What Do All Religions Have In Common?

[Morse]

Time to drop the things that need to be dropped, because I want to keep this post a bit shorter.

Why should I assume you are playing Devil's Advocate. I already know you believe in a higher power thus I have every reason to believe that you are taking a particular side. And furthermore you are wrong. You state that there is a higher power...thus you have penciled in an answer. You have no evidence for a higher power....and yet you have chosen an answer that isn't even among the options...logically.

You call my a hypocrite.....and say I'm attack.....and then you say theists are "defenseless". Hypocrisy much?:knight:

The higher power answers for nothing. I have never stated the higher power as the answer for anything. The higher power in my equation is yet another factor, not the answer (Which puts Occam's razor against me). Penciling in an answer would be equivalent to saying that God created the universe. I make no such assertions, I NEVER state to really know the answers to why things such as the origins of the universe are. What I say is acknowledged by myself (and presumably others) to be pure conjecture.

As well, do you see any real theists in here defending themselves? I was attempting to imply that in a majority of these threads, any heavily theistic presence is absent. And for a reason, who would want to defend themselves against 5 different people?

You call my a hypocrite.....and say I'm attack.....

English next time please.

Please point out where I said I was right? I said my answer to the question is "I don't know"......that's neither right nor wrong.

Not entirely sure you read the entirety of what I wrote. I said your actions, actions being what you type and post. If you say that you don't know, then why do you and other atheists act as if you do?

Calling into question the belief of another is not assuming correctness. IT is implying that the opposition could be wrong and leaving it up to the opposition to make their case to the pro side. I cannot help it if the opposition falls short in this endeavor and other perceive it as me thinking I'm right when they cannot defend the position.

Coming off as brash, crude, and hateful does not help anything (as well, the personal attack was unappreciated ;/). But I do find the rest agreeable.

I don't know if there is a God or not.....but given the evidence I have.....I can say I'm 99.99% sure there isn't one. That leaves the gate open a tiny bit for some evidence to pop up. With out going off the reservation the evidence is highly in my favor for there not to be one....so statistically speaking....God is almost a moot point.

You make assumptions based on the knowledge that you currently have. That is okay.
What isn't okay is to make absolute assumptions based on a clearly imperfect database. There should be no "statistically speaking" or "99.99% sure" because you aren't. You can believe you are, and based off of your incomplete database, you are. But that doesn't mean that when set against a complete database, you would still be correct. That is my problem with atheism and theism alike. Both sides make these assumptions.

As well, I thank you. For this discussion has forced my personal code to evolve.

 

[Rogue Cardinal]

The higher power answers for nothing. I have never stated the higher power as the answer for anything. The higher power in my equation is yet another factor, not the answer (Which puts Occam's razor against me). Penciling in an answer would be equivalent to saying that God created the universe. I make no such assertions, I NEVER state to really know the answers to why things such as the origins of the universe are. What I say is acknowledged by myself (and presumably others) to be pure conjecture.

Ah so you are more of a Pascal's wager person....hedging your bets just in case? The higher power that you claim is part of your equation I will contend is part of your answer. How do you get to "high power" in your equation? It is rather arbitrary isn't it to insert it into the equation if there is no reason to insert it? At any rate, for arguments sake you have penciled in the "higher power" into your equation. Why? If you cannot answer that question why write it into the equation?

As well, do you see any real theists in here defending themselves? I was attempting to imply that in a majority of these threads, any heavily theistic presence is absent. And for a reason, who would want to defend themselves against 5 different people?

I have no issue defending myself against 5 different people. If I truly believe in what I am saying then why should I not defend it? Perhaps their convictions are not as deep as they would like to be. Indeed, it can feel like you are arguing with the brick wall sometimes.....this goes for all sides of the coin.

[/quote]
YOU attack ME for ATTACKING Christians.....YOU says they are defenseless and you keep the charade on still....I didn't attack a Christian. You did.

Not entirely sure you read the entirety of what I wrote. I said your actions, actions being what you type and post. If you say that you don't know, then why do you and other atheists act as if you do?

You and theists and sometimes Atheist interpret more in words than are even there sometimes. For example....I ask why you believe X. The answer I get back is along the lines of, "Why are you attacking my religion?" or "How dare you ask me that question!"

simple questions require simple answers.

