the right religion

[Enai de a lukal]

I don't agree.

That's fine; you're mistaken, and I can tell you why, but you're under no compulsion to hold accurate beliefs.

I believe in gods, but I wouldn't say they have to be true for you.

If it is true that there are gods, it is true for everyone. But there are no gods.

***

How do you know a single claim you made here?

Why ask a question you know the answer to? I mean, how many different threads have we been participating in regarding this or closely related topics?

 

[1robin]

Why ask a question you know the answer to? I mean, how many different threads have we been participating in regarding this or closely related topics?

I do not remember you ever claiming no God's exist (though today seems like national claim what you can't know day). I consider it beneath your usual argumentation.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I do not remember you ever claiming no God's exist

Well since there is, by definition, only one God, and you know from experience that I claim he doesn't exist, this is clearly wrong. I'm also not sure how you could miss that I hold that no other gods (besides God, the Christian god) exist either.

 

[Ingledsva]

Arguing about an argument is not something I spend much time doing so this will last I intend defending something you have no basis for contending. I did not ask him why he choose Satanism. I asked him why it was right. The basis for adopting a religion is almost always that it is true. It is not ice cream or a car that is selected based on taste. The thread is what is the right religion not what religion tastes good. In your world view what is convenient or preferred is a basis for claiming what is true but not in reality. However even if theology was a matter of taste my question was just and your questioning of my question just as invalid as was your telling me why someone else selected a theology in the first place. IMO the emotional basis for your views is betraying your own discussions as of late. Most of everything you have claimed lately is unknowable to you even if true.

He does not have to give any definition of "right" for you to try and twist.

You both decide what is right based on your individual thoughts, beliefs, upbringing, life experiences, etc. It is only right to you individually.

Also - I have informed you several times now - that this is a debate - and you need to stop putting in crap like "emotional basis" when you don't like my answers or replies.

*

 

[1robin]

He does not have to give any definition of "right" for you to try and twist.

Which is probably why I never suggested he did. I commented on the suitability of the question not it's demand of an answer. If you are selling pure frustration I am not buying.

 

[Ingledsva]

Which is probably why I never suggested he did. I commented on the suitability of the question not it's demand of an answer. If you are selling pure frustration I am not buying.

I am replying to you with pure fact.

Again -

You both decide what is right based on your individual thoughts, beliefs, upbringing, life experiences, etc. It is only "right" to you individually.

How you chose your direction, is no different then how he chose his.

Whether you like to think so, or not.

*

 

[psychoslice]

There is no true religion outside of you, true religion is only found within, if you believe your religion is better than others, you better think again.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

...if you believe your religion is better than others, you better think again.

... Because they're all more or less rubbish?

 

[psychoslice]

... Because they're all more or less rubbish?

Actually you could say that, the belief system found outside is someone else's left overs, so yes its rubbish.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

If you mean objectively true then how do you know? If you mean subjectively true then how do you know it is actually true? I am not asking what you think is true. I am asking that if you believe it is true then based on what?

Personal experience and study. It is highly subjective. I am interested in what is true to me. What is true to you may differ.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

That's fine; you're mistaken, and I can tell you why, but you're under no compulsion to hold accurate beliefs.

That is your subjective view that there are no gods and as such, you have no right to declare someone's belief in gods to be wrong as if it were an objective truth. It's not the belief in deity that is wrong, it is the particular concept of deity that is either wrong or right. Some are more logical than others. I think a lot of anti-theists don't understand that.

If it is true that there are gods, it is true for everyone. But there are no gods.

That's a meaningless subjective statement.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

That is your subjective view that there are no gods and as such, you have no right to declare someone's belief in gods to be wrong as if it were an objective truth. It's not the belief in deity that is wrong, it is the particular concept of deity that is either wrong or right. Some are more logical than others. I think a lot of anti-theists don't understand that.

There's nothing to understand here- you're simply mistaken. Whether there are gods or not is an objective, subject-invariant matter of fact. And if there are no gods, then belief in gods is "wrong" in the sense that it is false.

That's a meaningless subjective statement.

It's obviously not meaningless, nor is it subjective. It's meaning is perfectly clear to anyone who understands English- that the existence of gods is a matter of fact, and does not vary from person to person. Belief in the existence of gods is subjective, and varies from person to person, but not the facts. Just as it is as true for you that the Miami Heat won the NBA championship last year as it is for me, or anyone else (regardless of whether you believe it or not), the fact of the matter of the existence of gods (or, more accurately, the non-existence of gods) holds for everyone, regardless of what we happen to think about the matter.

Unfortunately for you, reality isn't overly concerned with accommodating our pet beliefs- rather, its the other way around; we have to make our beliefs accommodate our (shared, objective, universal) reality.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

There's nothing to understand here- you're simply mistaken. Whether there are gods or not is an objective, subject-invariant matter of fact. And if there are no gods, then belief in gods is "wrong" in the sense that it is false.

We have no objective proof, either way. We are all agnostic when it comes to the subject, so you can stop with this arrogant nonsense.

It's obviously not meaningless, nor is it subjective. It's meaning is perfectly clear to anyone who understands English- that the existence of gods is a matter of fact, and does not vary from person to person. Belief in the existence of gods is subjective, and varies from person to person, but not the facts. Just as it is as true for you that the Miami Heat won the NBA championship last year as it is for me, or anyone else (regardless of whether you believe it or not), the fact of the matter of the existence of gods (or, more accurately, the non-existence of gods) holds for everyone, regardless of what we happen to think about the matter.

