What is the true religion

[Knight of Albion]

It doesn't matter what religion you follow. It is our deeds, the accumulated acts of goodness and kindness that define us and ultimately are the true measure our worth.
Service is the coin of the spirit. :flower2:

 

[BornAgain]

Judaism

 

[Sha'irullah]

LaVeyan Satanism is a philosophy (not considered a religion by many of its followers) founded in 1966 by Anton Szandor LaVey. Its teachings are based on individualism, epicureanism, and "eye for an eye" morality. Unlike theistic Satanists, LaVeyan Satanists are atheists who regard Satan as a symbol of man's inherent nature. According to religioustolerance.org, LaVeyan Satanism is a "small religious group that is unrelated to any other faith, and whose members feel free to satisfy their urges responsibly, exhibit kindness to their friends, and attack their enemies". Its beliefs were first detailed in The Satanic Bible and it is overseen by the Church of Satan.

The Symbolic Satanist views Satan as a fictional, mental/mythic archetype, and admire the character as the "Adversary" or the "Light-bringer".

Satanism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I AM EXTREMELY familiar with Satanism kiddo. I was involved with it sort of(long story). But I will easily tell you that more Satanists spend more time getting high then acknowledging any philosophy.
Just anti-theists with grudges really. No offense to any Satanists on this board

 

[Enai de a lukal]

The true religion is a personal system and philosophy which doesn't make us break our own ideals and which motivates us to be better human beings. Both in terms of productivity and compassion.
If your religion doesn't motivate you to ask: 'Am I a better person than I was a year before?' or 'Am I in a better place?', then you need to ask yourself why do you keep following the dogma that you do.

It looks like you've just given a criteria for a useful or ethically admirable religion, not a true one. The true religion would be the one whose teachings correspond with fact/reality.

And as far as truth is concerned, most of the major religions don't have very many obviously true teachings- for instance, Christianity and Islam include any number of teachings which look patently false or simply incoherent. The psychological analysis of the Buddha (the Four Noble Truths), on the other hand, looks eminently sound, but more resembles a self-help program than many religions since it doesn't include any teachings about God, an afterlife, or the ultimate nature of reality. Atheism, on the other hand, is likely the most correct as far as it's truth-claims, but is not obviously a religion in the conventional sense.

 

[Caladan]

It looks like you've just given a criteria for a useful or ethically admirable religion, not a true one. The true religion would be the one whose teachings correspond with fact/reality.

It seems you ignored my disclaimer:

That is of course just my humble opinion.

I don't believe there is any 'true' religion, only what is true to ourselves, to each of us as individual human beings.

And as far as truth is concerned, most of the major religions don't have very many obviously true teachings- for instance, Christianity and Islam include any number of teachings which look patently false or simply incoherent. The psychological analysis of the Buddha (the Four Noble Truths), on the other hand, looks eminently sound, but more resembles a self-help program than many religions since it doesn't include any teachings about God, an afterlife, or the ultimate nature of reality. Atheism, on the other hand, is likely the most correct as far as it's truth-claims, but is not obviously a religion in the conventional sense.

Good for you. Not something many of us haven't read or said before on this forum, stick around a bit more before revealing all... we've ground to dust all these arguments before. In case you missed it I didn't claim any religion or philosophy to be true, I only offered the option that a 'true' religion is one in which we are true to ourselves and to the improvement of our lives... in my opinion. It can be anything from secular humanism, Buddhism, Judaism to the Church of the Third Moon on the Right, to simply personal opinions and ideas.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

It seems you ignored my disclaimer:

No, I can still disagree with what you wrote, even knowing it was merely your opinion.

I don't believe there is any 'true' religion, only what is true to ourselves, to each of us as individual human beings.

So how does this work, seeing as different religions make conflicting truth-claims (for instance, Christianity holds that there is only one god, directly contradicting any and all forms of polytheism)- are their truth-claims not really truth-claims? Or do we each live in a fantasy realm in which whatever we believe is actually the case?