Coming off as brash, crude, and hateful does not help anything (as well, the personal attack was unappreciated ;/). But I do find the rest agreeable.

Again you have read way more into what was actually said. I in no way personally attacked you at all.

You make assumptions based on the knowledge that you currently have. That is okay.
What isn't okay is to make absolute assumptions based on a clearly imperfect database. There should be no "statistically speaking" or "99.99% sure" because you aren't. You can believe you are, and based off of your incomplete database, you are. But that doesn't mean that when set against a complete database, you would still be correct. That is my problem with atheism and theism alike. Both sides make these assumptions.

Given the evidence as it stands (and man there is tons of it more than I care to recite here) I can easily say I'm 99.99% sure that I am right. You assume that there is MORE to know. But based on what? the idea that SOMEDAY we MIGHT find a scientific way to prove god? The data is only perceived as incomplete by you because you are allowing for variables that have no real reason to be allowed. We could list each god ever created or known about as a variable. We could then proceed to list Gods we have yet to know about as they haven't revealed themselves yet. The variables could go on for infinity. Yet there is no way to account for them and no reason to account for any of them as there is no evidence that any of them are true. They all carry the exact same amount of weight as there is evidence for none of them. So mathematically speaking, the odds are not in favor of any particular god and very much in favor of my point of view.

furthermore extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I have made no extraordinary claims. Theists have. They have no evidence. I will allow for a "yet" but that is only a courtesy.

As well, I thank you. For this discussion has forced my personal code to evolve.

Thanks be to you to.....frupals to you.

 

[DadBurnett]

As the title of the thread states, what do all religions have in common? What aspects of a religion make it a religion?

One simple answer to both questions .... believers!

 

[Rogue Cardinal]

One simple answer to both questions .... believers!

Occam's Razor proven right again. Perfect!

 

[rojse]

They are all against fornication.

Against fornication?

I just realised why I'm not religious.

 

[rojse]

There are two sides to many religions. The esoteric and the exoteric. The external side of religion there are many differences. The mystics of any faith when they try to explain there personal experiences they sound a lot alike. It is the the external practices that seem so much different. The visions and states of higher consciousness are a lot alike.

Fundamentalist faiths all lack the esoteric to some degree. Even there spiritual experiences ( If they allow them ) Have to do with the mundane. They obsess on things like healing the sick or predicting the future.

They believe that a prophet brought there religion and the personal transcendence is not to be relied on. Only there scriptures are of any importance.

Not going to argue with you whether this is true or not, but how does this help us come up with criteria to know what is a religion and what is not?

 

[rojse]

(NOTE: referring to Abrahamic religions only)

Since this thread is about what all religions have in common, which does include religions that are not Abrahamic, how is this related to the OP?

 

[rojse]

I speak for religions i know of. Whats the use of me speaking about all religions when i have no idea about Zen's or pagan Gods?

Well, why comment at all? Why not stay silent, or just post snarky comments, like I do?

 

[rojse]

Almost every religious belief contains elements of animism.

That is the sort of response I was after. But what religions don't you think contain an element of animism?

 

[rojse]

One simple answer to both questions .... believers!

But how does this differentiate religion from, say, supporting a really bad sports team?

 

[darkendless]

Well, why comment at all? Why not stay silent, or just post snarky comments, like I do?

Just another pointless attack at the ignorance of fundamental christianity above all. Hey, i was bored at 11am this morning

 

[BruceDLimber]

Greetings!

Please note that I never said the Golden Rule was the definer of what constituted a great religion! I simply noted that their scriptures all state it.

[P]lease list all the "Great" religions out there (All those that are great from your perspective).

I would include the following in this category: Hinduism, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, and the Baha'i Faith.

Best regards,

Bruce

 

[islam means peace]

Have you even read the OP, or is this just a drive-by post? Because it has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic of the thread.

Yes i read the tittle , you want to know what all religions have in common.

and by posting this ayat (verse) i want to point out that all religion says that there is only and only one GOD , and we all have to follow the commandments of him

 

[Morse]

Ah so you are more of a Pascal's wager person....hedging your bets just in case? The higher power that you claim is part of your equation I will contend is part of your answer. How do you get to "high power" in your equation? It is rather arbitrary isn't it to insert it into the equation if there is no reason to insert it? At any rate, for arguments sake you have penciled in the "higher power" into your equation. Why? If you cannot answer that question why write it into the equation?

