Too many religions

[adam9]

Also ill be waiting for your proof that the moon is mad of cheese soon

 

[Sir Doom]

One major reason for me, that keeps me from being a theist, is that there are too many religions. People seem to concentrate on one religion with blinders on and ignore everything else. How can a theist look at all the religions they don't belong to, past and present, and not wonder if their religion is just as made up or fictitious as all the religions they don't believe in? What makes today's gods more reasonable and credible than past gods like Zeus, Ra, and Odin? Religion still boils down to people believing incredible claims with zero evidence to support any of it. Additionally, if there was a god that wanted to communicate a message to us, I think it would be capable of doing a much better job of it then sending a middle man to preach it in one corner of the world to one group of people. A true god would be capable of sending multiple prophets to multiple people in the world with the same message at the same time. However, we don't see that.

I would guess that the 'lack of evidence' you talk about has much more to do with your atheism than the number of religions in the world. I'm willing to bet that if there was only one, you'd still remain unconvinced due to that. Don't you think?

Also, its interesting that you wonder why so many theists don't question their own religion and yet they so easily dismiss the beliefs of other religions as false. Don't you think it might have something to do with those religions disagreeing with their chosen religion? It seems only natural to believe what you believe and disbelieve those that disagree with what you believe. Consider yourself for example. Don't you ever wonder why a vast majority of the planet disagrees with you regarding theism? How do you manage to disbelieve a vast majority of the world without ever questioning your own extremely rare view on the subject? Its almost like you have complete control over what you do or don't believe, isn't it? I wonder if it works the same for everyone else on the planet? :yes:

Finally, considering you are not a theist, and by definition must have no belief in god at all. How can you then go on to describe what a 'true god' is capable of and what a 'true god' would or should do? Wouldn't it be a bit more consistent for you to say a 'true god' would do absolutely nothing at all since there is absolutely no such thing?

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Also ill be waiting for your proof that the moon is mad of cheese soon

Analogies must be a foreign concept to you, oh rational one.

 

[adam9]

Hahaha I just wanted to show you that these prophets were no ordinary Joe's and they had to either be ready to back up their claims or be torn apart for hersy (I know I suck at spelling please excuse it ) also you need to look at thinks from a rational and critical angle I agree with you but you also need to becarful and keep your desires sling check in order to truely understand truth from falsehood good dilouging with you

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Hahaha I just wanted to show you that these prophets were no ordinary Joe's and they had to either be ready to back up their claims or be torn apart for hersy (I know I suck at spelling please excuse it ) also you need to look at thinks from a rational and critical angle I agree with you but you also need to becarful and keep your desires sling check in order to truely understand truth from falsehood good dilouging with you

You have yet to prove anything to anyone. Rectify that before you mouth off to others again.

 

[adam9]

The fact that I gave you a book with an authors name which has the holy book the Quaran and the Bible being examinded unbaisedly in the light of scientific discoveries means nothing to you and is not sufficient as proof to you. Also did you say what you said because you feel offended or is it because you have no proof for your claims other than ifs this or if that

 

[Gjallarhorn]

The fact that I gave you a book with an authors name which has the holy book the Quaran and the Bible being examinded unbaisedly in the light of scientific discoveries means nothing to you and is not sufficient as proof to you. Also did you say what you said because you feel offended or is it because you have no proof for your claims other than ifs this or if that

Can you present any of the arguments in the book here please?

 

[Orias]

One major reason for me, that keeps me from being a theist, is that there are too many religions. People seem to concentrate on one religion with blinders on and ignore everything else. How can a theist look at all the religions they don't belong to, past and present, and not wonder if their religion is just as made up or fictitious as all the religions they don't believe in? What makes today's gods more reasonable and credible than past gods like Zeus, Ra, and Odin? Religion still boils down to people believing incredible claims with zero evidence to support any of it. Additionally, if there was a god that wanted to communicate a message to us, I think it would be capable of doing a much better job of it then sending a middle man to preach it in one corner of the world to one group of people. A true god would be capable of sending multiple prophets to multiple people in the world with the same message at the same time. However, we don't see that.

