Your religious beliefs are probably wrong

[Aupmanyav]

Religion without the supernatural is just philosophy. I had always thought the Hinduism relied on supernatural beliefs though.

That is how you view it. Yes, many Hindus believe in supernatural. The bed-rock of Hinduism is 'dharma'. Gods/Goddesses are a person's choice.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Double.

 

[serp777]

That is how you view it. Yes, many Hindus believe in supernatural. The bed-rock of Hinduism is 'dharma'. Gods/Goddesses are a person's choice.

And that is how you view it. According to studies, most Hindus believe in the supernatural aspects of Hinduism like the various Gods and Goddesses, which lead me to believe that deities are fundamental part of Hinduism and of most people's faith.

 

[Nietzsche]

Religion without the supernatural is just philosophy. I had always thought the Hinduism relied on supernatural beliefs though.

Not all religions require you to live as though ones' Gods are real or judging. I shall use the example most familiar to me, my own(Norse/Asatru);

The Aesir & Vanir, whether real or just archetypical concepts given name & shape, do not meddle in the affairs of Midgard often or even regularly. There is no punishment nor reward for belief or lack-of in this, because even if the Gods are real they do not see fit to judge us on how we live our lives. What I do, and what Asatru as a whole generally do is exactly what the name(Asatru) means. It means "Respect of/Honourer of the Aesir & Vanir". Or rather that's the best translation. We are treated as equals, and we beseech our Gods in the same way you ask a friend for help or guidance.

They are flawed beings as well, which does a great deal to aid in relating to them. Thor is quick to anger and equally as quick to cool, Odin is capricious and can be treacherous but is also just & respectful even of the lowest, Loki is a trickster & revels in chaos while at the same time happy to aid mortals and loves his wife dearly(perhaps the most monogamous god in mythology really). It is possible to see parts of yourself in them. They don't claim to be all-powerful, they don't claim to always do the right thing, but they also don't expect us to be any of that either. The majority of the Gods barring Thor*, generally aren't terribly interested in what we do down here save for their own personal interests in portions of our society. They have lives of their own to live.

*One of Thor's titles is "Protector/Friend of Mankind". He's also the Protector of Thralls(translated as slave though with even more rights & protections in Viking than what you find in Rome, so more like indentured servants who were regularly released from Thralldom both with and without fully paying their debts). Why is that important if he is also Protector of Mankind, given that obviously all Thralls are human? Because the fastest way to get on the Thunder God's bad side is to beat or make miserable those you have power over for one reason or another, even if it's just a modern-day employment situation.

Basically; it is possible to believe in a religion but still live like an atheist. It's what I do. I do not make decisions based on whether or not the Gods are real. The original Norse didn't either. There is an old saying that goes like so- "Treat well & respect your kinsmen, honour the Gods if you so desire, but as for your faith it ought only to be in steel".

 

[Aupmanyav]

And that is how you view it. According to studies, most Hindus believe in the supernatural aspects of Hinduism like the various Gods and Goddesses, which lead me to believe that deities are fundamental part of Hinduism and of most people's faith.

That is where we differ. Some Hindus will worship Vishnu, Krishna, Shiva, Durga or believe in Brahman. What is common to all is 'dharma'. 'Dharma' is what is fundamental in Hinduism. Even Gods go by it. Gods have their own dharma, they would not transgress it. Can any God harm a righteous person, whether Hindu, Muslim, or Christian? That will be against his dharma as a God. They are supposed to be just.

 

[Banjankri]

Science makes accurate predictions

That's all you can come up with.

That's what science it good at. But to find out the answer you don't need to know the truth about each of those symbols. Science does not tell you, what you are, but what you should do next to achieve X. That's why it's good at building stuff. But do we need more and more stuff? Do we need even better bombs? Depends if it's beneficial for us. Once more it boiled down to BENEFITS.

 

[serp777]

That's all you can come up with.

That's what science it good at. But to find out the answer you don't need to know the truth about each of those symbols. Science does not tell you, what you are, but what you should do next to achieve X. That's why it's good at building stuff. But do we need more and more stuff? Do we need even better bombs? Depends if it's beneficial for us. Once more it boiled down to BENEFITS.

This is your response? Quoting one partial sentence and responding to that? And a fill in the gaps iq test question?

