Your religious beliefs are probably wrong

[Shadow Wolf]

I think if you were to approach this not saying "Your beliefs are probably wrong", and say rather "Your beliefs are probably relative", that would be accurate.

In my mind, anyone who claims to have anything more than "I don't know" is only fooling themselves. We're human. We wouldn't know the "true" religion if it bit us on our butts.

 

[Woodrow LI]

Well i don't see any reason that my beliefs should have consequences--I do not accept the consequences of our belief. I find it incredibly unlikely that God would be so petty as to be concerned with what neural configurations were in our head. I'm willing to bet you grew up in a muslim household, or all your friends were Muslims or something.

Also a christian clone could argue the exact same thing about Christianity.

The chance of Islam being correct--that Mohammad flew to heaven on a winged horse and that he recieved the special word of God in a cave where coincidentally no one happened to be watching--is incredibly low.

Actually I grew up as a Christian and remained so for over 45 years. Much of which was as a Preacher or Missionary. AoG (Assembly of God). After spending most of my life as a Christian I became convinced god did not exist and remained an Atheist.
At the age of 65 with no contact with any Muslims I accepted Islam. Dang near got lynched by the local community which was 100% Christian deep in the bible belt.
I do believe we all are responsible for our own beliefs and for that reason we should never stop learning and never believe anything we have not found proof of it's validity.

P.S. Muhammad only received a couple revelations in the cave, those being the ones that informed him of his Propethood.
After that he received nearly all of his revelations while preaching publicaly.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Maybe reality is wrong, and beliefs are right.

 

[Woodrow LI]

Maybe reality is wrong, and beliefs are right.

To believe in reality is the best basis for belief. Our beliefs should be based upon what we have verified to be real

 

[The Sum of Awe]

To believe in reality is the best basis for belief. Our beliefs should be based upon what we have verified to be real

I disagree. It's pointless to believe in only what you find real, because the likeliness of being right a majority of a time is very slim.

Instead I find it more useful to believe in what has been shown to work for you, something that seems accurate according to your experiences and can experiment with the belief with similar results. That isn't in a scientific way though - it's all personal opinion.

We can't even begin to see objective reality except through mathematics, what we are witnessing (that we call life, experiencing, reality) isn't exactly reality. It is simply our own interpretation of it.

 

[dust1n]

Let
x = having an opinion about pizza
xx = not having an opinion about pizza

x =/= xx
However, one can make an argument (in this case) that: x == xx
As I said, not having an opinion about something means that you have an opinion about that something.

In the case of religion:
y = having a religious belief
yy = not having a religious belief

y =/= yy
One cannot make an argument for: y = yy

LOL.

P =/= ¬P

x = having an opinion about pizza.
¬x = not having an opinion about pizza.

Saying x = xx or x =/= xx, is not a possible logical operation.

¬ is equivalent to the word not in logic.

 

[Woodrow LI]

I disagree. It's pointless to believe in only what you find real, because the likeliness of being right a majority of a time is very slim.

Instead I find it more useful to believe in what has been shown to work for you, something that seems accurate according to your experiences and can experiment with the belief with similar results. That isn't in a scientific way though - it's all personal opinion.

We can't even begin to see objective reality except through mathematics, what we are witnessing (that we call life, experiencing, reality) isn't exactly reality. It is simply our own interpretation of it.

Basically that is what I am saying. When I talk about verifying all things I mean with proven facts, not personal thoughts.
But as we go through life it often turns out proof is a series of progressive approximations. We can only do our best to take steps that contimue to lead us to truth.

If I am on Pine Ridge and am trying to go from Porcupine to Potato Creek on horse back, I use a compass, but also ask any people I see, if they know the way.
So it is with all things in my life. First find general directions to my goal and as I travel continue to question those I come across and try to refine what I have learned.

 

[Thruve]

This is why I call myself a universalist, to an extent. Every religion points up ^ despite their different interpretations of whats up there. Followers will not deny gods existence because followers of all theistic religions clearly experience similar spiritual conflicts and irony in their lives. That fact alone, which no one can deny, is why I'd call myself more of a universalist. It's like there is one truth, but it cannot be found here. Gods "grace" covers all religions.

