Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sorry if this question has been posted before. All the religions contradict each other so how can any of them be true? If you believe that your religion is the only true one and all the other religions are wrong, why do you think that?
As Sam Harris quotes:
“The idea that any one of our religions represents the infallible word of the One True God requires an encyclopedic ignorance of history, mythology, and art even to be entertained - as the beliefs, rituals, and iconography of each of our religions attest to centuries of cross-pollination among them. Whatever their imagined source, the doctrines of modern religions are no more tenable than those which, for lack of adherents, were cast upon the scrap heap of mythology millennia ago; for there is no more evidence to justify a belief in the literal existence of Yahweh and Satan than there was to keep Zeus perched upon his mountain throne or Poseidon churning the seas.”
All the religions contradict each other so how can any of them be true?
This question has a good reason. Sometimes I met folk so strong-minded (and single-minded) religious, your question is my first reaction too. Normally I don't say it loud, avoiding arguments which leads fast to nowhere and are endless.
To me all religions are all a set of sentences, some wrong, some right, some with a very deep and sophisticated thinking. That makes it interesting! Okay, only if you are a "thinker". But I believe in a God. Surely, there will be some surprises at a later point... as it will happen to everyone.
Frankly said, our daily lives are not quite different to religions: how can I know, that I see the person I'm talking to the right way? Have I the right opinion in this or that matter? Remember, how surprised a spouse can be after a divorce, recognizing behaviour of his/her better half, he/she even couldn't have imagined before. And often not in a good way.
So in all matters regarding religion we should be more humble.
Institutionalized religions must declare to have the pure truth and only that. Look into politics: these guys are the same! It's power play.
Sorry if this question has been posted before. All the religions contradict each other so how can any of them be true? If you believe that your religion is the only true one and all the other religions are wrong, why do you think that?
As Sam Harris quotes:
“The idea that any one of our religions represents the infallible word of the One True God requires an encyclopedic ignorance of history, mythology, and art even to be entertained - as the beliefs, rituals, and iconography of each of our religions attest to centuries of cross-pollination among them. Whatever their imagined source, the doctrines of modern religions are no more tenable than those which, for lack of adherents, were cast upon the scrap heap of mythology millennia ago; for there is no more evidence to justify a belief in the literal existence of Yahweh and Satan than there was to keep Zeus perched upon his mountain throne or Poseidon churning the seas.”
Because God called me to it.
Now how do YOU know it isn't? How do YOU know that your atheism is the right one?
Sorry if this question has been posted before. All the religions contradict each other so how can any of them be true? If you believe that your religion is the only true one and all the other religions are wrong, why do you think that?
As Sam Harris quotes:
“The idea that any one of our religions represents the infallible word of the One True God requires an encyclopedic ignorance of history, mythology, and art even to be entertained - as the beliefs, rituals, and iconography of each of our religions attest to centuries of cross-pollination among them. Whatever their imagined source, the doctrines of modern religions are no more tenable than those which, for lack of adherents, were cast upon the scrap heap of mythology millennia ago; for there is no more evidence to justify a belief in the literal existence of Yahweh and Satan than there was to keep Zeus perched upon his mountain throne or Poseidon churning the seas.”
1. They don't all contradict each other. There are fundamental differences, but there is also considerable overlap.
2. The fact there are multiple religions making different truth claims doesn't mean one of them isn't true.
3. No one "knows" in any way that is evidential to anyone else whether his or her religion is true. The "knowing" is an entirely personal matter. Christianity, for example, doesn't teach that unbelievers are to be "convinced" or "persuaded." It teaches that the Gospel message is to be delivered and that God, through the working of the Holy Spirit, will call whom he will. This is why preeminent theologian Karl Barth had disdain for Christian apologetics - it's a fundamentally misguided exercise (except, perhaps, to the extent it may bolster the faith of those who are already Christians). Lightweight apologist Frank Turek exemplifies this mistake at the beginning of every "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist" podcast when he screeches "Know why people are so easily talked out of Christianity? BECAUSE THEY'VE NEVER BEEN TALKED INTO IT!!!"
4. The unique person of Jesus Christ and the inner witness of the Holy Spirit are why I believe Christianity is the closest approximation of ultimate truth among the available alternatives.
5. Despite the attempts of mythicists to analogize Christianity and especially the Resurrection to earlier religions, these attempts simply don't withstand scrutiny. The Christian truth claims really have no parallel in other religions. One of the startling things about Christianity is that it's quite counterintuitive - not really the sort of thing people would invent to allay their existential fears. (No, I am not going to debate the issue of ancient parallels with Christianity. These forums and the internet in general are crawling with pretend scholars who can say anything they want with impunity. Most of it is too uninformed and flat-out silly to waste one's time refuting. There is plenty of real scholarship out there for anyone with a sincere interest.)