I didn't claim any religion or philosophy to be true, I only offered the option that a 'true' religion is one in which we are true to ourselves and to the improvement of our lives...

Which is, in case you missed it, a highly peculiar way to use the word "true", since usually this denotes an agreement between language or belief and reality/fact.

 

[captainbryce]

I AM EXTREMELY familiar with Satanism kiddo. I was involved with it sort of(long story). But I will easily tell you that more Satanists spend more time getting high then acknowledging any philosophy.
Just anti-theists with grudges really. No offense to any Satanists on this board

Then you should know that your previous statement: "Atheistic Satanism is an oxymoron like Atheistic Theism" would not be accurate....kiddo!

If this sect of this "religion" actually does have the shared doctrine, tenets or set of beliefs as described, then it does indeed represent a form of "atheistic satanism". The two philosophies are not mutually exclusive as you indicated.

 

[sojourner]

Christianity and Islam include any number of teachings which look patently false or simply incoherent.

"Look" being the operative term here.

 

[sojourner]

usually this denotes an agreement between language or belief and reality/fact.

Only when "truth" is conflated with "fact." They're not necessarily the same thing.

 

[Sir Doom]

Looking to hear opinions from you guys. Ready, Set, GO!

All religions are truly religions.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Then you should know that your previous statement: "Atheistic Satanism is an oxymoron like Atheistic Theism" would not be accurate....kiddo!

If this sect of this "religion" actually does have the shared doctrine, tenets or set of beliefs as described, then it does indeed represent a form of "atheistic satanism". The two philosophies are not mutually exclusive as you indicated.

You seriously fail to understand basics. Satanism comes from Satan........a theological figure.

Would Christianity imply something secular? Is Christ a philosophy?

:biglaugh: how could you have not picked up on this. There are many philosophies but so few use a religious figure for it.

 

[captainbryce]

You seriously fail to understand basics. Satanism comes from Satan........a theological figure.

Would Christianity imply something secular? Is Christ a philosophy?

:biglaugh: how could you have not picked up on this.

And you seriously fail to understand FACTS. So let me just highlight the facts that you seem to be missing here:

LaVeyan Satanism is a philosophy (not considered a religion by many of its followers) founded in 1966 by Anton Szandor LaVey. Its teachings are based on individualism, epicureanism, and "eye for an eye" morality. Unlike theistic Satanists, LaVeyan Satanists are atheists who regard Satan as a symbol of man's inherent nature.

The Symbolic Satanist views Satan as a fictional, mental/mythic archetype, and admire the character as the "Adversary" or the "Light-bringer"

One cannot be an atheist and a theist at the same time (because they are mutually exclusive. One CAN be an atheist and a Satanist at the same time because Satanists don't necessarily believe in the existence of God, gods or Satan. And that's all that's required (by definition) to be an "atheist". What part about that are you not understanding? :sarcastic

There are many philosophies but so few use a religious figure for it.

Be that as it may, this fact is irrelevant as it fails to justify the error in your logic. Theism is not determined by whether or not a philosophy is based on a religious figure. It is determined by whether or not someone believes in God or gods. Therefore, until you can establish that Satanists believe in God or gods (regardless of what religious figures their beliefs are based on), you are still WRONG.

Red herring - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Sha'irullah]

And you seriously fail to understand FACTS. So let me just highlight the facts that you seem to be missing here:

LaVeyan Satanism is a philosophy (not considered a religion by many of its followers) founded in 1966 by Anton Szandor LaVey. Its teachings are based on individualism, epicureanism, and "eye for an eye" morality. Unlike theistic Satanists, LaVeyan Satanists are atheists who regard Satan as a symbol of man's inherent nature.

