• 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!

The chances of being right when it comes to religion.

Moishe3rd

Yehudi
Lets pretend all religions are equally possibly correct. If one goes by nothing but the numbers the chance of you being correct are 1 in 19 if you count the large religions of the world . From there if you add in religious sects and dead religions the chance goes down even lower.

So how do you figure which religion is the correct one if there is indeed a correct one?

I've seen people approach this issue in two different ways, one is simply that you feel a connection to a certain belief therefore you follow said belief. You seek out the gods you feel a connection to and go from there. Of course there is one big problem with this being that you relied on feelings to get you here.

You can feel a lot of things but that doesn't make them valid. You may feel it is for instance racist to criticize Judaism or Israel but that doesn't mean it is actually racist to do so. You may feel something is a religious experience but is in fact perfectly mundane. Mental gymnastics can only take you so far with your feelings.

Then you have reason. Some people try to reason out their beliefs and make sure they make sense. They'll argue and defend their beliefs to the very bitter end in some cases. Over the years they may even get very good at this.

Of course a problem arises here as well. You can not demonstrate that a god and even more painfully your own god/gods exist. You can not prove it and I know you can't because people have been trying for centuries now, millennia even and have as of yet come up with nothing.

"Ah ha!" they may say "But I can give you reasons it seems plausible that God exists!" There is usually a note of excitement among the younger apologists when they say this. The older ones may or may not even bother.

The issue here seems obvious to me. Any reason you could give still has to be taken with a certain measure of faith. The reason sometimes given is that life Is too complex to come from nothing. This of course ignores evolution but even then it's not really an argument for anything but a deistic god now is it?

I've heard just about every reason in the book now I think or at least a good portion of them. If you have another feel free to apply it here if you wish. I can't say I don't listen for good reasons even today.

In the end when I stop and think about it, the lack of evidence and the sheer number of religions makes it neigh unto impossible to determine what religion could be right. Of course many don't claim the exclusivity to the truth that others do but this is of little consequence.

So tell me , why would you think your particular interpretation of the spiritual is correct?

Because I view the Source and the History.
The oldest extant Faith that has the longest record of process would seem to be the one to examine first.

If one were to find that the largest, most influential religions in the world were offshoot sects of this Faith, then one might examine it further.
If one were to find that the Faith in question was really just a tiny tribe of people who never had any sort of massive adherence on planet Earth and that, this same tiny tribe of people does not even statistically exist today due to their small numbers of adherents, one might examine it further.
If one were to find that nearly every civilization and Western religion on Earth has tried to obliterate this tiny Faith tribe for thousands of years, yet it still exists in a strong fashion, one might examine it further.
If one were to find that this tiny tribe of people has had the most influential influence on all of mankind in terms of Law and Science and Government and Medicine and Technology and nearly every other form of modernism, one might examine it further.
If one were to find that the world today is obsessed on the borders and people and actions of this tiny tribe of people that does not even statistically exist, one might examine it further.
And, if it turned out that this tiny tribe of people was the only nation on Earth who ever reclaimed part of their original homeland and their original Holy City, after thousands of years of exile and that ALL of the countries that surround them have repeatedly attempted to wipe them out and that they have since become one of most militarily powerful and technologically advanced nations on Earth and that their original Faith Tradition keeps on growing despite having been for all practical purposes annihilated just 65 years ago, one might conclude that their particular spiritual interpretation just might be correct!
:D
 

Lorgar-Aurelian

Active Member
Yes, and these already exist. As far as I can tell, all of them have evidence behind them. One might not find a particular type or body of evidence persuasive, but it seems silly to me to deny that the evidence is there.

And yeah, I'm sorry that I haven't tape recorded all of my rituals and behaviors over the past decade or so to provide evidence of my religion for you. But I'm not really comfortable doing that, and it's not the best use of my time. :sweat:
Actual evidence? I mean something that can't be dismissed in seconds and explained with ease. Believe it or not your rituals would more than likely not convinced me of anything and I doubt any skeptical person would be.

