the right religion

[Meow Mix]

The same way you know anything. You just know it.

Do you see the nature of knowing differently than that? If so, I'd be curious to hear your comments on it. How do you come to know things?

What if I don't know it, though? You can always argue that I'm lying or pretending not to know something -- but what if I really don't know whether or not there is a God or a holy spirit?

Normally knowledge is gained through some sort of epistemic process. It's defined as justified true belief. To know some proposition p, it must be believed, it must be justified, and it must be true.

The key area that I find lacking when it comes to God or the Holy Spirit is the justification part. Normally there are five sources of justification:

1) Memory
2) Perception
3) Introspection
4) Testimony
5) Reason

I've certainly heard testimony about the existence of God and the Holy Spirit, but I've also heard testimony about a great deal of other, contradictory things. Testimony alone isn't sufficient.

 

[Photonic]

In the back of our minds we feel there must be something after death..

That's called Survival Instinct.

 

[Riverwolf]

Do you even know the names of all scriptures of all the religions of the World before making such a sweeping generalized statement?

In all fairness, simply because Hinduism has hundreds, if not thousands, of Scriptures, I don't think even experts could name all the Scriptures of the world.

 

[religion99]

In all fairness, simply because Hinduism has hundreds, if not thousands, of Scriptures, I don't think even experts could name all the Scriptures of the world.

Sorry , I meant to say : Do you even know the names of principal scriptures of all the religions of the World before making such a sweeping generalized statement?

 

[9Westy9]

Hi, Westy. Yes, we seem able to see objects, but some of us see pink unicorns and insist we have knowledge about pink unicorns. These people know pink unicorns just as you know the people around you. Maybe you would argue that they don't really know the pink unicorns, but I would allow them their knowledge. If they claim to know it, I accept that they know it. (I might opine that their knowledge doesn't match exterior reality, of course.)

And usually these people are taken to mental institutes

Anyway, I hear people all the time claiming to know things which are not physically provable. I know that justice was done to Bin Laden. You know that your neighbor hates your dog. People in this thread know the right religion from the wrong one, and Moses knew that God was in the bush rather than a natural gas leak.

If people in this thread know the right religion then why do they all vary in beliefs? The "justice was done to Bin Laden" is actually subjective. Some people don't agree that he should have been killed. The only way you can know my neighbour hates my dog is if you read his mind or he tells you he hates my dog. These are all very different from the holy spirit.

The OP of this thread asserts that there must be a 'right religion' and asks how we can come to know it. My simple answer is that we just know what we know. We know the right religion by convincing ourselves that we know it. It's the same way we know the Holy Spirit from a false spirit.

Well then I disagree with the assertion. There is ether 1 right religion or no right religion. I haven't seen enough evidence to convince me that any particular 1 religion has the 'truth'. And you can use the "I know what I know" but don't expect to convince other people with that.

How else do we know things except by convincing ourselves that we know them?

There are some things that most, if not all, people can 'convince' themselves to know. People know that the sky is blue. People know that Barack Obama is president of the United states. Things like the holy spirit, however, are only known in the minds of Christians

 

[Orias]

Hi, Westy. Yes, we seem able to see objects, but some of us see pink unicorns and insist we have knowledge about pink unicorns. These people know pink unicorns just as you know the people around you. Maybe you would argue that they don't really know the pink unicorns, but I would allow them their knowledge. If they claim to know it, I accept that they know it. (I might opine that their knowledge doesn't match exterior reality, of course.)

I know a lot about pink unicorns, in fact I know so much that I can create them.

Anyway, I hear people all the time claiming to know things which are not physically provable. I know that justice was done to Bin Laden. You know that your neighbor hates your dog. People in this thread know the right religion from the wrong one, and Moses knew that God was in the bush rather than a natural gas leak.

Because we physically dwell in a physical realm, but there is something else in our mental states that begs for an end to such things.

The OP of this thread asserts that there must be a 'right religion' and asks how we can come to know it. My simple answer is that we just know what we know. We know the right religion by convincing ourselves that we know it. It's the same way we know the Holy Spirit from a false spirit.

Actually, some people have no idea at all.

How else do we know things except by convincing ourselves that we know them?

Most of the time its other people doing the convincing.

I tend to stray from that.

 

[Me Myself]

Opinion !!!, I support all that I write with Biblical support , it is you and the majority of the members that only contribute their opinions without ever any Bible verses.

A text with talking donkeys and saint cursing children to be mauled by bears is hardly a good referencing material when speaking about morality.

 

[GabrielWithoutWings]

I am sorry but you are wrong. Hell is real. You are the one who is quoting pagan doctrine.

Are you serious? You say 'Hell is real' and then accuse someone of 'quoting pagan doctrine'?

 

[Woodrow LI]

Is there one true religion? I believe there is and I believe it is the one I chose to follow.

I also know that every person who follows a religion, believes the same thing, that they follow the true religion.

The question comes to be "How can I prove one religion is the true one?"