 

[Levite]

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.

Or, on the other hand, one believes in a non-exclusivist religion, and does not believe that any religion, including one's own, has a sole monopoly on ultimate Truth.

In Judaism, we don't hold that everyone is supposed to be Jewish, nor do we hold that one must be Jewish to please God or behave righteously. We hold that Jews should be Jewish, because that is what we are; but we presume that the religions of non-Jews are their business, and if God has a problem with them, He can take it up with them Himself.

We don't try to aggressively proselytize-- we don't actively proselytize at all-- for a number of reasons, at least one of which is that it would be presumptuous and condescending to come along and tell someone else that what they believe is wrong for them, and that they are incapable of pleasing God or behaving righteously while living the way they are (or, presumably, that their "religious beliefs are probably wrong").

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Rather than make an argument, you'll make a joke about an adjective!

And you make a joke about pretending to know the first thing about statistics. You continue to underwhelm.

 

[serp777]

And you make a joke about pretending to know the first thing about statistics. You continue to underwhelm.

Clearly you are religious and butthurt over the fact that you feel attacked; thus you make a spite comment. You certainly haven't shown a misunderstanding of statistics. Again instead of making an argument, you instead make baseless assertions about my knowledge of statistics, while failing to even attempt to show how it is wrong.

I am very unimpressed by your debate skills--you're out of your league here. You're just going to have to deal with the fact that your religion is probably wrong.

You should check out statistical probability and combinatorics. A brief analysis will show you that the probability that your combinations of morals, interpretations, and beliefs is correct is incredibly low. In fact this is a case of combinations without repetition. It would be an extremely difficult calculation to actually pull off because I don't know how we would arrive at an accurate values of n and r, but there are low odds of you getting anywhere close to the right combination. Again this is assuming there is in fact a correct religion, which off course lowers the probability even more.

 

[serp777]

Or, on the other hand, one believes in a non-exclusivist religion, and does not believe that any religion, including one's own, has a sole monopoly on ultimate Truth.

In Judaism, we don't hold that everyone is supposed to be Jewish, nor do we hold that one must be Jewish to please God or behave righteously. We hold that Jews should be Jewish, because that is what we are; but we presume that the religions of non-Jews are their business, and if God has a problem with them, He can take it up with them Himself.

We don't try to aggressively proselytize-- we don't actively proselytize at all-- for a number of reasons, at least one of which is that it would be presumptuous and condescending to come along and tell someone else that what they believe is wrong for them, and that they are incapable of pleasing God or behaving righteously while living the way they are (or, presumably, that their "religious beliefs are probably wrong").

What you have demonstrated though is just a different branding of religious beliefs. For instance your specific values include--there is a God, he cares what we do. As far as im aware the Jews still believe the true Messiah is coming, correct? I do however realize that a lot of the Jewish religion is cultural and doesn't necesserily have anything to do with supernatural beliefs. There are still beliefs that religious Jews hold to be ultimate truths though. For instance, do you not believe the existence of God is an ultimate truth? I mean if you don't believe you hold truth in regard to God, then essentially you're an agnostic. Maybe you're an agnostic deist though--you believe that God probably exists but you aren't sure, and you take on elements of the Jewish culture. If you have doubts about God's existence then that makes you more of an agnostic than anything in my submission.

And my thread doesn't really have to do with proselyzation. Its about the probability that your particular religious beliefs and interpretations are correct.

 

[serp777]

This is why I call myself a universalist, to an extent. Every religion points up ^ despite their different interpretations of whats up there. Followers will not deny gods existence because followers of all theistic religions clearly experience similar spiritual conflicts and irony in their lives. That fact alone, which no one can deny, is why I'd call myself more of a universalist. It's like there is one truth, but it cannot be found here. Gods "grace" covers all religions.

