Prove me wrong

[whiskeyman]

Everything I believe in I do so because of evidence. What evidence do you have that God has spoken to you? What wisdom are you ready to impart that will enlighten me and help me to become a better person? What is going to happen in the future? Why do we die? Why is there so much suffering? Where are the dead? Is this life all there is?

Answer these questions in a way that gives a realistic hope and I'll join your club.

 

[Nakosis]

Let's try something.

Let's say that I tell you that I heard from the one and only true god. He gave me a list of laws and religious rites that are to be performed, and had me write everything he told me down in a book. God told me that all other religions are wrong, and have been sent to deceive people. I convince some of my friends and family that this is true, and they begin to follow me and the religion that I have created. Let's say that some of them even claim to have had some kind of experience that backs up my claim to have heard from god, such as me having performed miracles. Now, I take my religion out to the masses, and proclaim it as true, attempting to convert people to it.

Now, how can I be proven wrong? And how does this scenario differ from other "revealed" religions?

Personally, I think it happens often. A person gains some spiritual insight. Some spiritual revelation. Like whoever had the dream/vision of Revelation in the Bible.

They start thinking because or it they suddenly have the authority to start speaking for God. Even if of the best/honest intention they convince themselves of it.

It may have been a dream, a thought or what seemed a real experience to them of meeting God. They start thinking every thought that pops into their head is of divine origin and is worthy of being claimed as Gods Word.

They go forth very passionate about it and passion is infectious. So they gather a following.

IMO there is really no good reason to accept that anyone has the authority to speak for God. If God want's to or needs to make himself known then he must do it directly to each individual.

That's not to say you didn't have a real spiritual experience, that means just because you did doesn't suddenly mean you now have any authority to speak for God.

 

[monti]

Now, how can I be proven wrong? And how does this scenario differ from other "revealed" religions?

You have this the wrong way about, in my opinion.
It is you who has made the extraordinary claim. It is with you that the burden of proof lays.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof to back them up, which you simply do not have. That is why ALL religion is FAITH based.

Nice try, but your claim fell at the first fence.

 

[mystic64]

Let's try something.

Let's say that I tell you that I heard from the one and only true god. He gave me a list of laws and religious rites that are to be performed, and had me write everything he told me down in a book. God told me that all other religions are wrong, and have been sent to deceive people. I convince some of my friends and family that this is true, and they begin to follow me and the religion that I have created. Let's say that some of them even claim to have had some kind of experience that backs up my claim to have heard from god, such as me having performed miracles. Now, I take my religion out to the masses, and proclaim it as true, attempting to convert people to it.

Now, how can I be proven wrong? And how does this scenario differ from other "revealed" religions?

The proof would be in the number of followers that you have which will depend on the evangelical skills that you and these followers have. The validity of a religion is dependent on the number of followers that that religion has. The battle of all religions is for followers because the number of followers is the proof of validity even if you convert them by sword. Which is how a lot if religions in today's world significantly increased the number of their followers at some time or another.

I would have to consider you valid if you had a large number of followers and your follower numbers were increasing rapidly. And validity does not mean that your religion is not a threat that needs to be hunted to extinction because it is a threat to the welfare of others.

 

[Sees]

It is sad some folks really do think like this

The proof would be in the number of followers that you have which will depend on the evangelical skills that you and these followers have. The validity of a religion is dependent on the number of followers that that religion has. The battle of all religions is for followers because the number of followers is the proof of validity even if you convert them by sword. Which is how a lot if religions in today's world significantly increased the number of their followers at some time or another.

I would have to consider you valid if you had a large number of followers and your follower numbers were increasing rapidly. And validity does not mean that your religion is not a threat that needs to be hunted to extinction because it is a threat to the welfare of others.

 

[Tumah]

The proof would be in the number of followers that you have which will depend on the evangelical skills that you and these followers have. The validity of a religion is dependent on the number of followers that that religion has. The battle of all religions is for followers because the number of followers is the proof of validity even if you convert them by sword. Which is how a lot if religions in today's world significantly increased the number of their followers at some time or another.

I would have to consider you valid if you had a large number of followers and your follower numbers were increasing rapidly. And validity does not mean that your religion is not a threat that needs to be hunted to extinction because it is a threat to the welfare of others.

I see a lot of over generalizing, when I think you really only have in mind two religions.

 

[ChristineES]

Let's try something.

Let's say that I tell you that I heard from the one and only true god. He gave me a list of laws and religious rites that are to be performed, and had me write everything he told me down in a book. God told me that all other religions are wrong, and have been sent to deceive people. I convince some of my friends and family that this is true, and they begin to follow me and the religion that I have created. Let's say that some of them even claim to have had some kind of experience that backs up my claim to have heard from god, such as me having performed miracles. Now, I take my religion out to the masses, and proclaim it as true, attempting to convert people to it.

Now, how can I be proven wrong? And how does this scenario differ from other "revealed" religions?

While I admit it is a good question, but in my faith, it isn't about proof, it's about faith.

 

[idav]

Let's try something.

Let's say that I tell you that I heard from the one and only true god. He gave me a list of laws and religious rites that are to be performed, and had me write everything he told me down in a book. God told me that all other religions are wrong, and have been sent to deceive people. I convince some of my friends and family that this is true, and they begin to follow me and the religion that I have created. Let's say that some of them even claim to have had some kind of experience that backs up my claim to have heard from god, such as me having performed miracles. Now, I take my religion out to the masses, and proclaim it as true, attempting to convert people to it.