Look if you are so convinced that they all have evidence then what is the evidence to support what you believe?
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
Belief in gods is not a matter of logical deduction or scientific research for that to have significance.

Mmh. I am not sure I would agree.

I think that religious and spiritual experiences and beliefs are a naturalistic adaptation. And as such, amenable to scientific investigation.

Ciao

- viole
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
No way I could know it's not valid? No I don't agree.
If it's not feelings based I've never heard any of the people saying they had an experience explain it with something other than feelings.
That they explain their feelings to you means there wasn't anything other than feelings involved? Also, how would they explain something other than feelings to you of a supernatural event? What is it exactly you're looking for them to tell you?
 
So tell me , why would you think your particular interpretation of the spiritual is correct?

For a start I can't call it 'my' particular interpretation. And I can't tell you if it is correct/true or not, at least not at the moment. For I am still TESTING the first wholly new interpretation, for two thousand years, of the moral teaching of Christ. And what science and religion, not to mention the rest of us, thought impossible may now have happened. History appears to have its first literal, testable and fully demonstrable proof for faith and it's on the web. And if this turns out to be a new and authentic, I won't need to 'think' this is correct for I will have discovered that it is!

Radically different from anything else we know of from theology or history, this new teaching is predicated upon the 'promise' of a precise, predefined, predictable and repeatable experience of transcendent omnipotence and called 'the first Resurrection' in the sense that the Resurrection of Jesus was intended to demonstrate Gods' willingness to reveal Himself and intervene directly into the natural world for those obedient to His Command, paving the way for access, by faith, to the power of divine Will and ultimate proof!

So like it or no, a new religious teaching, testable by faith, meeting all Enlightenment criteria of evidence based causation and definitive proof now exists. Trials are underway and open to all. Nothing short of an intellectual, moral and religious revolution is getting under way. To test or not to test, that is the question? More info at The Final Freedoms
 

Akivah

Well-Known Member
I do not want to make a thread about Judaism or the Torah. I have nothing to contribute to these discussions. It seems I am going about this in the wrong way. If I am barred from these sites then how can I learn from what is said in these forums?

Non-Jews are not barred from posting respectful questions in the Judaism section. However, making conclusions, statements, declarations or proselytizing is barred.
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
Actual evidence? I mean something that can't be dismissed in seconds and explained with ease. Believe it or not your rituals would more than likely not convinced me of anything and I doubt any skeptical person would be.

That's just so bizarre to me. Skeptical people would watch a video of a ritual I do and pretend it didn't really happen? That I didn't just light some incense in honor of Storm and say some words of praise to it? That's just... I don't get that. What, do they need to be there in person or something? I've only led rituals for others a couple times... and not sure I'd feel comfortable doing it for outsiders. Not sure I'd want to record it either... honestly. Most of the time when I do this stuff it's spur of the moment, and I'm not interested in being one of those YouTubers who keeps a camera on a stick to record themselves doing things. :sweat:


Look if you are so convinced that they all have evidence then what is the evidence to support what you believe?