Unfortunately for you, reality isn't overly concerned with accommodating our pet beliefs- rather, its the other way around; we have to make our beliefs accommodate our (shared, objective, universal) reality.

I think people should go by their own personal experience and study. I'm not here to make you believe that my beliefs are the correct ones, as if you should believe in them too. So you should stop this stupid tangent, thinking that I should accept your point of view as my own, as if it overrides my personal point of view.

I'm not interested in discussing this with you any further, because it's a non-issue. Go fight with a fundamentalist over this.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

We have no objective proof, either way.

Maybe not "proof", in the strictest sense, but we have a good deal of evidence, and most damningly, conceptual analysis of most conceptions of God show that the very concept is internally contradictory- and this is comparable to a mathematical/logical proof, since an entity with contradictory properties (such as, for instance, omnipotence and necessary existence, atemporality and action, transcendence and existence) cannot exist (e.g. a round square)

We are all agnostic when it comes to the subject, so you can stop with this arrogant nonsense.

No, we aren't, nor should we be. Agnosticism isn't really a viable option, since theism makes truth-claims which entail worldly evidence- so either the evidence obtains, which corroborates theism, or it does not, which corroborates atheism. And there's no more sense in being agnostic about those conceptions of God which are incoherent than there is in being agnostic about beings that are all white and all red, all over. (also, notice how calling a view "arrogant nonsense" isn't a counter-argument)

I think people should go by their own personal experience and study. I'm not here to make you believe that my beliefs are the correct ones, as if you should believe in them too. So you should stop this stupid tangent, thinking that I should accept your point of view as my own, as if it overrides my personal point of view.

Part of the purpose of this site- especially the "Religious Debates" section is to debate religion (duh!)- including, obviously, the truth of various religions or religion in general.

So quit whining.

I'm not interested in discussing this with you any further, because it's a non-issue. Go fight with a fundamentalist over this.

Have you bothered to read the title of the thread, or the OP? Given that the topic of this thread is the "right religion", as in, which one is true (i.e. objectively), I'd say that the truth of belief in the existence or non-existence of God is eminently relevant.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I'm not interested in the bickering between theists and atheists. I'm not really involved in your paradigm so your arguments about this are best saved for mainstream religious believers.

Have a nice night.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I'm not interested in the bickering between theists and atheists.

No bickering. And if you're not interested in discussing the truth or accuracy of various religion positions, I'm not sure what you're doing in the "Religious Debates" section of this forum, particularly on a thread concerned with what the "right religion" happens to be.

I'm not really involved in your paradigm so your arguments about this are best saved for mainstream religious believers.

Ah, yes, your views are so unconventional and unique- you're clearly enlightened. Actually, you're just fooling yourself- at least regarding the views you've expressed on this particular thread, my "paradigm" is apparently perfectly applicable. You don't get a free pass to make unsubstantiated and inaccurate statements simply because you consider your views outside of the mainstream.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

No bickering. And if you're not interested in discussing the truth or accuracy of various religion positions, I'm not sure what you're doing in the "Religious Debates" section of this forum, particularly on a thread concerned with what the "right religion" happens to be.

I just stated that my religion is right for me, so I have no idea why you are choosing to bicker with me (yes, you are bickering) because I believe in various gods/forces/powers. You're wasting your time, since nothing I said was pushy or anything like that. You are just one of those anti-theists that is as bad as religious fundamentalism in your black and white beliefs. I'm not interested in talking to people with those mindsets.

Ah, yes, your views are so unconventional and unique- you're clearly enlightened. Actually, you're just fooling yourself- at least regarding the views you've expressed on this particular thread, my "paradigm" is apparently perfectly applicable. You don't get a free pass to make unsubstantiated and inaccurate statements simply because you consider your views outside of the mainstream.

Please, go be an *** to someone else. I'm not interested. I'm going to ignore you from now on.

 

[Cephus]

No bickering. And if you're not interested in discussing the truth or accuracy of various religion positions, I'm not sure what you're doing in the "Religious Debates" section of this forum, particularly on a thread concerned with what the "right religion" happens to be.

Exactly. I see that all the time, people who claim that they aren't interested in truth or reality or facts, but who spend a lot of time hanging out on debate forums trying to short-circuit any examination of religious claims. It always strikes me not as people who aren't interested in the facts, but people with a vested interest in keeping rationalists from closely examining religious faith.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Anyway, my sole point was that there is no one religion that's right for everyone. That was it. I don't care if you believe in such and such or not. But obviously there's people of both theistic and atheistic mindsets that are interested in pushing their beliefs on everyone else, no matter if those people's beliefs concern them or not. I'm against such behavior, period. But I guess "live and let live" is completely out the window with those people.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Exactly. I see that all the time, people who claim that they aren't interested in truth or reality or facts, but who spend a lot of time hanging out on debate forums trying to short-circuit any examination of religious claims. It always strikes me not as people who aren't interested in the facts, but people with a vested interest in keeping rationalists from closely examining religious faith.

I don't see any rational examination of religious beliefs coming from him. Just a bunch of bashing and "you're wrong because I say so!". It's the same behavior that religious fundamentalists exhibit. I suppose you could say that he's an evangelical anti-theist. He's the same as any other evangelist. The only difference is the brand of the product they're trying to foist on you.