This will be covered below. I have changed the equation.

YOU attack ME for ATTACKING Christians.....YOU says they are defenseless and you keep the charade on still....I didn't attack a Christian. You did.

Once again, you have not read what I wrote. I said that there are no theists here defending themselves. THEISTS not Christians. In this thread, they have no representation.

You and theists and sometimes Atheist interpret more in words than are even there sometimes. For example....I ask why you believe X. The answer I get back is along the lines of, "Why are you attacking my religion?" or "How dare you ask me that question!"

simple questions require simple answers.

Are you referring to a specific response I gave you, or simply a phenomenon you have observed?

Again you have read way more into what was actually said. I in no way personally attacked you at all.

I cannot help it if the opposition falls short in this endeavor and other perceive it as me thinking I'm right when they cannot defend the position.

This is the statement I considered to be a personal attack.

Given the evidence as it stands (and man there is tons of it more than I care to recite here) I can easily say I'm 99.99% sure that I am right. You assume that there is MORE to know. But based on what? the idea that SOMEDAY we MIGHT find a scientific way to prove god? The data is only perceived as incomplete by you because you are allowing for variables that have no real reason to be allowed. We could list each god ever created or known about as a variable. We could then proceed to list Gods we have yet to know about as they haven't revealed themselves yet. The variables could go on for infinity. Yet there is no way to account for them and no reason to account for any of them as there is no evidence that any of them are true. They all carry the exact same amount of weight as there is evidence for none of them. So mathematically speaking, the odds are not in favor of any particular god and very much in favor of my point of view.

furthermore extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I have made no extraordinary claims. Theists have. They have no evidence. I will allow for a "yet" but that is only a courtesy.


Thanks be to you to.....frupals to you.

First of all, I'm glad you could find some sadistic entertainment from trumping a 16 year old child (Keep in mind that portions of my brain shut down during puberty so they can grow). But I digress.

What has changed, is that where X used to be a higher power. X can now be substituted for Y. Y = X in a sense. Y is the non-existence of a higher power. For I believe that I do cannot conceive said higher power without the aid of flawed and irrelevant items. If the items are flawed and irrelevant, they do not help me conceive it any better. Thus how do I know said higher power exists? I don't. So I have changed 1 to say 1) A higher power may or may not exist. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I'm saying that I cannot know for sure. The difference between an Atheist and I, is that an atheist takes their "99.9%" statistic and leaps to the conclusion that there is no god. While I take that same "99.9%" statistic and say a higher power may or may not exist. Based upon the limited evidence I have, I could conclude that a higher power doesn't exist, but that would be conjecture because my database is flawed.

You assume that there is MORE to know. But based on what? the idea that SOMEDAY we MIGHT find a scientific way to prove god?

The Greeks said this same thing about Archimedes and other men of science. Making the ASSUMPTION that there is nothing else to know based upon what we know now is flawed logic. I doubt we will find a scientific way to PROVE the existence of a higher power, but there may very well be a scientific breakthrough that makes the existence of a higher power much more plausible (The day the Christians and Islamics learn of this evidence would be a woeful day). The probability that nobody would make a connection from science to religion is near nil, as that is what has been happening ever since we began exploring the mechanics of the universe. Whether these connections are valid or not has yet to be determined, but they will be there. The probability in this case lies with me. But that was just due to a mis-interpretation.

And furthermore, you state that I am perceiving the data as incomplete because I have inserted the possibility of a higher power (NOT god). That is incorrect, I am perceiving the data as incomplete because I have inserted the CERTAINTY that we do not know everything about science, and that more empirical data will present itself that may or may not be related to the topic at hand.

The empirical evidence for scientific progression of our understanding is undeniable, the probability that some of that scientific progression will relate to theological topics is "99.9%".

