Too many religions

[JustWondering]

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.

Not from my experience with theists. We'll have to agree to disagree.

*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.

How did you come to embrace your religion? Where you raised with your current beliefs? The majority of peoples belief systems are based on what they were taught/exposed to while they were growing up. Many never really question the beliefs they were raised with. It is a part of them and they will not willfully give it up regardless of what evidence/arguements point to the contrary.

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.

When I lost faith in christianity I thought maybe there was a common thread that linked different religions together. I looked into it but, the only common thing I found all religions share is they are practiced by humans.

 

[Sir Doom]

But the sheer number of religions past and present is evidence that no one really knows what they're talking about.

You can make that assumption if you like. I would make the assumption that the adherence of any given individual to any given religion is evidence that they consider one religion to 'know what they are talking about'. Is there some evidence you can offer that lends weight to your opinion over theirs? I mean, I do get to make this decision for myself, right? If one human being thinks a religion has merit, and another human being thinks another religion has merit, and a third human being says they are both wrong, does that third opinion somehow gain some super-opinion ability to trump the other two? I don't think so.

If one religion was so obviously true it would be the one and only religion.

What does an 'obviously true religion' look like to you? If you can actually describe this 'obviously true religion' my next question is going to be, "Why aren't you creating and practicing that 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.

Well, I know you doubt that. That's kind of what I've been saying. But it has nothing to do with the number of religions there are. You simply don't trust your fellow humans and don't consider their opinions worth listening to. That's fine as well, but it begs the question. Why post on a forum, then? You obviously care about some of our opinions. Right? Why else?

If there were only one then I would have to base my judgement on the merits/evidence or lack thereof provided by that religion.

I'm pretty sure that's exactly what I said. The number of religions has nothing to do with the credibility of any individual religion. You simply reject the opinions of your fellow humans as credible evidence. That's far more defining for you than any sort of numeric threshold. Its completely about evidence for you and nothing about numbers.

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.

This is based on the assumption that they are all wrong. If any one of them is right, then that particular religion would not be human fabrication, would it? You seem to be saying here that because some humans say one thing, and then some other humans say something that contradicts the first group that they are all obviously wrong. If that is the case, then everyone is always wrong about everything, as there will always be some jerk who disagrees regardless of what they say. Do you honestly think this is a good method for discerning the truth? Any disagreement automatically nullifies both sides of a disagreement? What do you do then? Spin in circles with your fingers in your ears? I really don't understand how you could live this way.

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.

Aha, so now the real distinction becomes evident. YOU have decided. YOU are different. YOU left because you are smart and discerning. THEY must stay because they are stupid and unwilling to change. So tell me, how is it that you continue to believe your own beliefs considering you've already been wrong once? Does your lack of conviction for your previous beliefs somehow lend weight to your current convictions about your current beliefs? Don't you think it might be a bit more magnanimous to consider that everyone may just have a different path to follow instead of automatically assuming everyone one else is just a sucker for believing things you've discarded?

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?

I'm sorry, what am I disagreeing with again? Your hypothetical projections about a god you don't believe in? I guess your fake scenario that clearly hasn't happened is not true. Yeah, is that agreement or disagreement? I'm not really sure. If you are asking me if the almighty god in the bible is capable of what you are talking about, then yeah. Its supposed to be capable of anything, so I imagine it could make us all into pink bunnies and have us dancing the Can-can to "Luck be a Lady Tonight". The fact that it COULD do this really has no bearing on whether it WOULD and certainly not whether it SHOULD. So I'm really not sure what you are trying to tell me here. Considering you don't follow this particular concept of god, I'm not sure what sort of relevance this particular piece of the conversation has on the overall number of religions and that fact's weight upon belief or disbelief in any of them. But I'm sure you'll tell me about that really soon, yeah?

 

[JustWondering]

Its completely about evidence for you and nothing about numbers.

It is wrong to want evidence about an extraordinary claim before believing it? Also, the number of wildly different beliefs is evidence (to me) that no one really knows if there is a god/s, if there is an afterlife. Its all guessing. Do you honestly give every religion the same chance that it might be correct? I doubt you do.

