What evidence would be required for you to abandon your religious belief

[Paranoid Android]

That doesn't change the overall concept you're communicating, and so would get us nowhere.

Perhaps you could describe what it would look like if a religion were true?

What it would look like ? It would look like nothing. I don't believe in Allah, but people are willing to die for him ? Can anything argue for belief more than that ?



I'm not sure that's a good reason to broadly apply the terms "true/false" to a religion. You could apply them to specific claims made by religious people that contradict the scientific consensus, but religions as larger wholes involve a lot more than just claims about the physical world. Many religions don't even bother with such claims, instead focusing on other aspects.

I have a way of judging a religion.

1. Morals-do the followers obey the moral code ?
2. Do the morals, if obeyed, lead to peace or away from it ?
3. Are the people willing to DIE for there religion ? In other words, is it so true to them that rather then break it they'd much rather die ?

The reason this is confusing me is because... well, it's like asking if fandoms are false. It makes no sense.

 

[Riverwolf]

What it would look like ? It would look like nothing. I don't believe in Allah, but people are willing to die for him ? Can anything argue for belief more than that ?

I don't think the OP is asking about whether or not beliefs exist, or the degree to which holding certain beliefs can successfully influence certain people to ignore survival instincts.

I have a way of judging a religion.

1. Morals-do the followers obey the moral code ?
2. Do the morals, if obeyed, lead to peace or away from it ?
3. Are the people willing to DIE for there religion ? In other words, is it so true to them that rather then break it they'd much rather die ?

Do you mean the moral code specific to their religion (assuming there is one), or do you mean some universal standard code? Keep in mind, also, that being willing to die for a religion doesn't necessarily mean being able to. Survival instincts are VERY powerful.

Like the OP, you still seem to be focusing on a very specific facet of religion, as opposed to religion as a whole.

 

[Paranoid Android]

I don't think the OP is asking about whether or not beliefs exist, or the degree to which holding certain beliefs can successfully influence certain people to ignore survival instincts.



Do you mean the moral code specific to their religion (assuming there is one), or do you mean some universal standard code? Keep in mind, also, that being willing to die for a religion doesn't necessarily mean being able to. Survival instincts are VERY powerful.

Like the OP, you still seem to be focusing on a very specific facet of religion, as opposed to religion as a whole.

Look, it's late so I probably won't make sense.


The urge to overcome your survival sense is the ULTIMATE test. For a Dementheologist, we ask them to be willing to submit themselves to people in authority, even if it means there death. So, as far as we go, it is the ULTIMATE test. Were a pacifistic religion; we ask our members to struggle for equality but if there caught to either do time in prison or die. We take as our moral guide St. Martin Luther King and St. Muhatma Ghandi.
And yes, we acknowledge they will kill or imprison many of us. That's o.k. Apon there death, there guaranteed to go to Heaven (provided they have acted within our morals). You know what ? WE WON'T STOP. They can kill thousands of us, and a thousand more will take their place. We won't stop until either equality is established or the Last Prophet appears.
A Dementheologist that breaks the moral code and does not repent AND shows by there behavior they have repented is not a Dementheologists. He or she will go to Hell along with the Squares. MORALITY IS THE KEY.
We don't claim miracles or things like that. What we claim is that were like a rock, set on the moral principles. With us it's either obey the principles, get the Hell out of the Ecclesia or don't join.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Directed primarily at Christians,as that is the dominant religion where I live, but all are welcome.

What evidence would you need to be personally convinced that your religion was false?

The same evidence that turned me away from Christianity: reasonable against what I believe and/or for something else, combined with maintaining an agnostic mindset. But I've been where I am for a very long time, and my beliefs have only been refined by what I've learned.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I'm not sure that's a good reason to broadly apply the terms "true/false" to a religion. You could apply them to specific claims made by religious people that contradict the scientific consensus, but religions as larger wholes involve a lot more than just claims about the physical world. Many religions don't even bother with such claims, instead focusing on other aspects.

This is a personal opinion - if a religion claims even one thing which contradicts science, then it is false (I am not a main-line Hindu).

 

[Lyndon]

Completely ridiculous, its like saying if a man makes one mistake and says one thing that is wrong, he is by nature completely false, again absolute rubbish.

 

[Milton Platt]

Sorry but people around here don't own threads, they start a thread and then participate or not.

Yes, and I started this one. Would you like to participate by answering the question posed in the title of the thread?

 

[Lyndon]

None of your business.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Completely ridiculous, its like saying if a man makes one mistake and says one thing that is wrong, he is by nature completely false, again absolute rubbish.

Would it not be better to find a man who has not made even a single mistake?