Religion makes factual claims and then fails to make accurate predictions. Theology and religion hasn't contributed anything useful to society in the last 300 years that wouldn't or couldn't have been done without religion.

Its only in your opinion that it only boils down to benefits. The factual claims of religion don't boil down to benefits. Either those factual statements are correct or not.Either there is a God or there isn't. God doesn't come into existence because of benefits.

I'll ask this again: do you believe there is no such thing as truth?

because then you should agree with the position that religious beliefs probably aren't true, since truth doesn't exist in your opinion.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Science makes accurate predictions .. When has theology predicted an event accurately?

It is religions which make accurate predictions. Did not the angel tell Mary that she would be the mother of the Son of God? Did not they say that Jesus will be born in the house of David. Did not they predict baptism of Jesus by John. Science cannot make accurate predictions because of the theory of uncertainty. You have day-to-day account of how God created the universe.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

ause all the

False analogy. You're assuming that the correctness of a religion is up to opinion, which is false because religion tries to answer factual questions about where the universe came from and why we are here and that we have a purpose and that God cares about us.

The sciences of purposology and caringology do not exist. You are just another stereotype of mr Spock who understands nothing about subjectivity.

 

[serp777]

It is religions which make accurate predictions. Did not the angel tell Mary that she would be the mother of the Son of God? Did not they say that Jesus will be born in the house of David. Did not they predict baptism of Jesus by John. Science cannot make accurate predictions because of the theory of uncertainty. You have day-to-day account of how God created the universe.

What? Those so called predictions were written after the fact in the bible, not to mention they aren't reliable. I see no evidence that those predictions were written before hand. The day to day account of how God created the universe is also false. No where does it explain the 13.7 billion year history of the universe, or the CMB, or the higgs field origins, or the quark era, or the era of supermassive black holes and the first suns, etc, etc. Those are the kind of predictions that would verify the bible.

And science makes accurate predictions all the time. A great example was the big bang theory predicting the exact temperature of the microwave cosmic background radiation of 2.7K i think, thus confirming the big bang theory down to a few decimal places.

 

[serp777]

The sciences of purposology and caringology do not exist. You are just another stereotype of mr Spock who understands nothing about subjectivity.

So your subjective opinion determines reality? Its also hilarious that you think logic is inferior to opinions and subjectivity. You couldn't be convinced of anything contrary to your beliefs. There's nothing that would every convince you that you were wrong.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

So your subjective opinion determines reality? Its also hilarious that you think logic is inferior to opinions and subjectivity. You couldn't be convinced of anything contrary to your beliefs. There's nothing that would every convince you that you were wrong.

....an opinion is arrived at by choosing it, and an opinion is about what the motivation of a decision is.
A fact is obtained by evidence forcing to a model of what is evidenced. A 1:1 model of it, that's what facts are.

Opinions and facts are completely different from each other.

 

[Banjankri]

I'll ask this again: do you believe there is no such thing as truth?

It's the present moment.

 

[serp777]

....an opinion is arrived at by choosing it, and an opinion is about what the motivation of a decision is.
A fact is obtained by evidence forcing to a model of what is evidenced. A 1:1 model of it, that's what facts are.

Opinions and facts are completely different from each other.

"evidence forcing to a model of what is evidenced"
And what does that even mean?

"an opinion is about what the motivation of a decision is"
You should really work on simplifying what you write. An opinion is just a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

"A 1:1 model of it, that's what facts are. "
And what does this even mean? Facts are propositions with a substantial amount of supporting evidence.

"Opinions and facts are completely different from each other"
They're not completely different. They certain;y have differences but they are both propositions.

 

[serp777]

It's the present moment.

You know we always live in the past right? It takes the brain about 500-1000 ms to catch up to what was the present. And what do you mean its the present moment?

 

[Banjankri]

You know we always live in the past right? It takes the brain about 500-1000 ms to catch up to what was the present. And what do you mean its the present moment?

It's about the presence before your awareness that counts, and there is no delay there. Nothing can be shown to be something else then this presence. Duration of this presence measured by change is called time. This is the very basis of further investigations, but nothing can go outside of it. All division, differentiation, distinction takes place in the awareness.

 

[serp777]

Obviously, like all evolutionists, you have an attitude problem, which results in you being ignorant. How do you figure that counts for accuracy, if you are wrong about freedom not being real and relevant in the universe?

Isn't that basically the same as looking at a human being, and not seeing the free will? Doesn't that make your overall view of all reality whack for accuracy?