 

[JustWondering]

You seem to be saying here that because some humans say one thing, and then some other humans say something that contradicts the first group that they are all obviously wrong.

Where there is absolutely no evidence to back any of their claims and their claims are about supernatural beings/events then yes. That is MY stance. If you want to give credence to everyone who makes a claim that cannot be PROVEN wrong because there is no EVIDENCE to prove them wrong then go for it.

 

[JustWondering]

Aha, so now the real distinction becomes evident. YOU have decided. YOU are different. YOU left because you are smart and discerning. THEY must stay because they are stupid and unwilling to change. So tell me, how is it that you continue to believe your own beliefs considering you've already been wrong once? Does your lack of conviction for your previous beliefs somehow lend weight to your current convictions about your current beliefs? Don't you think it might be a bit more magnanimous to consider that everyone may just have a different path to follow instead of automatically assuming everyone one else is just a sucker for believing things you've discarded?

I don't recall calling anyone stupid, please don't put words in my mouth. My beliefs are based soley on observation of the real world. If someone claimed god talked to them I can understand their conviction. However, the vast majority of people's beliefs are based around what they are exposed to in their communities/home/environment. That is a fact, not a feeling or opinion. All the miracles and claims made by all religions when superstition ruled the day instead of science and there were no recording devices of any kind are to be taken seriously because they just MIGHT be right? Really? Even if you think I'm an arrogant jerk that does not make my observations or reasoning any less valid.

 

[Orias]

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.

I completely agree with all of this. Though given the chance, I don't think most people would of even be aware if God were actually talking to their face.

 

[adam9]

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.

Anybody can embrace religion through any means but I just mentioned science because that's the standard that people use in out age in time and don't know why he studied just the Bible and quran and I enjoyed every part of the speach it helped to explain the many inconsistancies of athiesm.
Also you elaborate if you want but that's upto you and Asalama alaykum by the way

 

[Sir Doom]

It is wrong to want evidence about an extraordinary claim before believing it?

Not at all. Its just wrong to pretend you aren't doing what you're doing. Which is what this thread is about. Pretending the number of religions has anything to do with your rejection of all of them. It doesn't have anything to do with it. It has everything to do with evidence. Just be honest, that's all.

Also, the number of wildly different beliefs is evidence (to me) that no one really knows if there is a god/s, if there is an afterlife. Its all guessing.

So? Guesses are wrong by default? What do you think you are doing? Guessing that they are guessing wrong. That's what. Have fun with that.

Do you honestly give every religion the same chance that it might be correct? I doubt you do.

I actually do one better than that. That's a bit beside the point though. Aren't we talking about you? Anyway, equal chance can be zero if you like. But it has to be zero for you as well. See how that works? It may help you understand why I have such a tough time with your ideas here.

Where there is absolutely no evidence to back any of their claims and their claims are about supernatural beings/events then yes. That is MY stance.

I like your use of 'absolutely' in this instance. It shows your scorn for your fellow humans. Another example of your self-superiority. I hope you are comfortable with such a lonely road. Also, if you wouldn't mind drawing an extremely absolute distinction between natural and supernatural, I'd love to hear it.

If you want to give credence to everyone who makes a claim that cannot be PROVEN wrong because there is no EVIDENCE to prove them wrong then go for it.

As opposed to dismissing everyone out of hand. Yeah, I think I will go with the benefit of the doubt. IT JUST FEELS RIGHT TO ME! Its almost like I respect my fellow humans. What a novel concept.

I don't recall calling anyone stupid, please don't put words in my mouth.

I apologize. What word would you use to describe your former colleagues in the Christian faith? I'd like to use your word for them from now on. Please, make no effort to avoid synonyms for 'stupid'.

My beliefs are based soley on observation of the real world. If someone claimed god talked to them I can understand their conviction. However, the vast majority of people's beliefs are based around what they are exposed to in their communities/home/environment. That is a fact, not a feeling or opinion.

So... you have direct, uncontroversial, objective observation of a majority of people on this planet? At a low ball that would be about 3.25 billion people. You honestly think you can draw a distinction about those people as a whole and call it a fact? Do you REALLY think you can do that? REALLY?

All the miracles and claims made by all religions when superstition ruled the day instead of science and there were no recording devices of any kind are to be taken seriously because they just MIGHT be right? Really?