This is fairly rational and is a position I once held. But later on I took on a different view...

Like why does one need to be religious to believe in a God?

Why does a believe in a God have to be more credible than all other Gods?

Personally, my belief in God involves the belief in all Gods, since my own personal observations have shown me that each and every God is a fabrication and addition to the Gods before it.

As for middle men, well there will always be just that. The grocery store is a middle man, your drug dealer is a middle man, your bed is essentially, a middle man. You say a true God would be able to send multiple prophets and send the same message to multiple people at the same time, but these prophets are middle men.

But aside from that, it is also within my personal belief that God is often the messenger himself, and that even some of us humans, could be considered worthy of the title "God head".

But all deviations aside, gnostic and agnostic are some of the most rational positions, as they both involve unknowing. And again, personally, I often take on the position of gnostic/agnostic in order to achieve a greater understanding of the world and beliefs around me.

 

[adam9]

Don't have the book here with me read it and passed on to other searchers of truth but what the author does is take these too books along with the old testment and takes thing such as how the universe was created and other claims made in these books and compares them with the known scientific facts that have been proven he also takes other claims how people are made(embryology ) how the water cycle works and many others in the end he concludes that according to science the quran which is 1400 yes old book by the way is scientifically correct. DONT believe me please read yourself or don't and Also look up Hamza swordsis vs President of athirst society debate on YouTube

 

[adam9]

If there were other gods along with the all mighty God then you would have seen incosistancies. In the universe

 

[Orias]

If there were other gods along with the all mighty God then you would have seen incosistancies. In the universe

So if there are little me's running around you would see an inconsistency? I mean after all, I am the almighty me, if I create little me's they wouldn't be me at all, they would just all have characteristics of me.

So God isn't allowed to breed? Thats not very appealing

 

[Quintessence]

One major reason for me, that keeps me from being a theist, is that there are too many religions. People seem to concentrate on one religion with blinders on and ignore everything else.

Seeming isn't always actuality. What defines a religion, categorically speaking? What makes something part of X instead of Y? Some folks like to think of religions as rigid categories. You are part of one and no others. There are some folks who do not think this way. They see things as components of a greater whole.

That aside, we can also say that nobody can focus on everything all at once, be the topic religious or otherwise. Why not focus on the things you love? Spend your precious time on the things that bring joy to the core of your being? Why drink from another well when the one you've got bears your favorite?

How can a theist look at all the religions they don't belong to, past and present, and not wonder if their religion is just as made up or fictitious as all the religions they don't believe in?

You seem to be approaching the subject of belief from a very exclusivist perspective. That is to say, you are assuming that the acceptance of one particular religious system necessarily means you think the others are all wrong. Only a minority of religious people do this. Most are variously inclusivist or pluralist. It is not a matter of seeing other religions as fictitious or wrong. It is about finding the well that is your favorite and sticking with it because you love it.

Religion still boils down to people believing incredible claims with zero evidence to support any of it.

*confused blink* Your understanding of the role religion plays in people's lives is... very strange. My religion boils down to nothing of the sort. People are religious for many reasons. Sometimes, because it makes them feel like part of a loving social community. Other times because it provides a framework for purpose in life. Yet others are religious because of the beauty they see in the world. "Incredible claims" are often a very small part.

Additionally, if there was a god that wanted to communicate a message to us, I think it would be capable of doing a much better job of it then sending a middle man to preach it in one corner of the world to one group of people.

