How can we be sure that all religions are wrong?

@mikeymojo,

i.e
About as many as the ideas about what "God" is ?

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

So basically, you're signing onto the idea that without a god, or a belief in a god, there can be no morals? You're as bad as the bible thumpers.

Not according to the Bible, Set. I pointed this out to you once before:
(Romans 2:14, 15) ". . . For whenever people of the nations that do not have law do by nature the things of the law, these people, although not having law, are a law to themselves. 15 They are the very ones who demonstrate the matter of the law to be written in their hearts. . ." The world is full of people with good moral compass. We would have anarchy otherwise.

1 Reply

@neologist,

If that's the case, what was the point of that moral license fling you threw out there? What's the difference between a snide remark in scripture about nations without law and saying there can be no morality without a god? This is typical of the bullshit mental gymnastics of people who play that idiot scripture game.

1 Reply

@mikeymojo,

If there is not one idea of morality, it's not morality. Maybe you can get someone to help you untie those knots you've gotten brain into.

0 Replies

@fresco,

mikeymojo wrote:

As a whole, probably not because there are about 6 billion different ideas of what "morality" is...

fresco wrote:

i.e
About as many as the ideas about what "God" is ?

This is a 'coincedence' I've justed listed to a radio adaptation of:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nine_Billion_Names_of_God
by Arthur C. Clarke.

Perhaps you had this novel (short story) in mind? Just for a moment I thought it 'was' entitled six not nine billion etc... (it was the last thing I did before reading this thread and the latest posts Surprised

).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00zzwfq/The_Nine_Billion_Names_of_God_The_Nine_Billion_Names_of_God/

1 Reply

@igm,

Thanks for that link.
I was merely playing with the "logic of belief" which I call "the Emperors New Clothes Paradigm". Obviously there will be as many descriptions of "the clothes" as their are eager observers of them.

1 Reply

@fresco,

I get that... but just felt I had to mention the coincidence... which is a strange phenomenon in its own right.

0 Replies

@XXSpadeMasterXX,

Its good to hear from you Spades, I hope you are doing well. Very Happy

Quote:

How do you claim to know that you are an agnostic or atheist?

I claim to be this way because I have not seen any evidence of a God existing.

Quote:

Is it because you embrace the centralism of them all (God) and reject them all and God?

Or is it because you know you reject the main centralism of them all (God) And reject this is true? Or do you know you do because you believe it?

I try to stay away from beliefs but I do hold onto my understandings but I do not believe them to be empirical and if any evidence comes forward that makes me question my understandings then my understands may change.

Have you ever found anything in your bible that was incorrect?

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

If that's the case, what was the point of that moral license fling you threw out there? What's the difference between a snide remark in scripture about nations without law and saying there can be no morality without a god? This is typical of the bullshit mental gymnastics of people who play that idiot scripture game.

My point is we should scrutinize our beliefs, lest they be based on desire for license or reward. If they have no basis in reality we are deluding ourselves.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

Its a human trait (or shall I say need) that religion explores, open a vacancy by banning religion and something else will take its place and role...

I would not want to ban any type of thinking but I wonder what might happen if the scientific method took the place of religion.

Is it possible that humans could understand things without holding their understandings to be absolutes without any possibility of being wrong?

0 Replies

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Since all religions differ in some ways, all cannot be right, and since we have no way of knowing whether or not there is a God and what he might want, we can't conclude all of them are wrong.
Similar to Bertrand Russell's observation that, at most, only one of them could be right. He chose to believe none. I choose to believe one.

So, we are all pretty much the same

Of all the thousands of Gods mankind has had of the years... which one of em is the one you picked... if it's the latest one what of the thousands of branches and sects do you adhere to.??

1 Reply

@tenderfoot,

tenderfoot wrote:

Of all the thousands of Gods mankind has had of the years... which one of em is the one you picked... if it's the latest one what of the thousands of branches and sects do you adhere to.??

I choose to worship Jehovah, whose name means "He who causes to become".

There are other gods worshiped by men, of course. Their temporary existence is explained in the Bible.

1 Reply

@neologist,

Quote:

whose name means "He who causes to become".

Reference ?

1 Reply

@neologist,

Quote:

My point is we should scrutinize our beliefs, lest they be based on desire for license or reward. If they have no basis in reality we are deluding ourselves.

I can think of few belief systems which are more about license and reward than Christianity. Certainly there is no belief system of which i know which is "based in reality," and Christianity cannot make such a claim. Not only is your scripture self-referential and self-contradictory, it frequently displays an appalling ignorance of history for which we do have sources. You go on in other posts about what you choose to believe; you don't mention any basis in reality in those posts. Really, it is hubris of the worst stripe for you to be talking about delusion.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

I'm well aware of the circumstantial and anecdotal nature of the evidence on which I base my faith. Yet I believe I have an avalanche of it, not the least of which is the galactic chasm between what the bible actually says and what has been taught by the clergy.

1 Reply

@neologist,

An avalanche of unreliable evidence is still no evidence at all.

0 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Quote:
whose name means "He who causes to become".

Reference ?

(Je·ho′vah) [the causative form, the imperfect state, of the Heb. verb ha·wah′ (become); meaning “He Causes to Become”].

1 Reply

@neologist,

He asked for a reference, not your ipse dixit allegation. I cannot, so far, find a single source online which supports the claim you make here.

0 Replies

OK, i see his dodge. He's a Jehovah's witness, and therefore fails to recognize that Jehovah is a bullshit word based on the ignorance of Christian scholars. Yahweh may mean "causes to become." Jehovah is just a piece of academic stupidity.

1 Reply

This Wikipedia article on Yahweh is interesting, chiefly because of this Wikipedia article on the ancient, northwestern Semitic god El. Archaeological evidence which predates Israelite scripture is strong evidence that the Jews "borrowed" a popular Canaanite deity (which the latter article says is the meaning of El). This goes a long way to explaining the polytheistic passage in Genesis.

0 Replies

How can we be sure that all religions are wrong?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know