Except Hinduism, Buddhism, scientology, tribal faiths, and thousands of others of faiths that don't point towards God specifically.

If I were to gander a guess though, I would say universalism has a higher probability of being correct than other faiths because it is more general. Its still low however.

 

[Levite]

What you have demonstrated though is just a different branding of religious beliefs. For instance your specific values include--there is a God, he cares what we do. As far as im aware the Jews still believe the true Messiah is coming, correct? I do however realize that a lot of the Jewish religion is cultural and doesn't necesserily have anything to do with supernatural beliefs. There are still beliefs that religious Jews hold to be ultimate truths though. For instance, do you not believe the existence of God is an ultimate truth? I mean if you don't believe you hold truth in regard to God, then essentially you're an agnostic. Maybe you're an agnostic deist though--you believe that God probably exists but you aren't sure, and you take on elements of the Jewish culture. If you have doubts about God's existence then that makes you more of an agnostic than anything in my submission.

And my thread doesn't really have to do with proselyzation. Its about the probability that your particular religious beliefs and interpretations are correct.

Sure, there are things we believe are correct, and things we believe aren't. But my point is that we don't hold it against anyone to believe something we think is incorrect, and we don't necessarily think God holds it against them either. The problem with having beliefs one thinks are correct is not merely that one has beliefs one thinks are correct, it is only if one then decides that only one's own specific beliefs are absolutely correct, everyone else's are absolutely wrong and valueless, and because of that, one sets about trying to change the minds of others or forcibly stop them from believing as they please.

But merely thinking one's own beliefs are correct, and peaceably tolerating the opinions of others, while believing that even with errors, the beliefs of others are valuable and even sometimes worth learning from? I fail to see how this is anything I-- or anyone else-- should be concerned about.

The real point is not "which particular point of theology is correct," the real point is to behave decently: to treat others fairly; to aid the poor, the oppressed, and the vulnerable; to try and establish justice and equitability in society. If people do these things, why should I care what process of theology or philosophy gets them to do it? Why should God care?

 

[Willamena]

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.

Just curious, what good arguments do you find in deism?

 

[mainliner]

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.

i personally think there all wrong and mary is god ...... but who am i to say ..

 

[Thruve]

Except Hinduism, Buddhism, scientology, tribal faiths, and thousands of others of faiths that don't point towards God specifically.

If I were to gander a guess though, I would say universalism has a higher probability of being correct than other faiths because it is more general. Its still low however.

True, except many virtues are shared between the theistic religions I insuinuated and the non theistic religions you described. The spiritual outcome of having faith in any of them can be seen as the same. If it's a truth that we are eternal, then ALL religions, for the most part, do indeed promote spiritual peace. For your argument, whether God exists or not, or which religion is correct, is irrelevant. All that is relevant is the path of the individual. IE, Christianity is my path to reach where I need to be, while another may be Hinduism, another atheism, etc. I'm hoping you'll eventually get to the point where wether a religion is correct or not is irrelevant. Clearly it does not matter, and for those who think it is, which I can say isn't many, they'll eventually see the bigger picture here.


Side note: I'm excluding Scientology. It's just garbage.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

This is why I call myself a universalist, to an extent.....Gods "grace" covers all religions.

So you're a universalist theist?

 

[Desert Snake]

LOL.

P =/= ¬P

x = having an opinion about pizza.
¬x = not having an opinion about pizza.

Saying x = xx or x =/= xx, is not a possible logical operation.

¬ is equivalent to the word not in logic.

Not having an opinion about pizza doesn't mean you know anything about pizza. There is no assumption of knowledge in dis-belief.
What is happening in this thread is the arbitrary and semantic separation between the words 'belief', and 'opinion'.

 

[Ultimatum]

LOL.

P =/= ¬P

x = having an opinion about pizza.
¬x = not having an opinion about pizza.

Saying x = xx or x =/= xx, is not a possible logical operation.

¬ is equivalent to the word not in logic.

Come on, let's not get muddled around in technicalities. It was merely a simple example, and not a true algebraic equation.