Whoa, whoa, whoa there, Spanish Jenny. Who said anything about taking things seriously? Its about validation. You want to be right? You might want to afford your fellow humans the same courtesy instead of stripping it from every last one of them. Think about it.

Even if you think I'm an arrogant jerk that does not make my observations or reasoning any less valid.

That's my point. Your observations are EXACTLY as valid as theirs. You are just another human being with another conflicting idea just like the conflicting ideas you seem to be pretending negate each other simply because of their conflict. WHY CAN'T YOU SEE THE OBVIOUS HYPOCRISY HERE???? You are the same, dude. EXACTLY the same.

 

[adam9]

Well obviously you haven't look them up or read so don't wanna waste my time looking for more stuff for you to declare invalid

 

[JustWondering]

That's my point. Your observations are EXACTLY as valid as theirs. You are just another human being with another conflicting idea just like the conflicting ideas you seem to be pretending negate each other simply because of their conflict. WHY CAN'T YOU SEE THE OBVIOUS HYPOCRISY HERE???? You are the same, dude. EXACTLY the same.

I believe I mentioned that if someone said that god talked to them, or someone said they had an experience that proved to them that their religion and beliefs were real I could understand that. But I never had an "experience" that proved to me that christianity was real and I was a devout christian. Most people I know who are religous and friends and loved ones (who I don't think are stupid, by the way) didn't have "experiences" either. The average person does not have divine visions or other "experiences". So what accounts for their belief in the supernatural? As for hypocrisy, well, I'm just stating that I do not believe in tales of the supernatural because there is no reason or need for me to do so. I'm not claiming that invisible entities exist that have very specific rules for you to follow or there will be consequences. I'm not claiming that I know how the universe and life came into existance. I'm not saying there's an afterlife (how would anyone alive know that?). I'm saying that I don't know. Since I'm just a human and every other human has the same senses, nervous system, and other related equipment, how would they know either?

 

[mycorrhiza]

Anybody can embrace religion through any means but I just mentioned science because that's the standard that people use in out age in time and don't know why he studied just the Bible and quran and I enjoyed every part of the speach it helped to explain the many inconsistancies of athiesm.

What inconsistencies are there in atheism? As far as I know atheism only means that you don't believe in any supernatural God concepts.

 

[Tarheeler]

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.

It seems to me that you are relying on a very narrow view of God, and are then using it to argue against theism in general. And, unfortunately, that seems to be all too common here.

I'll freely admit that there are many theists (in my experience primarily Christians and Muslims) who do fit that description, but there are many who do not. And there are many religions that recognize the presence of truth in other systems and regard them as valid for those who choose to follow them.

 

[Quintessence]

How did you come to embrace your religion? Where you raised with your current beliefs? The majority of peoples belief systems are based on what they were taught/exposed to while they were growing up. Many never really question the beliefs they were raised with. It is a part of them and they will not willfully give it up regardless of what evidence/arguements point to the contrary.

Research grounded in scientific methodology disagrees with you.

Americans change religious affiliation early and often. In total, about half of American adults have changed religious affiliation at least once during their lives. Most people who change their religion leave their childhood faith before age 24, and many of those who change religion do so more than once. These are among the key findings of a new survey conducted by the Pew Research Center's Forum on Religion & Public Life. The survey documents the fluidity of religious affiliation in the U.S. and describes in detail the patterns and reasons for change. Read the full report: Faith in Flux: Changes in Religious Affiliation in the U.S. (April 27, 2009).

Just thought you might like to know. Given half change religions, I really don't think it is correct to say a majority stick with what they grew up with and don't question anything.

There is also research from the same site effectively disproving your experience with theists. Studies like this one, for example:

Although a majority of Americans say religion is very important to them, nearly three-quarters of them say they believe that many faiths besides their own can lead to salvation, according to a survey by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. The report, the U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, reveals a broad trend toward tolerance and an ability among many Americans to hold beliefs that might contradict the doctrines of their professed faiths. For example, 70 percent of Americans affiliated with a religion or denomination said they agreed that "many religions can lead to eternal life," including majorities among Protestants and Catholics. Among evangelical Christians, 57 percent agreed with the statement, and among Catholics, 79 percent did. Among minority faiths, more than 80 percent of Jews, Hindus and Buddhists agreed with the statement, and more than half of Muslims did.