Simple answer --we can't. At least not a proof that all people will accept.

The burden in religion becomes the need for all of us to seek, question and verify our findings from as many sources we can find. Blind faith is often blind, one needs to seek and find what reasons there are to follow. This takes learning.

We can not prove our religion to all people. but all people can take the responsibility to do honest, sincere, searching and verifying. We all have the ability to look for proof that will verify what we believe. It is all about personal responsibility and free will. We all have the obligation to make informed choices and we all have the ability to search. Believe what you find to be true, but be certain to verify it. Ultimately each of us will face the consequences of our choices and we do not have the option of saying somebody misled us. It is not up to somebody to teach us, it is up to us to learn. We need to be active participants in our learning and not think we can absorb by osmosis from teachers.

 

[Orias]

Are you serious? You say 'Hell is real' and then accuse someone of 'quoting pagan doctrine'?

I laughed, so you get a nice frubing

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I know a lot about pink unicorns, in fact I know so much that I can create them.

It can be a valuable talent. What's your medium?

Actually, some people have no idea at all.

Well, they need to spend more time in debate forums. At the very least, they'll know more about what they don't know.

Most of the time its other people doing the convincing.

I tend to stray from that.

From convincing? Or from being convinced?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

And usually these people are taken to mental institutes

Sure. Anyone who strays too far outside of majority opinion is risking that.

If people in this thread know the right religion then why do they all vary in beliefs?

I’m not sure I understand your question exactly so forgive me if my answer seems a bit off-point. My answer is that Truth is an illusion. Everything which we know is simply our personal opinion – unless we are an actual Prophet of God, I mean. In that case, I guess our knowledge would necessarily match external reality.

So I can know that Islam is right at the same moment as you know Hinduism to be right.

The "justice was done to Bin Laden" is actually subjective. Some people don't agree that he should have been killed. The only way you can know my neighbour hates my dog is if you read his mind or he tells you he hates my dog. These are all very different from the holy spirit.

My claim is that all knowledge is subjective. We go around claiming to know stuff, and that seems to sometimes confuse us. We start thinking that our known things are ‘true’ outside of ourselves. But we actually don’t know anything in a way transcending our personal opinions. That’s my claim, anyway.

I could be wrong about anything I know. There’s always a chance that my knowledge doesn’t match up with external reality.

Well then I disagree with the assertion. There is ether 1 right religion or no right religion.

OK. We just (profoundly) disagree then. I don’t believe in a God who comes down and tells one special prophet the Truth. Lots of problems with that conception, I think.

I haven't seen enough evidence to convince me that any particular 1 religion has the 'truth'. And you can use the "I know what I know" but don't expect to convince other people with that.

I think that some will see the integrity of my views and others won’t. It’s not an important issue for me. I’m not here to convince you, but only to argue for the integration of my outlook and use of language to explain that outlook.

Things like the holy spirit, however, are only known in the minds of Christians.

But I am living proof that you’re mistaken about that. I rarely think of myself as a Christian (and virtually no Christian, anywhere, would call me a Christian, I think). Yet I believe that the concept of a holy spirit is very useful. It reinforces the idea that each one of us is as true a prophet as the next guy... which I believe to be the actual case.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

What if I don't know it, though? You can always argue that I'm lying or pretending not to know something -- but what if I really don't know whether or not there is a God or a holy spirit?

Well... then you don’t know it. I can’t see how anything else could be the state of things. Just because you can know a thing doesn’t mean that you must know a thing. Everyone is free to know what they know, I think.

Normally knowledge is gained through some sort of epistemic process. It's defined as justified true belief. To know some proposition p, it must be believed, it must be justified, and it must be true.

Words are defined in many ways by various people, but that isn’t a definition of knowledge which I myself find coherent or defensible. Maybe you can show me that it does work well, though.

My first question is: How do you determine whether a belief is true?

And second: Are you saying that you only know true things? Everything which you know is necessarily true?

I suppose it may work at the definitional or mathematical level. If I define a ‘bird’ as a ‘feathered, flying animal,’ then I can know that all the world’s birds are feathered flyers. And I can know that an ostrich is not a bird. Would you agree that I could know those things?

I've certainly heard testimony about the existence of God and the Holy Spirit, but I've also heard testimony about a great deal of other, contradictory things. Testimony alone isn't sufficient.

If someone knows that Muhammed had a direct pipeline to God and the Quran is inspired by God, then he owns a justified, true belief and can know that Islam is the right religion. By your definition. So it seems to me.

In other words, I can’t argue that the other guy doesn’t know what he knows – not unless I believe him to be lying about his knowledge. I can only argue that his conclusions seem flawed to me. In my opinion, they don’t match up very well with external reality.

But to argue that he doesn’t really know a thing – that seems almost like magical thinking to me. It seems to presume that humans can ‘know’ things in a way transcending personal opinion. I can’t see how that’s possible. So to view knowledge in that way seems to me like a belief in the supernatural.