It has. There's a podcast I listen to produced by a guy with a gnostic background. He likes to explain that the divine presents itself in a manner that can be identified with by a given culture. It is why there is such diversity in understanding what "god" means; why there are all the pantheons and god-concepts out there. The divine presents itself as a god-concept that the culture or individual can wrap its head around. I think his ideas are interesting, though I'm not sure I fully accept them myself. In the modern day, it has some truth to it. As an individual, you can select the god-concept that resonates with you and that is how the gods are speaking to you most strongly. The hard part is learning to listen when our culture tells us only certain ideas about the divine are valid ways of looking at it. Our culture tells us nonsense like "if it isn't supernatural, it can't be a god" or "the universe can't be god." God is what you see it as. It's whatever inspires in you awe and wonder, whatever you deem sacred, whatever you think is worth your honor and gratitude. In my humble opinion, of course.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

One major reason for me, that keeps me from being a theist, is that there are too many religions. People seem to concentrate on one religion with blinders on and ignore everything else. How can a theist look at all the religions they don't belong to, past and present, and not wonder if their religion is just as made up or fictitious as all the religions they don't believe in? What makes today's gods more reasonable and credible than past gods like Zeus, Ra, and Odin? Religion still boils down to people believing incredible claims with zero evidence to support any of it. Additionally, if there was a god that wanted to communicate a message to us, I think it would be capable of doing a much better job of it then sending a middle man to preach it in one corner of the world to one group of people. A true god would be capable of sending multiple prophets to multiple people in the world with the same message at the same time. However, we don't see that.

You are right, there are too many religions, and tooo many denominations within religions. religions are basically of shoots of culture. Many cultures many religions, that is what i think.

I (being a theist), am more interested in the cultural side of my religious background, more then the religious side itself.

To me holding on to my religious belief is holding on to the culture of my ancestors, i don't want to loose my identity.

you know what they say "if you don't know where you come from then you wont know where your going',.

It does not make a difference to me, or my beliefs if some one believes in the same thing as i do, or something different.

What i don't like is people mocking or treating my culture with disrespect, then i get into my religious mood and give them hell. To me my religion does not degrade other religions, in other words my culture respects the difference and individuality of other cultures.

religion and culture are the same thing for me, and culture can be changed to suit the times and environment your in, you don't have to loose your identity and culture just make the one you have better suited to survive for the future. that's me philosophy.

OM TATH SATH

 

[idav]

Ah...then I don't see why they've been arguing for so many years whilst refusing our most accurate method of discovering who is "right".

If the prophet had direct contact with God how could they all be wrong, they must have got something right.

 

[Orias]

If the prophet had direct contact with God how could they all be wrong, they must have got something right.

Probably because they all ripped off the only possible person who did have direct contact with God.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Don't have the book here with me read it and passed on to other searchers of truth but what the author does is take these too books along with the old testment and takes thing such as how the universe was created and other claims made in these books and compares them with the known scientific facts that have been proven he also takes other claims how people are made(embryology ) how the water cycle works and many others in the end he concludes that according to science the quran which is 1400 yes old book by the way is scientifically correct. DONT believe me please read yourself or don't and Also look up Hamza swordsis vs President of athirst society debate on YouTube

Okay, I think there are a few points to raise here:

1) Not being contradicted by science doesn't always equal accurate, necessary, or "true". It seems to me that it'd be a false dichotomy to assume that a specific claim not being contradicted by science automatically equates to said claim being true.

2) From what I gather of your post, it seems that the author of the book you mention only considers the claims in the Old Testament and the Qur'an for examination against known scientific facts; did he mention any particular reason(s) in his book for his narrowing down the claims to examine to only these two scriptures?

3) If you mean the debate between Hamza Andreas Tzortzis and Ed Buckner, I'd like to know which points you've found to be particularly compelling out of the ones that were raised during the debate.

By the way, one thing to make clear: I'm a Muslim for plenty of reasons; almost none of the arguments that you've presented here in this thread are among them, because I think that they aren't solid grounds to base my belief in Islam on. I'm willing to further elaborate on that if you want me to, but I'd rather we discuss the points I brought up above first.

 

[JustWondering]

This is fairly rational and is a position I once held. But later on I took on a different view...

Like why does one need to be religious to believe in a God?

Why does a believe in a God have to be more credible than all other Gods?