Frubals*
Two spaces after a period*

Regards from the floor,
Morse

 

[Morse]

Yes i read the tittle , you want to know what all religions have in common.

and by posting this ayat (verse) i want to point out that all religion says that there is only and only one GOD , and we all have to follow the commandments of him

Umm... Really?
Atheism says there is no god.
Greek/Roman/Egyptian/Celtic/Norse Polytheism
Animism (In some cases)
Wiccan (Duality)
Many other forms of Paganism
Judaism (Judaists believe in one god, but they believe that other religions also contain paths to salvation, and thus you don't HAVE to follow their gods commandments. At least thats what I've garnered, correct me if I'm wrong)
Romuva
Buddhism (Devas count too)
Hinduism (In some cases)

There are thousands of variations of religion, and most are not monotheistic.

 

[Rogue Cardinal]

Are you referring to a specific response I gave you, or simply a phenomenon you have observed?

Observed. Not you.

This is the statement I considered to be a personal attack.

See...you are inferring that which is not there. That statement had absolutely nothing to do with you at all. That was a general observation and I was talking about Theists in general. Not aimed at you....which only supports the phenomenon I talked about above where people read into what is not there and then get cranky. you got cranky and I wasn't even talking about you. This phenomenon is EASY to fall into in typed word. Were we talking face to face.....there would have been no issues at all.

First of all, I'm glad you could find some sadistic entertainment from trumping a 16 year old child (Keep in mind that portions of my brain shut down during puberty so they can grow). But I digress.

What in Gods name are you talking about?:thud:

What has changed, is that where X used to be a higher power. X can now be substituted for Y. Y = X in a sense. Y is the non-existence of a higher power. For I believe that I do cannot conceive said higher power without the aid of flawed and irrelevant items. If the items are flawed and irrelevant, they do not help me conceive it any better. Thus how do I know said higher power exists? I don't. So I have changed 1 to say 1) A higher power may or may not exist. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I'm saying that I cannot know for sure. The difference between an Atheist and I, is that an atheist takes their "99.9%" statistic and leaps to the conclusion that there is no god. While I take that same "99.9%" statistic and say a higher power may or may not exist. Based upon the limited evidence I have, I could conclude that a higher power doesn't exist, but that would be conjecture because my database is flawed.

This would make you an agnostic. Nothing wrong with that. The error though is that you take a 99.99% statistic and say that it equals the probability that a higher power may or may not exist. I would say you need to change it to a 50/50. Since you freely admit that you cannot know one way or the other you have equal chance of actually getting it right. Since there is no more evidence one way or the other you have to balance it all out.

This position that you take is very similar to weak atheism. While a strong atheist says flatly that the is no god. A weak atheist is pretty sure that there isn't one but the door of possibility is still open. (I'm a weak Atheist, just so all of our cards are on the table).

The Greeks said this same thing about Archimedes and other men of science. Making the ASSUMPTION that there is nothing else to know based upon what we know now is flawed logic. I doubt we will find a scientific way to PROVE the existence of a higher power, but there may very well be a scientific breakthrough that makes the existence of a higher power much more plausible (The day the Christians and Islamics learn of this evidence would be a woeful day). The probability that nobody would make a connection from science to religion is near nil, as that is what has been happening ever since we began exploring the mechanics of the universe. Whether these connections are valid or not has yet to be determined, but they will be there. The probability in this case lies with me. But that was just due to a mis-interpretation.

Good point in the first sentence. :yoda:

And furthermore, you state that I am perceiving the data as incomplete because I have inserted the possibility of a higher power (NOT god). That is incorrect, I am perceiving the data as incomplete because I have inserted the CERTAINTY that we do not know everything about science, and that more empirical data will present itself that may or may not be related to the topic at hand.

Yes but in doing so....you allow a great deal of variables into the equation. I am certain that we don't know it all yet either. But should we allow the things that we have no evidence for into the equation without an iota of evidence? I think we can insert them into hypothesis and try to sniff them out. But the equation? That's a big leap.

 

[Morse]

What in Gods name are you talking about?:thud:

A combination of what you said in the frubals comments, and the fact that I am woefully inadequate at presenting an argument. I blame this fact on my lack of a properly functioning brain.

This would make you an agnostic. Nothing wrong with that. The error though is that you take a 99.99% statistic and say that it equals the probability that a higher power may or may not exist. I would say you need to change it to a 50/50. Since you freely admit that you cannot know one way or the other you have equal chance of actually getting it right. Since there is no more evidence one way or the other you have to balance it all out.