First of all a faulty generalization about evolutionists doesn't support your argument, nor does an ad hominem attack. Furthermore, even if I did have an attitude problem, it would have nothing to do with ignorance. You've made quite a leap to say that attitude implies ignorance. Also,

"How do you figure that counts for accuracy, if you are wrong about freedom not being real and relevant in the universe?"

What are you even talking about? Counts for what accuracy? And why on earth are you bringing up freedom being real or relevant? i never said anything about that. How does that apply to anything we've said?

And you don't accept the evidence of evolution? I don't even know where to begin. How do you explain anti biotic resistant bacteria that have emerged in the last 20-30 years? Evolution is a fact and I can provide mountains of evidence from genetic to fossil to computer simulations.

"Isn't that basically the same as looking at a human being, and not seeing the free will? Doesn't that make your overall view of all reality whack for accuracy?"
You could seriously work on making your sentences clearer. What do you mean looking at a human being and seeing free will? You can't look at a human and see free will, you need to talk to them to know that they have free will. And whack what accuracy about what view of reality?

And don't respond with some cliche about Mr. Spock either. Respond with reasons and evidence.

 

[Cephus]

And that is how you view it. According to studies, most Hindus believe in the supernatural aspects of Hinduism like the various Gods and Goddesses, which lead me to believe that deities are fundamental part of Hinduism and of most people's faith.

While I'm not applying this to Aupmanyav because this is a general statement, I find a lot of people who will take bits and pieces of a particular religious view, throw away the parts of it they don't like, then pretend that they still hold that religious view. Slapping a label on yourself that has no bearing on what most people think of when they consider that label, doesn't make much sense to me.

 

[Norman]

Given that so many different religions exist, many of which are mutually exclusive, and most claim they contain the truth of reality, the odds aren't in your favor that you picked the right religion. This is based on pure statistical analysis, and that's assuming that one religion we have is actually correct.

Most religious beliefs corresponds with geography--a religion based on truth shouldn't depend on where you're born. Islam will obviously correspond with the middle east and Christianity can be frequently found in the States.

There have also been countless religious frauds that try to take advantage of people and make money/ manipulate people with religion. Even if a religion happened to be correct at some point, its very possible that respective religion has been polluted so much over time, like telephone, that the religion doesn't even resemble anything like what it started out as. For example the original teachings of Jesus Christ vs the modern catholic faith which includes the pope and hundreds of rituals, and the various Xian sects.

Its one thing to argue that a deism God exists as a kind of philosophical entity, but its another to show that there is an intervening God who cares about what we do with our genitals and what we do with our Sundays, and wants to have an individual relationship with people. Most of the arguments given by people of faiths are all identical to each other which I find to be an amusing reflection that there aren't many good arguments beyond those for deism.

As fo religions like Buddhism and Hinduism, even though I consider Buddhism to resemble more of a philosophy, I haven't seen any convincing evidence of reincarnation or multiple Gods.

Norman: Hi serp777, I believe in Jesus Christ and my Heavenly Father; two separate and individual personages. Now, a lot of people would not agree
with my beliefs. In my opinion that is what makes us all as human beings unique as we really are. I think the issue is that many beliefs and Religions
do not want to build bridges of understanding; they just want to argue over who is right and who is wrong. Some times I feel that God is looking down
on us all and wondering what is going on. I respect, atheist's, deism or whatever the case may be and I think that is the problem, there is no respect
or dignity by a lot of people who do not believe the same as I do or you do. This takes me back again to building bridges of understanding between
each other otherwise it is just chaos in my opinion.

 

[Norman]

Well, it is not mine. It is religion. Blind belief is not supposed to be important to religion.

Norman: Hi LuisDantas, I never could understand why some people believe that blind belief is what some people have. I do not feel that my belief in
my Church is blind belief at all. I have a spiritual conviction that what I believe is right for me I do not believe that I follow my leader's blindly.
A lot of people think this way and in my opinion that would be just confusion which should not exist. Yes, I feel you are correct when you said
"Blind belief is not supposed to be important to religion;" a lot of people though seem that it is important to follow a belief blindly and even turn
it into a disparaging thought or an accusation of being wrong. I don't believe that anyone would blindly follow the spiritual convictions of there
conscious as many seem to think about other's and there belief's. I hope this made sense.