If only it were that simple. I'll indulge the game briefly, but here are problems that I have with it:
  • Pretty much every time someone does this game, evidence presented by one party is rejected by the other as "real evidence"
  • Worldviews are gestalts. "Show me the evidence" reductionist approaches are ill-suited to exploring gestalt phenomena on several levels. I'd argue it's an impossible task.
  • Approaching and analyzing non-sciences as if they should sciences is nonsensical, counterproductive, and missing the darned point.
But here's a really horrible simplified and incredibly misleading and missing the point example of "evidence" to support one of my "beliefs:"
  • To be culturally neutral about it, "gods" are simply that which a person or culture designates as worthy of worship, or as sacred and of value in some fashion. The reasons for that vary, but typically the gods are seen as "greater" than humans in some fashion (there are exceptions)
  • Through my years life experience and learning (gestalt, remember?), estis, ergo sum is self-evident. That is, the thing I call "me" existing is 100% contingent upon this wonderful planet and universe and all of its aspects. If you need evidence that you depend on the universe for your existence, well... I'm not sure I can help people with "captain obvious" sort of things. Study ecology, I guess? Think about that air you are breathing and what would happen if it wasn't there? :sweat:
  • If this total dependence isn't indicative of "greater" or "higher power," I don't know what is. I'd be one hell of an ingrate if I didn't deeply value reality and call it sacred and worthy of worship. Reality and all of its aspects are, therefore, my gods. I depend on them fully for my existence and sometimes refer to it collectively as the Weave to drive home the interconnected, interdependent nature of reality (aka, the gods).
  • My religious path basically centers around being aware of the Weave and not taking that interdependency for granted. Gratitude and thankfulness are key, as is forever studying the gods through any means that inspire me. As touched on before, if you need evidence for basic things like the sun and storms, or phenomena like learning or creativity, ... I really don't... yeah. How's that air you're breathing? :sweat:
And now is the part where someone tells me that I don't get to decide what is worthy of worship because that the sun and the trees and the air I'm breathing aren't really gods (only the God of the Bible is really God, or gods have to be sentient, or supernatural, or blah, blah, blah), or only such and such authority gets to decide what I can worship, or that... I don't know... some sort of rationalizing it away. Heard them all by now, probably. It's what people do, yeah? It's cool. Not your path. It's mine. I plan to keep it. Don't care if others leave it be. I sing songs of Storm and Sun, of the spirits of the land, of the Winged Ones, of the sacred halls of the Spirit of Learning called libraries, of the Spirit of Imagination that weaves beautiful prose and works of art. Others have different songs. The diversity of songs we sing is part of what makes this reality I live in so awesome to me. :D
 

Lorgar-Aurelian

Active Member
That's just so bizarre to me. Skeptical people would watch a video of a ritual I do and pretend it didn't really happen? That I didn't just light some incense in honor of Storm and say some words of praise to it? That's just... I don't get that. What, do they need to be there in person or something? I've only led rituals for others a couple times... and not sure I'd feel comfortable doing it for outsiders. Not sure I'd want to record it either... honestly. Most of the time when I do this stuff it's spur of the moment, and I'm not interested in being one of those YouTubers who keeps a camera on a stick to record themselves doing things. :sweat:



If only it were that simple. I'll indulge the game briefly, but here are problems that I have with it:
  • Pretty much every time someone does this game, evidence presented by one party is rejected by the other as "real evidence"
  • Worldviews are gestalts. "Show me the evidence" reductionist approaches are ill-suited to exploring gestalt phenomena on several levels. I'd argue it's an impossible task.
  • Approaching and analyzing non-sciences as if they should sciences is nonsensical, counterproductive, and missing the darned point.
But here's a really horrible simplified and incredibly misleading and missing the point example of "evidence" to support one of my "beliefs:"
  • To be culturally neutral about it, "gods" are simply that which a person or culture designates as worthy of worship, or as sacred and of value in some fashion. The reasons for that vary, but typically the gods are seen as "greater" than humans in some fashion (there are exceptions)
  • Through my years life experience and learning (gestalt, remember?), estis, ergo sum is self-evident. That is, the thing I call "me" existing is 100% contingent upon this wonderful planet and universe and all of its aspects. If you need evidence that you depend on the universe for your existence, well... I'm not sure I can help people with "captain obvious" sort of things. Study ecology, I guess? Think about that air you are breathing and what would happen if it wasn't there? :sweat:
  • If this total dependence isn't indicative of "greater" or "higher power," I don't know what is. I'd be one hell of an ingrate if I didn't deeply value reality and call it sacred and worthy of worship. Reality and all of its aspects are, therefore, my gods. I depend on them fully for my existence and sometimes refer to it collectively as the Weave to drive home the interconnected, interdependent nature of reality (aka, the gods).
  • My religious path basically centers around being aware of the Weave and not taking that interdependency for granted. Gratitude and thankfulness are key, as is forever studying the gods through any means that inspire me. As touched on before, if you need evidence for basic things like the sun and storms, or phenomena like learning or creativity, ... I really don't... yeah. How's that air you're breathing? :sweat:
And now is the part where someone tells me that I don't get to decide what is worthy of worship because that the sun and the trees and the air I'm breathing aren't really gods (only the God of the Bible is really God, or gods have to be sentient, or supernatural, or blah, blah, blah), or only such and such authority gets to decide what I can worship, or that... I don't know... some sort of rationalizing it away. Heard them all by now, probably. It's what people do, yeah? It's cool. Not your path. It's mine. I plan to keep it. Don't care if others leave it be. I sing songs of Storm and Sun, of the spirits of the land, of the Winged Ones, of the sacred halls of the Spirit of Learning called libraries, of the Spirit of Imagination that weaves beautiful prose and works of art. Others have different songs. The diversity of songs we sing is part of what makes this reality I live in so awesome to me. :D
If you define gods as anything worthy of worship or you deem worthy of worship then I can't really say gods don't exist. If you mean they can answer prayers that is kind of another story. What I mean by watching the ritual is that it wouldn't prove anything. Just saying the storms or whatever are gods doesn't make them gods but now we're arguing over definition...

