware of many that do.

But what would be the value to reorganizing a life and a mind in the last third of life?
I know .. not an easy thing to do, that's for sure.
Perhaps it is enough not to dismiss the possibility that God exists, and not to seek to uproot your whole life .. there is no need for extremes .. extreme belief usually does more harm than good.
 
Top