 

[Lyndon]

Every religion including Hinduism has made mistakes and historically has not been totally in line with modern science, not surprising because these religions are not modern, but many quite ancient, and couldn't possibly have been aware of modern science, because modern science hadn't even been dreamed of when those religions were formed, so obviously they are going to say things which today we do not accept as true.

 

[viole]

Every religion including Hinduism has made mistakes and historically has not been totally in line with modern science, not surprising because these religions are not modern, but many quite ancient, and couldn't possibly have been aware of modern science, because modern science hadn't even been dreamed of when those religions were formed, so obviously they are going to say things which today we do not accept as true.

Obviously. But if the claim is that those holy books have been inspired by God, then we can deduce that God had no clue about modern science, either.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Lyndon]

No, we can deduce that the prophets that heard God had no comprehension of modern science so couldn't possibly include a modern understanding in their revelations. Even with God speaking to you, you can't hear something completely foreign to your own understanding and write that down.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Every religion including Hinduism has made mistakes and historically has not been totally in line with modern science, not surprising because these religions are not modern, but many quite ancient, and couldn't possibly have been aware of modern science, because modern science hadn't even been dreamed of when those religions were formed, so obviously they are going to say things which today we do not accept as true.

Nasadiya Sukta (RigVeda, Book 10, Hymn 129. See at http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv10129.htm) written more than 3,000 years ago, does not differ from what we know today. This goes farther than any other religion has gone. The writer was Prajapati Parameshthin (I do not take Vedas as divine).

1. THEN was not non-existent nor existent: there was no realm of air, no sky beyond it.
What covered in, and where? and what gave shelter? Was water there, unfathomed depth of water?
2 Death was not then, nor was there aught immortal: no sign was there, the day's and night's divider.
That One Thing, breathless, breathed by its own nature: apart from it was nothing whatsoever.
3 Darkness there was: at first concealed in darkness this All was indiscriminated chaos.
All that existed then was void and form less: by the great power of Warmth was born that Unit.
4 Thereafter rose Desire in the beginning, Desire, the primal seed and germ of Spirit.
Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent.
5 Transversely was their severing line extended: what was above it then, and what below it?
There were begetters, there were mighty forces, free action here and energy up yonder
6 Who verily knows and who can here declare it, whence it was born and whence comes this creation?
The Gods are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came into being?
7 He, the first origin of this creation, whether he formed it all or did not form it,
Whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Nothing could ever make me abandon my religious belief. My identity and ego are so tied to my beliefs that it would be impossible to change my beliefs without completely shattering my psyche, so, as a self-defense mechanism, I do not allow myself to even entertain any thoughts which could make me doubt my beliefs.

 

[Riverwolf]

Look, it's late so I probably won't make sense.


The urge to overcome your survival sense is the ULTIMATE test. For a Dementheologist, we ask them to be willing to submit themselves to people in authority, even if it means there death. So, as far as we go, it is the ULTIMATE test. Were a pacifistic religion; we ask our members to struggle for equality but if there caught to either do time in prison or die. We take as our moral guide St. Martin Luther King and St. Muhatma Ghandi.
And yes, we acknowledge they will kill or imprison many of us. That's o.k. Apon there death, there guaranteed to go to Heaven (provided they have acted within our morals). You know what ? WE WON'T STOP. They can kill thousands of us, and a thousand more will take their place. We won't stop until either equality is established or the Last Prophet appears.
A Dementheologist that breaks the moral code and does not repent AND shows by there behavior they have repented is not a Dementheologists. He or she will go to Hell along with the Squares. MORALITY IS THE KEY.
We don't claim miracles or things like that. What we claim is that were like a rock, set on the moral principles. With us it's either obey the principles, get the Hell out of the Ecclesia or don't join.

Don't worry, I understand what you're saying.

I certainly admire that kind of conviction, as being applied with pacifism. Certainly explains your focus on the idea of a moral code.

Those of us who follow a religion, as well as those who primarily have exposure to a single type of religion, will inevitably tend to focus on whatever that religion emphasizes. As a result, it can be very easy to forget that religion as a whole is incredibly multi-faceted. Not all religions even have a strict moral code, for instance. Some religions are atheistic, some focus on actions, some focus on beliefs...

This is a personal opinion - if a religion claims even one thing which contradicts science, then it is false (I am not a main-line Hindu).

The idea that a thing should be shunned/discarded entirely (which the declaration of a religion being false implies) is, as far as I can tell, largely derived from the more puritanical elements of Christianity, at least in the West. It's probably sourced in an analogy Jesus is quoted as using, that "a good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and [vice-versa]."

I consider this sort of thinking to be pure nonsense, both in the fact that trees bear both good and bad fruits, and that the idea of binary good/bad is too simple to apply to human behavior.

