only love is true and no one or religion has a monopoly on it.Can they all be true?
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
only love is true and no one or religion has a monopoly on it.Can they all be true?
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.
This is something that is a bit more complicated than it might appear on the surface.Can they all be true?
No, they can't. Many if not most religious opinions are logical contradictions with each other. And so are many if not most fictional stories. It's almost as if religion and imagination have a lot in common.
If you look at brain scans of people while they describe their own opinion, someone else's opinion, and their god's opinion, theirs and their god's opinions show identical patterns of activity, while their description of other people lights up a distinctly different set of neurons. It's almost as if god's voice and self-reflection have a lot in common.
If you look at the many different interpretations that people favor, which each person insists is the result of "proper interpretation" of whatever scripture they revere, it always seems to match their prior tastes and values, and their personality type. It's almost as if religion and subjective preference have a lot in common.
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.
That's probably because most theists understand the difference between a reliance on faith and your reliance on "objective evidence". So they see no reason to argue with the tenets of someone else's faith choice, as you do. They recognize the value of faith even if someone else has envisioned the object of that faith somewhat differently.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.
Not really. You're the only one that thinks the term "supernatural" refers to something absurd or unlikely. Most theists would see the "supernatural" more as the mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of existence. Not an absurd or unlikely idea at all.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.
The belief that if God/gods were to exist, they would be able to find and recognize the "objective evidence" for it. Even though they have no idea at all what to look for or how to determine that it's God related.What beliefs do atheists have that you are referring to here? Do you accept that non-belief isn't a belief?
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.
Sounds like a good reason to disregard both groups."Very few" may be correct, but there is a very vocal section of believers that do indeed oppose other religious beliefs. Evangelicals are an obvious example.
Incidentally, atheists that self identify that way are a small minority too. Most people that are technically atheist (that is they lack belief in gods) simply don't think or talk about religion from one month to the next.
But wouldn't that render religion no different from a psychotherapeutic modality?
Isn't religion a claim of ontological truth?
Again, it "works" by who's criteria?Whether or not it works in actuality.
Perhaps not, but they all can be untrue.
Which IMO is the more likely of the two.
Sounds like a good reason to disregard both groups.
Whether or not it works in actuality.
Apples, grapes and oranges can all be verified to exist by independent individuals.
Might be a little much to ask from religion but hey, go for it.
Perhaps the non-believers are still miffed as to the protected status of religions, and adherents, in so many countries. Apart from the obnoxious beliefs, that is. Hence why they will use whatever they can to make their views known and effect change.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?
My religion works in actuality, since it makes me cope better, since I became religious. Now to some people, that is a crutch, but how is that a problem, as long as I don't demand that others use a crutch.
But that's a political issue, not a theological issue. And I don't see how attaching religionists for their religious beliefs because you find them "irrational" addresses the politics of it, at all.Perhaps the non-believers are still miffed as to the protected status of religions, and adherents, in so many countries. Apart from the obnoxious beliefs, that is. Hence why they will use whatever they can to make their views known and effect change.
Again, it "works" by who's criteria?
I pray for rain, and it rains. So I say the prayer "worked", while you say it couldn't have. See what I mean? You think you're in the "cat-bird" seat and get to decide what is truth and what isn't for everyone else. But you aren't. We all get to decide for ourselves what "works", and why.
Well said.Back when I had a brief excursion into Christianity, I found that there were distinct divisions among those I met. Many were dismissive of beliefs that claimed ultimate truth, and saw us all on a journey together. Others clung firmly to the dogma and got quite emotional when it was challenged.
I doubt the typical atheist would have much to say to the first group. Once people start claiming "truth" that has to be accepted though, it tends to raise a skeptic's hackles.
And of course, some people on both sides just enjoy a good argument.
Religions deliver on their promises. It's why so many people adhere to them. But not everyone seeks the same results, or identifies them by the same reasoning.By it's own criteria. If you promise "A", one ought to be able to verify "A" was delivered.