7. Atheists don't seem to grasp that evidentialism is merely one understanding of rationality. See the really excellent entry at https://www.iep.utm.edu/relig-ep/#:~...s%20irrational. As this article points out, evidentialists (including most atheists) do not and cannot live by this standard themselves. Moreover, as the article also points out, they uniquely apply the "Never enough evidence" criterion to religious claims. So what Sam Harris thinks or says is really of no interest or relevance to me.
"Evidentialism implies that full religious belief is justified only if there is conclusive evidence for it. It follows that if the arguments for there being a God, including any arguments from religious experience, are at best probable ones, no one would be justified in having a full belief that there is a God."
"Ironically, in most areas of philosophy and life, most philosophers are not (indeed could not be) evidentialists."
"Very few philosophical positions (and this is an understatement) enjoy the kind of evidential support that classical foundationalism demands of belief in God; yet most of these are treated as rational."
I encourage everyone to read articles such as the above at the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. You'll have a much better idea of what's really "going on" in these seemingly endless debates where atheists and religious believers seem to be speaking different languages (because they are, in effect, speaking different languages). You'll further discover that there is nothing intellectually superior about the atheist position; they have simply chosen to live in an intellectual straitjacket and are frustrated because some of us chose not to do likewise.
1. They don't all contradict each other. There are fundamental differences, but there is also considerable overlap.
By considerable, you mean some. Your need to exaggerate the evidence should tell you what it tells us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
2. The fact there are multiple religions making different truth claims doesn't mean one of them isn't true.
True, but it increases the chances they are all invented. But I forgot, you do not like Bayesian reasoning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
5. Despite the attempts of mythicists to analogize Christianity and especially the Resurrection to earlier religions, these attempts simply don't withstand scrutiny. The Christian truth claims really have no parallel in other religions.
Your assertion ignores the evidence that Christianity is a syncretic religion, just like others that were popular 2,000 years ago.
And it is not our fault the earliest Christian texts make more sense with a heavenly Jesus (especially Hebrews), and the alleged historical accounts were written decades later.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
These forums and the internet in general are crawling with pretend scholars who can say anything they want with impunity. Most of it is too uninformed and flat-out silly to waste one's time refuting. There is plenty of real scholarship out there for anyone with a sincere interest.)
Yet you are still a creationist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
7. Atheists don't seem to grasp that evidentialism is merely one understanding of rationality.
That is why we use other forms of rationality we allegedly do not understand.
Yawn, another argument from authority. And is it 'really excellent' because you agree with it, or because it is rational?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
Moreover, as the article also points out, they uniquely apply the "Never enough evidence" criterion to religious claims.
No, it is not a unique claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence whether it is for a religious claim or non-religious one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
I encourage everyone to read articles such as the above at the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. You'll have a much better idea of what's really "going on" in these seemingly endless debates where atheists and religious believers seem to be speaking different languages (because they are, in effect, speaking different languages).
Your straw man gives philosophers a bad name.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
You'll further discover that there is nothing intellectually superior about the atheist position; they have simply chosen to live in an intellectual straitjacket and are frustrated because some of us chose not to do likewise.
Rational arguments sets you free from the cognitive bias straitjacket. But well done for admitting your arguments are not intellectual.
1. They don't all contradict each other. There are fundamental differences, but there is also considerable overlap.
2. The fact there are multiple religions making different truth claims doesn't mean one of them isn't true.
3. No one "knows" in any way that is evidential to anyone else whether his or her religion is true. The "knowing" is an entirely personal matter. Christianity, for example, doesn't teach that unbelievers are to be "convinced" or "persuaded." It teaches that the Gospel message is to be delivered and that God, through the working of the Holy Spirit, will call whom he will. This is why preeminent theologian Karl Barth had disdain for Christian apologetics - it's a fundamentally misguided exercise (except, perhaps, to the extent it may bolster the faith of those who are already Christians). Lightweight apologist Frank Turek exemplifies this mistake at the beginning of every "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist" podcast when he screeches "Know why people are so easily talked out of Christianity? BECAUSE THEY'VE NEVER BEEN TALKED INTO IT!!!"
4. The unique person of Jesus Christ and the inner witness of the Holy Spirit are why I believe Christianity is the closest approximation of ultimate truth among the available alternatives.
5. Despite the attempts of mythicists to analogize Christianity and especially the Resurrection to earlier religions, these attempts simply don't withstand scrutiny. The Christian truth claims really have no parallel in other religions. One of the startling things about Christianity is that it's quite counterintuitive - not really the sort of thing people would invent to allay their existential fears. (No, I am not going to debate the issue of ancient parallels with Christianity. These forums and the internet in general are crawling with pretend scholars who can say anything they want with impunity. Most of it is too uninformed and flat-out silly to waste one's time refuting. There is plenty of real scholarship out there for anyone with a sincere interest.)