Now, how can I be proven wrong? And how does this scenario differ from other "revealed" religions?

I see, you would be playing some David Copperfield moves on your friends and family. Entirely possible that can be done to get some followers, and say its like god and stuff.

 

[McBell]

Let's try something.

Let's say that I tell you that I heard from the one and only true god. He gave me a list of laws and religious rites that are to be performed, and had me write everything he told me down in a book. God told me that all other religions are wrong, and have been sent to deceive people. I convince some of my friends and family that this is true, and they begin to follow me and the religion that I have created. Let's say that some of them even claim to have had some kind of experience that backs up my claim to have heard from god, such as me having performed miracles. Now, I take my religion out to the masses, and proclaim it as true, attempting to convert people to it.

Now, how can I be proven wrong? And how does this scenario differ from other "revealed" religions?

Um...
It is not on me to prove you wrong.
It is on you to convince me you are right.

The inability or unwillingness, to prove you wrong does not make you right.

 

[mystic64]

It is sad some folks really do think like this

It is isn't it .

 

[Ingledsva]

Now, how can I be proven wrong? And how does this scenario differ from other "revealed" religions?

You have this the wrong way about, in my opinion.
It is you who has made the extraordinary claim. It is with you that the burden of proof lays.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof to back them up, which you simply do not have. That is why ALL religion is FAITH based.

Nice try, but your claim fell at the first fence.

Uhmmmm? Monti? I think that is the point being made!


There is no actual proof of ANY religion actually being from a God.




*

 

[psychoslice]

Now, how can I be proven wrong? And how does this scenario differ from other "revealed" religions?

The burden of proof lies in your hands, you have to prove to me that this happened, I have nothing to prove right or wrong.

 

[mystic64]

I see a lot of over generalizing, when I think you really only have in mind two religions.

That is entirerly possible I was wondering if someone was going to call me on that one. The Jewish religion to my knowledge has never done that, but the Christian religion, Islam, Buddhism, and various sects of Hinduism have all done that to some extent in the past. In today's world it seems that it is generally done with some kind of psychological threat or fear as a evangelical approach. At least in those evangelical approaches that work the best.

 

[Caladan]

Now, how can I be proven wrong? And how does this scenario differ from other "revealed" religions?

The ironic thing is that the 'non-revealed' religions are not any different.

 

[Sunstone]

The ironic thing is that the 'non-revealed' religions are not any different.

Don't they differ in at least one respect. That is, in a religion like Zen, the notion is that anyone might have the potential to see for themselves whether the religion's claims are actually true by experiencing ultimate reality for themselves. This would be the equivalent, in, say, Christianity, of claiming that anyone could be Christ.

 

[Caladan]

Don't they differ in at least one respect. That is, in a religion like Zen, the notion is that anyone might have the potential to see for themselves whether the religion's claims are actually true by experiencing ultimate reality for themselves. This would be the equivalent, in, say, Christianity, of claiming that anyone could be Christ.

So, I still do not see a difference. Most people would still take the most direct koan parables dogmatically rather than intuitively. Just like many people would take the parables of Christ's actions or words (leaving aside the whole Christ-like mystical dogma) at face value rather than intuitively relating to his convictions behind them.
There are fatalistic traditions around Buddhist saints and the Buddhas themselves in the same fashion that there are around corresponding figures from the revealed religions. People just want to see differently and pretend that one form of religion wins on technicalities... Which is just as dogmatic.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Why should I care about what some other gods to say to other people? I'm only interested in what my gods say to me. But if they're pushing it on people, then there's going to be a fight.

 

[monti]

Uhmmmm? Monti? I think that is the point being made! *

yes I gathered that.
But what I have said stands.The burden of proof lays with he who makes the extraordinary claim.

 

[Alceste]

The proof would be in the number of followers that you have which will depend on the evangelical skills that you and these followers have. The validity of a religion is dependent on the number of followers that that religion has. The battle of all religions is for followers because the number of followers is the proof of validity even if you convert them by sword. Which is how a lot if religions in today's world significantly increased the number of their followers at some time or another.

I would have to consider you valid if you had a large number of followers and your follower numbers were increasing rapidly. And validity does not mean that your religion is not a threat that needs to be hunted to extinction because it is a threat to the welfare of others.

Argumentum ad populum.

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it. In other words, the basic idea of the argument is: "If many believe so, it is so."

This type of argument is known by several names,[1] including appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to democracy, appeal to popularity, argument by consensus, consensus fallacy, authority of the many, and bandwagon fallacy, and in Latin as argumentum ad numerum ("appeal to the number"), and consensus gentium ("agreement of the clans"). It is also the basis of a number of social phenomena, including communal reinforcement and the bandwagon effect.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

Don't they differ in at least one respect. That is, in a religion like Zen, the notion is that anyone might have the potential to see for themselves whether the religion's claims are actually true by experiencing ultimate reality for themselves. This would be the equivalent, in, say, Christianity, of claiming that anyone could be Christ.

I have to disagree...
It sounds to me like the OFTEN used "Just pray to god, and keep listening, he'll eventually give you an answer.. if you look HARD enough, you'll see it's true!!!"

How are these claims different?