The Symbolic Satanist views Satan as a fictional, mental/mythic archetype, and admire the character as the "Adversary" or the "Light-bringer"

One cannot be an atheist and a theist at the same time (because they are mutually exclusive. One CAN be an atheist and a Satanist at the same time because Satanists don't necessarily believe in the existence of God, gods or Satan. And that's all that's required (by definition) to be an "atheist". What part about that are you not understanding? :sarcastic

Be that as it may, this fact is irrelevant as it fails to justify the error in your logic. Theism is not determined by whether or not a philosophy is based on a religious figure. It is determined by whether or not someone believes in God or gods. Therefore, until you can establish that Satanists believe in God or gods (regardless of what religious figures their beliefs are based on), you are still WRONG.

Red herring - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You are failing to understand the facts. What Satanists call themselves is irrelevant as again I have stated. I have some serious experience with them.

The fact still stands so many people mistaken them for theists. Satanism implies this from its name and many Satanists lump it into the LHP which by itself implies theism of some sort.

You never seen philosophies lumped into religious categories of any kind except for Taoism or Confucianism.

 

[captainbryce]

You are failing to understand the facts. What Satanists call themselves is irrelevant as again I have stated. I have some serious experience with them.

I "understand" those facts completely. But you seem to be missing my point.

The fact still stands so many people mistaken them for theists. Satanism implies this from its name and many Satanists lump it into the LHP which by itself implies theism of some sort.

What people mistake them for is inconsequential. Only what the beliefs actually are is relevant!

You never seen philosophies lumped into religious categories of any kind except for Taoism or Confucianism.

Again, red-herring! :sleep:

 

[Sha'irullah]

I "understand" those facts completely. But you seem to be missing my point.

What people mistake them for is inconsequential. Only what the beliefs actually are is relevant!

Again, red-herring! :sleep:

So essentially you are admitting to talking about the wrong subject? What Satanism is or is not is of no concern as I learned it first hand.

 

[captainbryce]

So essentially you are admitting to talking about the wrong subject?

I'm "admitting" to nothing of the kind. This is a straw man argument.

 

[Philomath]

Hasn't this thread been done before?

*Waits for the fundamentalists to join the conversation*

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

You seriously fail to understand basics. Satanism comes from Satan........a theological figure.

Would Christianity imply something secular? Is Christ a philosophy?

:biglaugh: how could you have not picked up on this. There are many philosophies but so few use a religious figure for it.

Not all Satanists are theists. For many (myself included) Satan/Lucifer is just a symbolic figure that represents self empowerment and the knowledge that there is no good or evil; not a literal deity.

 

[Caladan]

No, I can still disagree with what you wrote, even knowing it was merely your opinion.

There is a difference between disagreeing and creating an argument out of thin air while pretending I said or implied things which I clearly did not.

So how does this work, seeing as different religions make conflicting truth-claims (for instance, Christianity holds that there is only one god, directly contradicting any and all forms of polytheism)- are their truth-claims not really truth-claims? Or do we each live in a fantasy realm in which whatever we believe is actually the case?

Did I say anything about theological beliefs? anything at all?
Nope, nothing, nada. I didn't say anything about God, about walking on water, about the trinity, about many gods.

Which is, in case you missed it, a highly peculiar way to use the word "true", since usually this denotes an agreement between language or belief and reality/fact.

Not at all. There is nothing peculiar about being true to oneself. If you disagree with the idea, I have no problem with that, just don't be anal retentive about it.

My point is very simple, and some people have already understood it. My argument is that a 'true' religion is the one in which we are true to ourselves, and to our ideals, and which fosters an individual environment of productivity and compassion towards other people around us. If you feel so offended by the combination of the words 'true' and 'religion' here, then simply change these terms with other words which don't rub you the wrong way. It doesn't matter to me, as I am simply playing the game of the thread in order take part in it.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Only when "truth" is conflated with "fact." They're not necessarily the same thing.

No, that doesn't make sense. Truth is a property of certain linguistic items (assertions, propositions, thoughts, beliefs)- namely, those which describe/correspond to facts.

For instance, the proposition "Snow is white" is TRUE if and only if snow is white- that is, if it is a fact that snow is white.