7. Atheists don't seem to grasp that evidentialism is merely one understanding of rationality. See the really excellent entry at https://www.iep.utm.edu/relig-ep/#:~...s%20irrational. As this article points out, evidentialists (including most atheists) do not and cannot live by this standard themselves. Moreover, as the article also points out, they uniquely apply the "Never enough evidence" criterion to religious claims. So what Sam Harris thinks or says is really of no interest or relevance to me.
"Evidentialism implies that full religious belief is justified only if there is conclusive evidence for it. It follows that if the arguments for there being a God, including any arguments from religious experience, are at best probable ones, no one would be justified in having a full belief that there is a God."
"Ironically, in most areas of philosophy and life, most philosophers are not (indeed could not be) evidentialists."
"Very few philosophical positions (and this is an understatement) enjoy the kind of evidential support that classical foundationalism demands of belief in God; yet most of these are treated as rational."
I encourage everyone to read articles such as the above at the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. You'll have a much better idea of what's really "going on" in these seemingly endless debates where atheists and religious believers seem to be speaking different languages (because they are, in effect, speaking different languages). You'll further discover that there is nothing intellectually superior about the atheist position; they have simply chosen to live in an intellectual straitjacket and are frustrated because some of us chose not to do likewise.
Your familiarity with such sources and viewpoints belies your acceptance of the mainstream tenets of Christianity, Irkle. What kind of game are you playing here?
1. They don't all contradict each other. There are fundamental differences, but there is also considerable overlap.
2. The fact there are multiple religions making different truth claims doesn't mean one of them isn't true.
3. No one "knows" in any way that is evidential to anyone else whether his or her religion is true. The "knowing" is an entirely personal matter. Christianity, for example, doesn't teach that unbelievers are to be "convinced" or "persuaded." It teaches that the Gospel message is to be delivered and that God, through the working of the Holy Spirit, will call whom he will. This is why preeminent theologian Karl Barth had disdain for Christian apologetics - it's a fundamentally misguided exercise (except, perhaps, to the extent it may bolster the faith of those who are already Christians). Lightweight apologist Frank Turek exemplifies this mistake at the beginning of every "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist" podcast when he screeches "Know why people are so easily talked out of Christianity? BECAUSE THEY'VE NEVER BEEN TALKED INTO IT!!!"
4. The unique person of Jesus Christ and the inner witness of the Holy Spirit are why I believe Christianity is the closest approximation of ultimate truth among the available alternatives.
5. Despite the attempts of mythicists to analogize Christianity and especially the Resurrection to earlier religions, these attempts simply don't withstand scrutiny. The Christian truth claims really have no parallel in other religions. One of the startling things about Christianity is that it's quite counterintuitive - not really the sort of thing people would invent to allay their existential fears. (No, I am not going to debate the issue of ancient parallels with Christianity. These forums and the internet in general are crawling with pretend scholars who can say anything they want with impunity. Most of it is too uninformed and flat-out silly to waste one's time refuting. There is plenty of real scholarship out there for anyone with a sincere interest.)
7. Atheists don't seem to grasp that evidentialism is merely one understanding of rationality. See the really excellent entry at https://www.iep.utm.edu/relig-ep/#:~...s%20irrational. As this article points out, evidentialists (including most atheists) do not and cannot live by this standard themselves. Moreover, as the article also points out, they uniquely apply the "Never enough evidence" criterion to religious claims. So what Sam Harris thinks or says is really of no interest or relevance to me.
"Evidentialism implies that full religious belief is justified only if there is conclusive evidence for it. It follows that if the arguments for there being a God, including any arguments from religious experience, are at best probable ones, no one would be justified in having a full belief that there is a God."
"Ironically, in most areas of philosophy and life, most philosophers are not (indeed could not be) evidentialists."
"Very few philosophical positions (and this is an understatement) enjoy the kind of evidential support that classical foundationalism demands of belief in God; yet most of these are treated as rational."
I encourage everyone to read articles such as the above at the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. You'll have a much better idea of what's really "going on" in these seemingly endless debates where atheists and religious believers seem to be speaking different languages (because they are, in effect, speaking different languages). You'll further discover that there is nothing intellectually superior about the atheist position; they have simply chosen to live in an intellectual straitjacket and are frustrated because some of us chose not to do likewise.
Unfortunately, and evidently public forums are hotbeds for social-activism. Unfortunately again, social-activism has nothing to do with understanding origins.
Sorry if this question has been posted before. All the religions contradict each other so how can any of them be true? If you believe that your religion is the only true one and all the other religions are wrong, why do you think that?
You are born to a religion and stay with it. You have no reason to change because religion is only one aspect of what defines you.
Religion is not the same as spiritual seeking. At that level, where you think about it consciously and it brings you satisfaction, may be even healing, all religions say the same thing at that fundamental level.
Much of the strife that occur that we think is due to religion is not because of rightness or wrongness, it is about power. When it comes to that it is politics, power, greed. It is no longer about religion.
Last edited by mensaguy; 07-14-2020 at 12:21 PM..
Reason: Added a closing quote tag. Hope it's in the right place.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
