Who is right? I give up

[DNB]

I think you need to look into this because this view seems to come from lack of knowledge more than anything else, or because of some religious belief alone.

Oh no, not you again, ...still playing the Bible thumping card?
You're the only that needs to look into your own biased, narrow minded and predictable rhetoric and rationale. You need to overcome your fears and irrationality.

 

[Ponder This]

Can someone tell me plainly if their religion is the actual correct one? You see, I’m trying to figure it out, but I’m just about burnt out investigating. thanks!
This thread is intended to be an exercise in futility as there is no way of knowing who is right. My family has a tradition of dying Christian so that’s what I’ve decided to do, and not worry about if we are right or not.

Knowledge seems easy, but is difficult.
Faith seems difficult, but is easy.

 

[rational experiences]

'The same.' is not a sentence. You need to learn how to write, speak and think.

I don't actually .....you need to be spiritually accepting. Notice you don't.

 

[DNB]

I don't actually .....you need to be spiritually accepting. Notice you don't.

Only because I believe that you are going out of your way to be difficult.
There's not a person on this forum that can understand a thing that you are saying, even though it appears that you are capable of being coherent and rational when you want to be.
Your approach is beyond annoying.

 

[We Never Know]

Can someone tell me plainly if their religion is the actual correct one? You see, I’m trying to figure it out, but I’m just about burnt out investigating. thanks!
This thread is intended to be an exercise in futility as there is no way of knowing who is right. My family has a tradition of dying Christian so that’s what I’ve decided to do, and not worry about if we are right or not.

In my opinion everyone thinks their belief is right. Thats why they follow it.
Even athiest think they are right.

No one truely knows what is right. All we can do is go by what we feel.

 

[We Never Know]

Then it was at least fun on the way out.

Probably more fun than on the way in

 

[We Never Know]

If your religion isn't bringing you joy, you're in the wrong religion.

What if someone isn't religious and not experiencing joy. Should they try religion or just continue being miserable?

 

[The Hammer]

I don't actually .....you need to be spiritually accepting. Notice you don't.

Exactly. You are correct.

What is the point if one just wants to bash on others?

That is not love anymore, but hatred.

 

[JustGeorge]

What if someone isn't religious and not experiencing joy. Should they try religion or just continue being miserable?

Might be worth a shot, but ultimately its up to them.

It wouldn't work if their heart wasn't in it, anyways.

 

[sayak83]

Of course all experiences are personal and subjective. That's why consensus, as well as maximizing objectivity, are major parts of skeptical reasoned enquiry, including science.

The justification for skeptical reasoned enquiry is that it works better than any presently known alternative when it comes to exploring, describing and explaining reality, the world external to the self.

It seems very odd to be having a conversation with you by way of a modern computer with terabytes of capacity, highly efficient modems, hi-tech cabling and broadcasting, and possibly satellite relays, all of which will be obsolete in a few years because of advances in science and technology, while you say we know nothing about that world.

I am saying that we need to avoid contradiction in how we use the terms objective and subjective. We cannot say all experiences are subjective while saying that objective information can be obtained from these same subjective experiences. The correct view should be that experiences are neither subjective nor objective, but the content within them can be subjective or objective.
If you agree, then can you clarify what general features these contents need to have to make them objective. And how you would go about defining the idea of objective content vs subjective content?

 

[rational experiences]

Only because I believe that you are going out of your way to be difficult.
There's not a person on this forum that can understand a thing that you are saying, even though it appears that you are capable of being coherent and rational when you want to be.
Your approach is beyond annoying.

When you get irradiated the condition remains as it owns physical changed bio conditions.

Proving earths stable atmosphere is not stable anymore.

Sometimes one day is worse than another and I still suffer from it.

 

[Ludi]

there is only one correct answer and it contains two parts, the Father, the Living God, and His Son Jesus, who is also a Living God. With the Father being the Creator of everything that exists in Creation, and the Son giving Life to every person that ever lived, are ever will live.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Oh no, not you again, ...still playing the Bible thumping card?
You're the only that needs to look into your own biased, narrow minded and predictable rhetoric and rationale. You need to overcome your fears and irrationality.