Just because the exclusivist ******** have loud and obnoxious voices doesn't mean they're the majority. They aren't. A true exclusivist would say "only my religion leads to salvation!" not agree that others might work fine also. Hell, that even 57% of evangelical Christians can say this truly is remarkable.

When I lost faith in christianity I thought maybe there was a common thread that linked different religions together. I looked into it but, the only common thing I found all religions share is they are practiced by humans.

Why must all religions have something in common other than simply being part of the human experience?

 

[Koldo]

Research grounded in scientific methodology disagrees with you.

Just thought you might like to know. Given half change religions, I really don't think it is correct to say a majority stick with what they grew up with and don't question anything.

You are being misleading here.
Although, 44% of the population does not current belong to childhood faith, 20% ( of the 100% ) strictly changed from one christian denomination to another christian denomination.

 

[crocusj]

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)

Eh???

 

[Music]

We can learn good things from all religions instead of being exclusive.

 

[Music]

Eh???

My understanding is that, since matter (or is it energy?) cannot be created or destroyed, even atheists are forced to give an absolute status to it, much like theists give god an absolute status. At least, that's what I get from his post.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

My understanding is that, since matter (or is it energy?) cannot be created or destroyed, even atheists are forced to give an absolute status to it, much like theists give god an absolute status. At least, that's what I get from his post.

Matter pops out of nowhere in the form of virtual particles quite often in a vacuum. It can be created and destroyed.

Energy on the other hand...

 

[crocusj]

My understanding is that, since matter (or is it energy?) cannot be created or destroyed, even atheists are forced to give an absolute status to it, much like theists give god an absolute status. At least, that's what I get from his post.

I would be very surprised if Joe Bloggs atheist would be forced to give that level of physics much of a jot at all. He seems to be equating science with atheism in the same way he is equating Islam with science. Atheism is a lack of belief in gods, not a belief in science.

 

[Sir Doom]

I believe I mentioned that if someone said that god talked to them, or someone said they had an experience that proved to them that their religion and beliefs were real I could understand that.

And so you believe those religions are true? Or... maybe not? Let me go ahead and guess. There is no way in hell you respect anyone that has had a 'religious experience' any more than any other person in any other religion. You are blowing smoke. You just feel better about your complete rejection of them if you give them this one out which you don't actually afford to anyone.

But I never had an "experience" that proved to me that christianity was real and I was a devout christian.

I'm sorry, no. Devout Christians don't leave Christianity. You left, so you are a doubting Christian. Not a devout one. Think about what the word means before you use it. It's more smoke in this case. Masking the truth so it feels better when you say it.

Most people I know who are religous and friends and loved ones (who I don't think are stupid, by the way) didn't have "experiences" either. The average person does not have divine visions or other "experiences". So what accounts for their belief in the supernatural?

Alright, well I don't believe this either. Would you mind too terribly much if they all made RF accounts and told me this themselves so that I can actually believe it? Until that happens I think you are just, once again, blowing smoke. Telling me what you need to say in order to make yourself righteous. I bet every last one of your Christian friends and family will relate a story about a religious experience they've had. You've just dismissed them as natural circumstances because you don't believe in that junk anyway. As for talking about 'the average person' I don't think you have any possibility of actually knowing anything about 'the average person' to be able to bump your gums about what they have or haven't seen or done. I think you are just making up generalities to fit your world view. In any case, don't ask me what accounts for THEIR belief in the supernatural. Ask them.

As for hypocrisy, well, I'm just stating that I do not believe in tales of the supernatural because there is no reason or need for me to do so. I'm not claiming that invisible entities exist that have very specific rules for you to follow or there will be consequences. I'm not claiming that I know how the universe and life came into existance. I'm not saying there's an afterlife (how would anyone alive know that?). I'm saying that I don't know. Since I'm just a human and every other human has the same senses, nervous system, and other related equipment, how would they know either?

That's funny, I thought you were saying you don't believe in religions because there are too many of them. So I suppose I should just repeat this:

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?