I don't contradict anything in the scientific consensus, to my knowledge. Whether my religion does or not is effectively non-applicable, because there's no place for Heathenry itself to even make any claims in the first place. Sure, Heathens can (and have) contradicted the scientific consensus (as well as general historical consensus, among other things), but that's wholly on them, not Heathenry inherent.

 

[Laika]

Directed primarily at Christians,as that is the dominant religion where I live, but all are welcome.

What evidence would you need to be personally convinced that your religion was false?

speaking as a materialist/ex-communist, I've had a great deal of evidence and argument thrown my way to demonstrate my belief system may be false, or elsevery troubling. I'm still weighing up whether that means my belief system is "false" or merely incomplete. it depends on whether you think you can seperate the reasoning from the evidence.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Well, materialism is perfectly reasonable. And glad to see you're an ex-commie. But does that mean you've just morphed into a no need for a government middleman wealth redistributor?

 

[Laika]

Well, materialism is perfectly reasonable. And glad to see you're an ex-commie. But does that mean you've just morphed into a no need for a government middleman wealth redistributor?

it's more complex than that. I'm still in a communist defined "worldview" and still think the way they do. the philosophy and the politics are directly related to one another. I can't dump the politics without also dumping the philosophy so I'm not completely out of the grip of the ideology. But its just gone beyond its tolerances, particuarly in ethics, and has broken down as my thought process isn't logically self-consistent [logical consistency being how marxism affects everything- as it effectively standardises all ideas to fit within a set of preconceptions.] As a 'total' ideology that encompasses everything it will take considerable time for me to either learn a new belief system (or just a set of beliefs) or recognise where I made the mistakes and figure out what I got wrong. Given it's affected my sense of "what is real" its a tricky psychological process to unravel this one.

it's like I've got lost in the woods or a maze and have now accepted I'm lost. there's still a way for me to figure out how to get out.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

it's more complex than that. I'm still in a communist defined "worldview" and still think the way they do.

Being a communist differs from being in a communist defined worldview and still thinking the way they do, how? However, this could explain how you became a communist in the first place.

the philosophy and the politics are directly related to one another. I can't dump the politics without also dumping the philosophy

Unless you're a phony, your philosophy is your politics.

so I'm not completely out of the grip of the ideology.

Duh! er, apparently.

but its just gone beyond its tolerances, particuarly in ethics, and has broken down as my thought process isn't logically self-consistent [logical consistency being how marxism affects everything- as it effectively standardises all ideas to fit within a set of preconceptions.] As a 'total' ideology that encompasses everything it will take considerable time for me to either learn a new belief system (or just a set of beliefs) or recognise where I made the mistakes and figure out what I got wrong. Given it's affected my sense of "what is real" its a tricky psychological process to unravel this one.

Not at all. Capitalism is the simple, un-tricky solution. It does take courage to want freedom, and to face the harpies screaming for their free ****. There are honorable capitalists, we just need a government with guns to protect property rights (which the Chinese are learning the hard way), and to insure the bad capitalists keep their hands to themselves.

it's like I've got lost in the woods or a maze and have now accepted I'm lost. there's still a way for me to figure out how to get out.

No sooner said than done. Here, have chainsaw.

 

[Laika]

Being a communist differs from being in a communist defined worldview and still thinking the way they do, how? However, this could explain how you became a communist in the first place.

As a worldview (known as "dialectical materialism"), it affects views of science, culture, philosophy; literally everything. I'm currently thinking as to whether materialism is compatable with the big bang and quantum mechanics. nothing is sacred and everything is politicised. it is unlike secular and individualistic ideologies in that it affects everything, rather than affecting one thing and not another. they are all inter-connected under an umbrella ideology. it is the difference between being a Christian believing in god, to a Cultural Christian who does not believe in god but still accepts the majority of christian beliefs or influences. I've stopped being a "true" communist (although I have my doubts I ever was one) to being a "cultural" communist who still accepts very large portions of the belief system as an identity.

You are right though, as it was a crude form of materialism that pulled me towards communism in the first place. I thought "science" had all the answers and that's what led me here.

Not at all. Capitalism is the simple, un-tricky solution. It does take courage to want freedom, and to face the harpies screaming for their free ****. There are honorable capitalists, we just need a government with guns to protect property rights (which the Chinese are learning the hard way), and to insure the bad capitalists keep their hands to themselves.

It takes a great deal of courage to want to go what is percieved as "human nature". So courage is not the problem my freind. It is more that Marxism argues convincingly that freedom under capitalism is an illusion and that history is governed by laws which means communism is a necessary next step in human social evolution if we want to be more free.