Yeah, of course. Byeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

You're approaching the argument incorrectly. First and foremost, we're all here on this planet, that is an indisputable fact - how did we and the planet get here. Something has to be true.
Whether there is anyone, or any group out there that that has discovered the truth, either in part or whole, cannot be ascertained unless someone knows the truth in order to discredit all the other opinions.
But, man being the highest form of intellect within the material world, chances are that he's onto something. And, if we accept the spiritual dimension to his constitution, another incontrovertible fact, then we understand that there is a spiritual realm within the universe, and therefore, a source for that spirit. Man has prayed to gods from the beginning of time, and has proven his spirituality in all his actions. Therefore, the truth is not too far from all of us, guaranteeing that some have been able to perceive it to some degree or another.

There are some deeply difficult logical leaps in this, and some seem to me to be quite invalid.

For example, when you say "man being the highest form of intellect within the material world, chances are that he's onto something," I can't help but notice that most religious notions come from long, long ago -- well before man knew how weather happened, or whole encyclopedia's of other topics. Thus, I strongly doubt, in fact, that those early thinkers were really "onto something." I think, in fact, that they were struggling to invent answers to questions they simply had no way of answering.

Your other point, that "the truth is not too far from all of us, guaranteeing that some have been able to perceive it to some degree or another" also strikes me as problematic, since in the history of humanity, that "truth" has been perceived to be all manner of things, many of which contradict with each other.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Most of the bases have been covered, either in a broad sense or to the more specific. From atheism, to satanism, to pantheism, to Theism, to polytheism, to new age, to fatalism, to nihilism, to reincarnation, to deism, to rationalism, to animism, to extra-terrestrials, to polyverse, etc...
What's left?

Just the one....the thing that humans find hardest of all to accept: "I don't know."

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I am saying that we need to avoid contradiction in how we use the terms objective and subjective. We cannot say all experiences are subjective while saying that objective information can be obtained from these same subjective experiences. The correct view should be that experiences are neither subjective nor objective, but the content within them can be subjective or objective.
If you agree, then can you clarify what general features these contents need to have to make them objective. And how you would go about defining the idea of objective content vs subjective content?

The bee sees the flower much differently than I do, and yet we both agree that there is a flower that can supply pollen and nectar, or visual and olfactory pleasure. And I can direct my friends to where I saw the flower, so they can enjoy it, too. And so can the bee.

The driver of a red car perceives it much differently from the pedestrian on the crosswalk, yet when the car strikes the pedestrian, both driver, victim and witnesses (some with cameras) will agree an objective, red car struck a pedestrian.

 

[DNB]

There are some deeply difficult logical leaps in this, and some seem to me to be quite invalid.

For example, when you say "man being the highest form of intellect within the material world, chances are that he's onto something," I can't help but notice that most religious notions come from long, long ago -- well before man knew how weather happened, or whole encyclopedia's of other topics. Thus, I strongly doubt, in fact, that those early thinkers were really "onto something." I think, in fact, that they were struggling to invent answers to questions they simply had no way of answering.

It's the other way around. Science only distorts what is behind the existence of matter. Transcendent beings created all, and like I said, all civilizations accepted this fact. If the Creator decided to employ gravity, compression, atmospheric pressures, tectonic plates, gases and waves as part of His design, is incidental to the fact that matter did not come from nothing, and that man perceives the spiritual realms. Again, man truly had many truths in his understanding of himself and nature. Not 100%, but clearly perceiving and acknowledging countless truths about life and relationships.

Your other point, that "the truth is not too far from all of us, guaranteeing that some have been able to perceive it to some degree or another" also strikes me as problematic, since in the history of humanity, that "truth" has been perceived to be all manner of things, many of which contradict with each other.

But, many have a common thread, there is unanimity amongst the majority of religions - love, peace, compassion, consequence for bad behaviour, a transcendent Creator, angels and devils, an afterlife, respect for the elders and family, prayers and supplications, remorse and guilt....
To only point out the differences, is rather oblivious to where all of their sentiments are pointing - the transcendent and spiritual realms.

 

[DNB]

Just the one....the thing that humans find hardest of all to accept: "I don't know."

But, we do know. The universe did not create itself, therefore something greater and outside the universe must have been behind its existence. Physical matter, protoplasm and stardust do not pray to gods, nor establish moral laws, only the spirit does. Righteousness supersedes and defeats evil, wisdom is greater than foolishness, self-discipline is more efficacious than hedonism, etc...
We know many things, it's more unlikely that all us participants in life can be entirely wrong on every issue, rather than stating that man has discovered many truths about life and his existence.

 

[Alex22]

Christianity is right.

Prove it.

 

[Kenny]

Prove it.

He was raised from the dead and took back the authority that Satan had robbed.