90% of this could of been avoided if you just said whatever you felt was worthy of worship is a god cause that would of been ****ing obvious then. We were speaking two different languages practically.
 

dianaiad

Well-Known Member
Lets pretend all religions are equally possibly correct. If one goes by nothing but the numbers the chance of you being correct are 1 in 19 if you count the large religions of the world . From there if you add in religious sects and dead religions the chance goes down even lower.

So how do you figure which religion is the correct one if there is indeed a correct one?

OK, you have a couple of assumptions here, if only for the purpose of the discussion:

1. That there is a God (if the assumption is that one of the current religions is correct, then, since all of them (except perhaps Buddhism) claims that there is one. Even Buddhism claims a 'higher power' of some sort that handles things.

2. That one of the myriad religions out there actually is the 'true' one.

Going by these two assumptions, then, the solution is easy. Study each one and ask God if it's 'the one.' If God exists (and remember, that is the assumption) then He will answer you in some way. When you get that answer, settle down and stop looking. You found it.

If you end up looking at each and every religion there is and still haven't received an answer from God about one of 'em, two things could be happening:

1. You missed a religion somewhere.
2. You weren't paying attention when God said 'stop! this is it!'

Either way, you have to start over.

The process is easily explained, but of course the actual doing of it isn't quite that easy. Good luck.
 

Lorgar-Aurelian

Active Member
OK, you have a couple of assumptions here, if only for the purpose of the discussion:

1. That there is a God (if the assumption is that one of the current religions is correct, then, since all of them (except perhaps Buddhism) claims that there is one. Even Buddhism claims a 'higher power' of some sort that handles things.

2. That one of the myriad religions out there actually is the 'true' one.

Going by these two assumptions, then, the solution is easy. Study each one and ask God if it's 'the one.' If God exists (and remember, that is the assumption) then He will answer you in some way. When you get that answer, settle down and stop looking. You found it.

If you end up looking at each and every religion there is and still haven't received an answer from God about one of 'em, two things could be happening:

1. You missed a religion somewhere.
2. You weren't paying attention when God said 'stop! this is it!'

Either way, you have to start over.

The process is easily explained, but of course the actual doing of it isn't quite that easy. Good luck.
Unless polytheism is a thing. Or deism.
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
What I mean by watching the ritual is that it wouldn't prove anything.

It doesn't? Witnessing and documenting a ritual isn't evidence that a ritual took place? :sweat:
What do you mean by "anything?" I get the sense you don't really mean "anything," you mean something specific. Sorry if this sounds obnoxious, but I tend to assume people mean what they say. If you don't really mean "anything," what did you mean?


