How can we be sure that all religions are wrong?

@Setanta,

Let me adjust mt statement. If you know there is some truth to it why cant you adjust your interpretation to find the truth?

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

To get to know the entity himself, you must talk to him yourself. I admit, it’s easier if you start young, you aren’t so aware of self image then, but at least you don’t have to do it in front of others and look crazy.

If it's a completely internal experience with no external evidence then, honestly, how do you know it isn't all just in your mind? Don't you worry about fooling yourself?

3 Replies

@rosborne979,

I sometimes leave on the speaker function on my cell. Spooky when god answers "YES Im busy ya know???"

"I gotta teach all these organic chemicals to bond and fold".
"Those pyrimidines an silanes are just legging the herd"

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

It is all "in their mind." Just the idea that man is created in god's image just doesn't pass the laugh test.

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

Quote:

If it's a completely internal experience with no external evidence then, honestly, how do you know it isn't all just in your mind? Don't you worry about fooling yourself?

It’s a good question. Yes, I think about that quite a bit, and I’m willing to accept that if the evidence points to it.

And don’t underestimate the value of 'what’s all in your mind'. Virtually everything that matters takes place there.

As far as sanity checking, I can’t deny the evidence of my own experience. And that, I believe, is the only way to get any certainty. You must use your own life as an experiment. I asked for an understanding of something that was totally beyond anything I could expect to have understood and was given it. That’s what convinced me. I could not have conceived of what I was given and continue to receive.

Don’t make a mistake of not asking big enough or not seeing the steps to it when shown. The thing you want may not be in the direction you expect. If you care that others may think it foolish, you probably shouldn’t ask. Know the price you may pay before beginning.

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

The grammatical error of writing "cant" rather than "can't" is just too delicious an irony. Cant is exactly what you've got going here. Interpretation only finds the "truth" by accident. When you have no evidence and you decide that your interpretation is correct without evidence, you've just enshrined your confirmation bias. I have no problem with you believing whatever you choose to believe. I also have no problem that you expect me to take that seriously--I won't of course, but it is mildly entertaining.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

We’ll, at least you are thinking about it. I still think you are being misled by your desires and drawing the wrong conclusions but, oh well.

So let me ask you this, what would it take to cause you to change your mind?

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

Quote:

what would it take to cause you to change your mind?

There comes a point where you are convinced of something to the point where that is hard to imagine. You have never seen it but try imagining something that would convince you you don’t have a heart beating in your chest.
We are probably both at that point, but about different things.

There is the possibility that I could be convinced that God is not who I think he is or that he is a malevolent God, (happened once, I was wrong), but I don’t think there is any chance that I could be convinced that there is no God, at least while I am mentally sound.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

You can't be convinced there is no god, because you can't prove god exists.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

The grammatical error of writing "cant" rather than "can't" is just too delicious an irony. Cant is exactly what you've got going here. Interpretation only finds the "truth" by accident. When you have no evidence and you decide that your interpretation is correct without evidence, you've just enshrined your confirmation bias. I have no problem with you believing whatever you choose to believe. I also have no problem that you expect me to take that seriously--I won't of course, but it is mildly entertaining.

When you answer a blog on a cell phone in a hurry errors happen. Grammatical and spelling errors don't change the truth of the answer if the readers mind is capable of interpreting what the author of the original idea (the blog) meant. I know some people can understand poorly communicated ideas better than others. But, if the reader of the blog has experienced communicating with the blogger, it is usually fairly easy to determine the writers true meaning when considering the pattern established in previous communications. (I believe we have established that pattern and am asking you not consider it when reading some of my responses). (Unless you are just having fun with me, then let the games begin.)

The reason mythological stories are hard to interpret is there are many oral transmissions of the original message between us and the original transmission of the idea.

So, a person might assume the author accounted for that by simplifying the way the idea is transmitted (like using analogies) so an idea passed on by oral traditions is passed on consistently, in the hope that in some future date (like when Jesus and science provides the information needed to reinterpret the idea in its original complicated form with all the original details filled in) the details of the original idea can be reestablished.

The only assumption I am asking you to consider is that that process is possible and is a reasonable quest to pursue.

0 Replies

I see no good reason to consider an assumption which starts with someone's imaginary friend to be either possible or reasonable.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Then I guess you are denying everything you see is information, and all information requires an author.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

There is the possibility that I could be convinced that God is not who I think he is or that he is a malevolent God, (happened once, I was wrong), but I don’t think there is any chance that I could be convinced that there is no God, at least while I am mentally sound.

I can accept that answer. I still think you're not thinking clearly, but that's ok.

But given that as your answer, what are you hoping to learn from your discussions here? You seem to be trying to talk about scientific knowledge while clinging to a theological basis, which seems inconsistent.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

I see no good reason to consider an assumption which starts with someone's imaginary friend to be either possible or reasonable.

Exactly. There are thousands upon thousands of different imaginary friends in people's minds. And even the believers themselves dismiss all the others out of hand, so why shouldn't we (non-believers) do exactly the same everyone.

2 Replies

@rosborne979,

Quote:

And believers themselves dismiss all the others out of hand.

Because only one stepped into the universe rose from the dead in front of witnesses and tells a story that fits what we see in nature.

The characteristics of a being that can be the creator(capable of creating and organizing all the quarks in every atom so systematically perfect that a hydrogen atom on one side of the universe is the same on the other side of the universe, and in the same process establishing life and intelligent life)are very specific characteristics.

Do you know any other God besides the Christian God who fits those characteristics?

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

Quote:

But given that as your answer, what are you hoping to learn from your discussions here? You seem to be trying to talk about scientific knowledge while clinging to a theological basis, which seems inconsistent.

There is a simple reason why the two would get confused. Looking at it from the top down, if we entertain the possibility of a creator God (and why wouldn’t you if you are curious), we can only simultaneously observe that science would only be reverse engineering what had already been designed and created.

It is inevitable that the two magisteria would overlap at some point and become visible.

What I am learning is that there is an amazing reluctance in some to even consider the mental experiment. I find that interesting.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

There is a simple reason why the two would get confused. Looking at it from the top down, if we entertain the possibility of a creator God (and why wouldn’t you if you are curious), we can only simultaneously observe that science would only be reverse engineering what had already been designed and created.

I think there is a big difference between entertaining the possibility of a creator God and assuming that a creator God actually exists and trying to relate everything you experience to that assumption. The former is just realistic, the latter is dangerously close to being completely delusional. And many people who hold a non-popular view of a creator God are summarily dismissed as delusional, even by those with the popular view of God.

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

brianjakub wrote:

Do you know any other God besides the Christian God who fits those characteristics?

The Jesus mythology is not unique. It was preceded by at least 15 or 20 similar myths. Horus to name just one.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

The jesus myth was born of Greek and Egyptian mythology. They all had virgin births. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miraculous_births

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

One of the most glaring weaknesses of the god squad is the divergence in their views of who, what, how, where and when as regards their personal views of their several imaginary friends. I have to admit that I am amazed at BJ constantly attempting to suggest that not only is his view plausible, but (apparently) seriously claiming it is some sort of evidence.

0 Replies

How can we be sure that all religions are wrong?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know