Personally, my belief in God involves the belief in all Gods, since my own personal observations have shown me that each and every God is a fabrication and addition to the Gods before it.

As for middle men, well there will always be just that. The grocery store is a middle man, your drug dealer is a middle man, your bed is essentially, a middle man. You say a true God would be able to send multiple prophets and send the same message to multiple people at the same time, but these prophets are middle men.

But aside from that, it is also within my personal belief that God is often the messenger himself, and that even some of us humans, could be considered worthy of the title "God head".

But all deviations aside, gnostic and agnostic are some of the most rational positions, as they both involve unknowing. And again, personally, I often take on the position of gnostic/agnostic in order to achieve a greater understanding of the world and beliefs around me.

I'm not saying it is impossible for a god/creator of some kind to exist. I just don't believe any of the claims from current religions/theists I've seen so far. If a god were to appear, I think it would be quite different then what anyone would expect.

 

[JustWondering]

Mr Justwondering every religion in the world including athiesm believes in an absolute being which has always exsisted and will always exsist (athiest believe matter cannot be destroyed or created and that matter is and will always be ) after time people with evil intentions corrupted them and worshiped along with the one God others that had no right to be worshiped

Sorry but every religion has not believed in one absolute being. Atheism is the lack of belief in god/s, it is not a religion.

 

[JustWondering]

I would guess that the 'lack of evidence' you talk about has much more to do with your atheism than the number of religions in the world.

But the sheer number of religions past and present is evidence that no one really knows what they're talking about. If one religion was so obviously true it would be the one and only religion. Maybe there is a god, if so, I doubt anyone on this earth has any idea what it is like, what it has done, and if it wants anything from us.

I'm willing to bet that if there was only one, you'd still remain unconvinced due to that. Don't you think?

If there were only one then I would have to base my judgement on the merits/evidence or lack thereof provided by that religion. Since religion is a human fabrication it is impossible for there to be one religion. Even members of the same religion differ in opinion on important topics.

Also, its interesting that you wonder why so many theists don't question their own religion and yet they so easily dismiss the beliefs of other religions as false. Don't you think it might have something to do with those religions disagreeing with their chosen religion? It seems only natural to believe what you believe and disbelieve those that disagree with what you believe. Consider yourself for example. Don't you ever wonder why a vast majority of the planet disagrees with you regarding theism? How do you manage to disbelieve a vast majority of the world without ever questioning your own extremely rare view on the subject? Its almost like you have complete control over what you do or don't believe, isn't it? I wonder if it works the same for everyone else on the planet? :yes:

I was a devout christian once. However, the religion did not seem to mesh with reality from my reasoning. The difference between myself and most christians however, was that I was comfortable questioning my beliefs to see if they held up under scrutiny. They did not, so my beliefs changed. Most christians in my experience are very uncomfortable having their beliefs questioned, let alone questioning themselves. They are locked into their current belief system.

Finally, considering you are not a theist, and by definition must have no belief in god at all. How can you then go on to describe what a 'true god' is capable of and what a 'true god' would or should do? Wouldn't it be a bit more consistent for you to say a 'true god' would do absolutely nothing at all since there is absolutely no such thing?

I used an example of what the abrahamic god could have done to provide a solid foundation for belief even in a doubter like me. As the abrahamic god is described it would surely be easy to send multiple prophets with the same message, performing miracles in different places at the same time. Do you disagree?

 

[JustWondering]

Don't have the book here with me read it and passed on to other searchers of truth but what the author does is take these too books along with the old testment and takes thing such as how the universe was created and other claims made in these books and compares them with the known scientific facts that have been proven he also takes other claims how people are made(embryology ) how the water cycle works and many others in the end he concludes that according to science the quran which is 1400 yes old book by the way is scientifically correct. DONT believe me please read yourself or don't and Also look up Hamza swordsis vs President of athirst society debate on YouTube

Many of these claims have been brought up on these forums and debunked. I found them unconvincing. Have anything else?