Just saying the storms or whatever are gods doesn't make them gods

I don't understand how that works. If someone tells me "these are my gods," I take them at their word unless I have good reason to suspect they are lying to me. I also see no cause to say to them "no, those are not gods" as if it is my place to dictate their cultural traditions. Theological exclusivists do that sort of thing all the time, granted. They make their business to tell everyone else what "god" is and insist that other people's gods are "false gods." Not so much my thing, I guess, but I guess it works for the people who do that?


but now we're arguing over definition...

I didn't think that's what we were doing. What's there to argue about? You don't have to deify and worship the same things others do. Nor should you, IMO. It's a personal matter. Some don't use the word "god" (or various equivalents) at all.


90% of this could of been avoided if you just said whatever you felt was worthy of worship is a god cause that would of been ****ing obvious then. We were speaking two different languages practically.

What were we avoiding or supposed to avoid?
Certainly, yes, various theists and non-theists tend to talk past each other. It happens. Part of the point of Interfaith Discussion is to try to get past those communications barriers and understand each other's traditions. It's hard. :D
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
What are the chances any of the bacteria in my gut understand who I am, or why they are there?
I get where the analogy is coming from, but the bacteria in your gut simply don't care/aren't even cognizant they are "part of something bigger." I also subscribe to the idea that a conscious brain is merely put to the task as a mechanism to protect the greater community of cells that is "the body" by being responsible for reacting to oncoming stimulus - which means no part is any "higher"/better than those bacteria. All parts are nearly equally important, including "consciousness". Without the cells of any major organ - failure. Without the bacteria in your digestive system - failure. Without consciousness (provided courtesy of the cells of the brain) to keep the whole mess out of danger's way - failure.

The ultimate point being that positing an objective "something more" or something greater than all other forms of matter/energy/whatever isn't necessarily a valid position to start from. Just like someone might claim that "consciousness" is the "best"/most-important part of an animal.
 

Lorgar-Aurelian

Active Member
It doesn't? Witnessing and documenting a ritual isn't evidence that a ritual took place? :sweat: What do you mean by "anything?" I get the sense you don't really mean "anything," you mean something specific. Sorry if this sounds obnoxious, but I tend to assume people mean what they say. If you don't really mean "anything," what did you mean?



I don't understand how that works. If someone tells me "these are my gods," I take them at their word unless I have good reason to suspect they are lying to me. I also see no cause to say to them "no, those are not gods" as if it is my place to dictate their cultural traditions. Theological exclusivists do that sort of thing all the time, granted. They make their business to tell everyone else what "god" is and insist that other people's gods are "false gods." Not so much my thing, I guess, but I guess it works for the people who do that?




I didn't think that's what we were doing. What's there to argue about? You don't have to deify and worship the same things others do. Nor should you, IMO. It's a personal matter. Some don't use the word "god" (or various equivalents) at all.




What were we avoiding or supposed to avoid?
Certainly, yes, various theists and non-theists tend to talk past each other. It happens. Part of the point of Interfaith Discussion is to try to get past those communications barriers and understand each other's traditions. It's hard. :D
I'm just gona go ahead and say never mind and call it good.
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
I'm just gona go ahead and say never mind and call it good.

Why? You ask questions as if you are open-minded and curious about these matters, but responses like this make me wonder how much active listening you are willing or able to practice. Is there something I've said that is unclear that could be explained better? Take your time.