 

[Photonic]

Well... then you don’t know it. I can’t see how anything else could be the state of things. Just because you can know a thing doesn’t mean that you must know a thing. Everyone is free to know what they know, I think.



Words are defined in many ways by various people, but that isn’t a definition of knowledge which I myself find coherent or defensible. Maybe you can show me that it does work well, though.

My first question is: How do you determine whether a belief is true?

And second: Are you saying that you only know true things? Everything which you know is necessarily true?

I suppose it may work at the definitional or mathematical level. If I define a ‘bird’ as a ‘feathered, flying animal,’ then I can know that all the world’s birds are feathered flyers. And I can know that an ostrich is not a bird. Would you agree that I could know those things?



If someone knows that Muhammed had a direct pipeline to God and the Quran is inspired by God, then he owns a justified, true belief and can know that Islam is the right religion. By your definition. So it seems to me.

In other words, I can’t argue that the other guy doesn’t know what he knows – not unless I believe him to be lying about his knowledge. I can only argue that his conclusions seem flawed to me. In my opinion, they don’t match up very well with external reality.

But to argue that he doesn’t really know a thing – that seems almost like magical thinking to me. It seems to presume that humans can ‘know’ things in a way transcending personal opinion. I can’t see how that’s possible. So to view knowledge in that way seems to me like a belief in the supernatural.

I know that Lord of the Rings is a justified, true dictation of events. All hail our Orcish Overlords.

 

[Meow Mix]

I know that Lord of the Rings is a justified, true dictation of events. All hail our Orcish Overlords.

Ahem. I certainly hope you mean hail Iluvatar, or Eru, the One. The orcs ultimately answer to the Dark Lord of the outer void; that Morgoth Bauglir that will return through the gate in the last battle, Dagor Dagorath.

 

[Revoltingest]

Criminy, you know everything about religions of the world!
I can't even remember the difference between Jewids & Druids.
But I know Draheekyurd Baykahn!

 

[Orias]

It can be a valuable talent. What's your medium?

Knowing what is fraud and what isn't.

Well, they need to spend more time in debate forums. At the very least, they'll know more about what they don't know.

Indifference might also play a role.

From convincing? Or from being convinced?

Other people trying to convince me of their silliness. There's a fine line between trying to annul and convert varies groups and individuals upon an unquestioned premise rather than observing carefully and knowing the origin of self institutionalization.

 

[Renji]

I think there is only one true religion/ church, but there could be religions "close" to that religion. Also, it's hard to identify because we 'perceive' a religion based on faith or our own convictions and not on facts, and it is hard to 'measure' religion.

 

[Photonic]

Ahem. I certainly hope you mean hail Iluvatar, or Eru, the One. The orcs ultimately answer to the Dark Lord of the outer void; that Morgoth Bauglir that will return through the gate in the last battle, Dagor Dagorath.

That is true, but if Galadriel had taken the Ring, she would be our new God(dess)!

 

[Meow Mix]

That is true, but if Galadriel had taken the Ring, she would be our new God(dess)!

Pffft, Galadriel may be the most ancient and mightiest of the Noldor in Middle-Earth, but even so she could never harness enough power from the Ring (which would not obey her) to stop Sauron's onslaught. Sauron's military victory was totally assured unless the Ring was destroyed; even if the Ring were used against him. Then it would have just been a matter of time before he stripped it from the Elf-maiden, probably with his own bare hands!

Even Saruman, who was of the same stock and race as Sauron (though of much lesser stature) could have only hoped to use the Ring in a "slave's mockery" of Sauron's power -- and Saruman was considerably much more powerful than Galadriel.

That being said, Sauron himself was tiny and pathetic compared to the first and true Dark Lord (Melkor, a.k.a. Morgoth Bauglir); as even Tolkien described him thusly: "In after years [Sauron] rose like a shadow of Morgoth and a ghost of his malice, and walked behind him on the same ruinous path down into the Void."

Even at the height of his power, Ring and all, Sauron was just a "shadow" and a "ghost" of the original Dark Lord. Essentially, if we're going to worship anyone from Arda I'd go with Morgoth for you dark types, the Valar for polytheists, and Iluvatar for monotheists

PS, besides, Sauron may have had some armies of orcs and a few trolls here and there... but Morgoth had LEGIONS of orcs and trolls as well as armies of balrogs and dragons. The orcs, trolls and arguably the balrog of Moria only served Sauron because he was once a loyal lieutenant of Morgoth, but it was Morgoth who created* the orcs (corrupted elves), the trolls (in mockery of ents), the balrogs (corrupted Maiar and spirits of flame/shadow), dragons (corrupted Maiar/spirits of wyrms), and other horrible things like the spiders (the brood of Ungoliant, evil spirit seduced by Morgoth at the beginning of time -- Shelob and the spiders of Mirkwood are distantly related to Ungoliant).

(* -- Morgoth couldn't create, only Iluvatar could, but Morgoth could take that which existed and corrupt it!)