That is what I was implying, as far as I know there is an equal chance.

Yes but in doing so....you allow a great deal of variables into the equation. I am certain that we don't know it all yet either. But should we allow the things that we have no evidence for into the equation without an iota of evidence? I think we can insert them into hypothesis and try to sniff them out. But the equation? That's a big leap.

Agreed. I suppose a better way to summarize the mean of our statements. Insert X into hypothesis where X is unknown. Instead of inserting X into equation, we leave the equation unsolved with a blank spot awaiting X. If X presents itself in any way shape or form, we attempt to complete the equation. If the equation cannot be completed, we remove the current X as it currently does not work and await the next/correct X variable.

At least I hope.

 

[Rogue Cardinal]

A combination of what you said in the frubals comments, and the fact that I am woefully inadequate at presenting an argument. I blame this fact on my lack of a properly functioning brain.

Damn it...I was being NICE. I was honoring your ability to keep in the conversation. I am not.....NOT...poking fun at you. I am not screwing with your head. I am not trying to antagonize you. You and I are THINKING and talking about what we are THINKING. That's it. Why does it have to be a **** fight?

That is what I was implying, as far as I know there is an equal chance.

Then we are on the same page.

Agreed. I suppose a better way to summarize the mean of our statements. Insert X into hypothesis where X is unknown. Instead of inserting X into equation, we leave the equation unsolved with a blank spot awaiting X. If X presents itself in any way shape or form, we attempt to complete the equation. If the equation cannot be completed, we remove the current X as it currently does not work and await the next/correct X variable.

B.I.N.G.O.

 

[Morse]

Damn it...I was being NICE. I was honoring your ability to keep in the conversation. I am not.....NOT...poking fun at you. I am not screwing with your head. I am not trying to antagonize you. You and I are THINKING and talking about what we are THINKING. That's it. Why does it have to be a **** fight?

Because, like I said, I am a teenager. And the Amygdala and frontal lobe that regulate my emotional capabilities are either undeveloped or shut down. This is why teenagers are paranoid, aggressive, and overly competitive.

Even now, I view it as you swayed me over instead of finding a common ground.

EDIT: And you still haven't justified why the atheists should be complete book biters towards the theists. On most occasions I agree with the atheists, but really, sometimes you guys get too vicious. The Theists can be just as bad, but If the atheists really want to prove they are better, they'd be the more mature party and set the example. Of course, the atheists could just say they don't want to be the better people

EDIT EDIT: But being vicious doesn't help stereotypes.

EDIT EDIT EDIT: Or prejudice

EDIT EDIT EDIT EDIT: Cursing is against the forum rules by the way, I have no problem with it, but a staff might.

 

[Rogue Cardinal]

Because, like I said, I am a teenager. And the Amygdala and frontal lobe that regulate my emotional capabilities are either undeveloped or shut down. This is why teenagers are paranoid, aggressive, and overly competitive.

Even now, I view it as you swayed me over instead of finding a common ground.

EDIT: And you still haven't justified why the atheists should be complete book biters towards the theists. On most occasions I agree with the atheists, but really, sometimes you guys get too vicious. The Theists can be just as bad, but If the atheists really want to prove they are better, they'd be the more mature party and set the example. Of course, the atheists could just say they don't want to be the better people

EDIT EDIT: But being vicious doesn't help stereotypes.

I don't think I ever implied that Atheist should be snobby A-holes. I do understand why both sides of the coin get vehemently disenchanted with the other side.

All that I have asserted is that it is not a crime to ask someone to defend their beliefs. For example, you have a set of beliefs that are for arguments sake unique to you. Now if I as a casual observer wish to better understand how you arrived at the conclusions you came to, I am goign to have to ask you some questions. These questions may be deemed hard to answer by you and thus may take a lot more time than you had planned to think before you give an answer. Answers you may give could possibly open doors to the conversation that were not at first available to open leading us to frontiers that you had not pondered yourself. This could, but might not, make you feel uncomfortable. The reason you could be uncomfortable is because I would be questioning the very essence of YOUR beliefs. This has a tendency in many cases to absolutely **** people off. Again....all I have done is ask you questions. All you ever had to do was answer the questions. IF was never an attack though it might have felt like an interrogation!