Many different religious opinions

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Y'know, very few religions actually set out to be "right". For the majority of us, it's not a race or contest. So the only question to ask is: Is it right for us? That is all that matters.

The majority of religions or the majority of adherents?

IIRC, about two thirds of religious people are either Christian or Muslim.

 

[Audie]

Can they all be true?

Just ask the ones who be.ieve them.

 

[Audie]

I see them constantly trying to justify their own beliefs. But everyone does that. Yet most religions are not evangelical, and even of those that are supposed to be, the adherents don't seem to be too keen on it.

A HUGE deal is made about a very small number of religious people, from a smaller faction of one major religion, that go around proselytizing their beliefs. While the billions of other theists and many other religions that do not, go completely ignored.

Meanwhile, an increasing number of atheists that are also strongly anti-religious are constantly denigrating and attacking all religion and all religious people. it's quite an ironic accusation for atheists to be complaining about evangelism.

Increasing number. Went from twelve to
fourteen? Big deal about tiny number,
anyone?
Considering the centuries of violent
oppression, it's quite ironic that some
few American black people should now
be quite hateful and vigorous in their
denunciation of the people and ideology
that oppressed them.
By your figgering.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

No, but truth has never been a priority for the religious. Scientists collect data and think up experiments to get to the truth and (sometimes after decades) they find a consensus. Believers don't like their believes to be tested and pretend that the differing opinions don't exist.

^ such a thoughtful and objective post

 

[wellwisher]

Can they all be true?

Religions are aspects of a 3-D or spatial belief system. Like a 3-D ball, 3-D belief systems can be approximated with a large number of 2-D circles, each with a common center; God, but with each circle at a different angle; different points of view. Each 2-D circle is a rational plane of cause and affect; justifying language based on a given angle. All the circles combined express the full 3-D nature of God.

God is not expressed with just language and logic. It is also a concept that has to be felt, intuitively, from the inside. Faith is the extra or the third dimension, with all religions having this common inner feeling. Each has its own angle to help fill in its share of the full 3-D nature of God. Religious freedom take into account the common center instead of forcing one angle on all.

The left brain is more 2-D; signs, while the right brain is more 3-D; symbols. Science is more 2-D while religion is more 3-D. In science, there is no one theory for everything, but rather science is broken down into specialties, that each addressing an aspect of the whole; material reality. Religion is the same way, since God is not just one linear thing.

In Science there is often more than one theory for the same phenomena, since the consensus theory may express truth, but not the whole truth; exceptions appear. God is even more complex, so we need many more angles to fill in the entire 3-D concept.

 

[Colt]

Can they all be true?

Opinions may be sincere but not entirely true.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I see them constantly trying to justify their own beliefs. But everyone does that. Yet most religions are not evangelical, and even of those that are supposed to be, the adherents don't seem to be too keen on it.

A HUGE deal is made about a very small number of religious people, from a smaller faction of one major religion, that go around proselytizing their beliefs. While the billions of other theists and many other religions that do not, go completely ignored.

Meanwhile, an increasing number of atheists that are also strongly anti-religious are constantly denigrating and attacking all religion and all religious people. it's quite an ironic accusation for atheists to be complaining about evangelism.

Given the trends in so many countries, perhaps the non-believers are grasping at the chance to express themselves at last, and which wasn't so common until fairly recently. And hence why so many do feel able to speak out - especially when so many religions still hold on to rather obnoxious beliefs which harm so many too - even if they are loathe to accept this.

 

[PureX]

Given the trends in so many countries, perhaps the non-believers are grasping at the chance to express themselves at last, and which wasn't so common until fairly recently. And hence why so many do feel able to speak out - especially when so many religions still hold on to rather obnoxious beliefs which harm so many too - even if they are loathe to accept this.

But what they are expressing is not their non-belief, because that's not really even possible. What they are expressing is their disdain for other people's beliefs. The very thing they are so often accusing and disparaging theists of doing, when in fact, very few theists actually do that.

Can you see the irony, here?

 

[Nakosis]

Can they all be true?

Perhaps not, but they all can be untrue.
Which IMO is the more likely of the two.

 

[Vinayaka]

Can they all be true?

They're opinions. There is no true/false in an opinion.

 

[PureX]

Perhaps not, but they all can be untrue.
Which IMO is the more likely of the two.

According to who's criteria for truth? Yours, or theirs? Because if it's yours, your resulting opinion is no more credible than anyone else's. AND it's effectively judging apples and grapes by the model of an orange. Which is quite irrational.

 

[CharmingOwl]

I guess that is true, although it is also hard not to include atheism and non-belief as religious opinions themselves for the purpose of this. If the Atheists turn out to be right all along, that raises questions about the afterlife.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I guess that is true, although it is also hard not to include atheism and non-belief as religious opinions themselves for the purpose of this. If the Atheists turn out to be right all along, that raises questions about the afterlife.

Questions which won’t ever be answered…

 

[BilliardsBall]

Can they all be true?