@Carlita is better at this than I am most days... *laughs*
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
That's just so bizarre to me. Skeptical people would watch a video of a ritual I do and pretend it didn't really happen? That I didn't just light some incense in honor of Storm and say some words of praise to it? That's just... I don't get that. What, do they need to be there in person or something? I've only led rituals for others a couple times... and not sure I'd feel comfortable doing it for outsiders. Not sure I'd want to record it either... honestly. Most of the time when I do this stuff it's spur of the moment, and I'm not interested in being one of those YouTubers who keeps a camera on a stick to record themselves doing things. :sweat:



If only it were that simple. I'll indulge the game briefly, but here are problems that I have with it:
  • Pretty much every time someone does this game, evidence presented by one party is rejected by the other as "real evidence"
  • Worldviews are gestalts. "Show me the evidence" reductionist approaches are ill-suited to exploring gestalt phenomena on several levels. I'd argue it's an impossible task.
  • Approaching and analyzing non-sciences as if they should sciences is nonsensical, counterproductive, and missing the darned point.
But here's a really horrible simplified and incredibly misleading and missing the point example of "evidence" to support one of my "beliefs:"
  • To be culturally neutral about it, "gods" are simply that which a person or culture designates as worthy of worship, or as sacred and of value in some fashion. The reasons for that vary, but typically the gods are seen as "greater" than humans in some fashion (there are exceptions)
  • Through my years life experience and learning (gestalt, remember?), estis, ergo sum is self-evident. That is, the thing I call "me" existing is 100% contingent upon this wonderful planet and universe and all of its aspects. If you need evidence that you depend on the universe for your existence, well... I'm not sure I can help people with "captain obvious" sort of things. Study ecology, I guess? Think about that air you are breathing and what would happen if it wasn't there? :sweat:
  • If this total dependence isn't indicative of "greater" or "higher power," I don't know what is. I'd be one hell of an ingrate if I didn't deeply value reality and call it sacred and worthy of worship. Reality and all of its aspects are, therefore, my gods. I depend on them fully for my existence and sometimes refer to it collectively as the Weave to drive home the interconnected, interdependent nature of reality (aka, the gods).
  • My religious path basically centers around being aware of the Weave and not taking that interdependency for granted. Gratitude and thankfulness are key, as is forever studying the gods through any means that inspire me. As touched on before, if you need evidence for basic things like the sun and storms, or phenomena like learning or creativity, ... I really don't... yeah. How's that air you're breathing? :sweat:
And now is the part where someone tells me that I don't get to decide what is worthy of worship because that the sun and the trees and the air I'm breathing aren't really gods (only the God of the Bible is really God, or gods have to be sentient, or supernatural, or blah, blah, blah), or only such and such authority gets to decide what I can worship, or that... I don't know... some sort of rationalizing it away. Heard them all by now, probably. It's what people do, yeah? It's cool. Not your path. It's mine. I plan to keep it. Don't care if others leave it be. I sing songs of Storm and Sun, of the spirits of the land, of the Winged Ones, of the sacred halls of the Spirit of Learning called libraries, of the Spirit of Imagination that weaves beautiful prose and works of art. Others have different songs. The diversity of songs we sing is part of what makes this reality I live in so awesome to me. :D

I think long story short, tell them you give gratitude every day for being alive, by honoring your environment, people, and self by the things you do and say.

Bit too simple, I guess?
 

dianaiad

Well-Known Member
Unless polytheism is a thing. Or deism.

Well, polytheism only means that you would have more than One God to ask. Deism....well, there you have me. Deists don't think that God gives a hoot past creating the universe. Of course, in that case no religion would count. In fact, I think that the way the OP question is set up pretty much negates the idea of Deism...or agnosticism or atheism. Remember, one of the assumptions is that there IS a 'true church' out there. if the Deists are correct, there's no religion out there that would qualify as 'the one, true religion,' and of course the same goes for atheists and agnostics.
 

Lorgar-Aurelian

Active Member
Why? You ask questions as if you are open-minded and curious about these matters, but responses like this make me wonder how much active listening you are willing or able to practice. Is there something I've said that is unclear that could be explained better? Take your time.

@Carlita is better at this than I am most days... *laughs*
No I just got to the point where I was frustrated and couldn't see a point in continuing this conversation.
 
Top