They cannot in a logical way, since, for example, the Qur'an specifically says Jesus is a prophet, not God, and the Bible says Jesus is God, King and Savior, and that anyone trusting Jesus for eternal life, has it.

 

[Heyo]

Very few religious people do that. They may believe their religion is right, because they believe it's right for them. But they don't go around trying to prove everyone else's religious beliefs are wrong.

It seems to be the atheists that are constantly trying to do that.

That may be because atheists don't fear to be called out? My guess is that believers know that they can't defend their belief logically against critique from atheists or other beliefs.
There are of course the apologists who do what the masses fear to do. But they also tend to defend their belief against unbelief and rarely against other beliefs.

Which is somehow the titular problem. If believers were able and willing to talk to each other in a constructive manner, there wouldn't be so many beliefs. Denominations and churches could re-join to become a more refined and unified religion.

 

[soulsurvivor]

Can they all be true?

They can't be all true, if they contradict each other.

However, all of them have some truth in them and all of them have a lot of untruth in them - some just more than others.

So, no single religion has all the truth. Here is comparison of major religions: Hinduism Vs. Christianity Vs Islam

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

But wouldn't that render religion no different from a psychotherapeutic modality?

In some instances, yes. Religion (in general) is also an expression of community, culture, and one's faith-based world-view (which is not to say that's the only world view one can hold)

Isn't religion a claim of ontological truth?

Not necessarily. Some religions certainly make more of that than they should, others are more "concerned" (for lack of a better term) with ontological perception.

--------------------------------------------

Then you should not want to show that the religion of another person is wrong.

Before a deeper reply is given some information is needed; was this a general statement, or one to me specifically?

--------------------------------------------

The majority of religions or the majority of adherents?

The majority of religions. The "Top Three" take up most of the pie chart in terms of people (for now, with the most current information that we have) but that certainly doesn't reflect all religions that exist today.

 

[Altfish]

Can they all be true?

This question was the one that made me start to question religion(s) and my belief; add to it scientific explanations and the adage "We don't know but are working on it", so it is not a problem to admit there are gaps in our knowledge

 

[Quintessence]

Of course they're all true - the entire point of religion is to grapple with life's big questions to develop a coherent and meaningful way of life. The important thing to remember is life's big questions have answers (plural), so the truths one arrives to are a reflection of one's personal or cultural values. It provides those people with meaning and direction, rituals and community. It's an identity - who one is, what one is, what one does. Being true to oneself is important. Conflict arises between different life ways, but such is how things are.

 

[F1fan]

Very few religious people do that. They may believe their religion is right, because they believe it's right for them. But they don't go around trying to prove everyone else's religious beliefs are wrong.

It seems to be the atheists that are constantly trying to do that.

Interesting point. Atheists are equal opportunity critics of any claim that is non-factual, non-rational, and dogmatic. I have noticed some theists will be "hands off" on being critical of dubious religious claims, and i wonder if it is to avoid being critical of anyone who is a believer in some sort of supernatural being. Believers do have a broad range of differing concepts and degrees of certainty, but one thing all theists have in common is the belief that there is some supernatural functioning in the universe. The lack of evidence for any supernatural means that theists do have a motive to avoid challenging any other theist.

I see them constantly trying to justify their own beliefs.

What beliefs do atheists have that you are referring to here? Do you accept that non-belief isn't a belief?

A HUGE deal is made about a very small number of religious people, from a smaller faction of one major religion, that go around proselytizing their beliefs. While the billions of other theists and many other religions that do not, go completely ignored.[/quote[
Are you referring to how a critical thinker will address the specific claims made by a specific believer? This is proper debate. But you are incorrect, critical thinkers often addrss the basic assumptions of all theists when debating a specifci person. Most believers don;t come to their own conclusions via their own thinking, they have adopted a dogma that they have decided is true and then try to claim it is truth in debates, including you. You tend to be very cautious and vague in your claims, which is a strategy many theists have learned to do. Even this doesn't work because it is the basic assumption that a supernatural exists, usually a God or higher power, isn't anything that is evidenced.

You might come back with "we have evidence, you atheists just don't accept it". No we don't, because the evidence that theists claim is tyically subjective and heavy with assumptions. For example someone claimed that seeing a sunset is proof of God. No it isn't, it proves our planet is rotating and circles a star. The conclusion that this indicates a God is from the social influence the believer picked up subconsciously and now can't separate an observation from religious belief. This is how religion works in the mind, it takes over thinking like a virus, and the believer can't, or won't, separate these learned assumptions from observation and thinking.

Meanwhile, an increasing number of atheists that are also strongly anti-religious are constantly denigrating and attacking all religion and all religious people. it's quite an ironic accusation for atheists to be complaining about evangelism.

Even you agree with pushing back on Christian extremism as I have read you post criticism of the decisions the Supreme Court has made about abortion rights. I've seen your posts critical of heavily religious republicans and their intentions to impose religious ideas onto America. So religiously you are anti-atheist, but politically you have a lot in common with atheists. So you have that wave to surf and try not to crash.