How can we be sure that all religions are wrong?

@InfraBlue,

Well I don't have a problem per se with emotions. Maybe that's the difference.

@Leadfoot,

Blue wrote:

Are you a Jehovah's Witness?

Leadfoot wrote:

No, but I often invite them in when they come knocking. They wouldn't have me (not that I tried) because I refuse to worship their God which is actually 'Family'. Besides, they only promise eternity here in this meat grinder existence on earth.

If earth is so bad why would so many angels forsake their standing with God for just a few years here?

Leadfoot wrote:

They say all 144,000 slots in heaven are already spoken for.

Not completely, as I understand. Besides, in order to get there, you have to die first. BUMMER!

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

I'm convinced that "believers" and "non-believers" can agree on basic tenets of morality, so neither of us poses a threat to the other.

This does seem to be true to a point but I do question why neither side seems to have much of an interest in moral philosophy.
Rather than expanding on a moral concept both sides just allow the evolutionary snail to deliver up our new understandings of morality. 2 Cents

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

In the end it comes down to what do you intellectually feel comfortable with

Or what you believe? You can believe you are Jesus or you can believe someone else is. If we were taught something different from our society we would wonder if that something different were true or we would form some sort of belief about it.
Sociological currents are very strong.

You can click where it says it has been blocked and it will let you watch it on YouTube

1 Reply

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

neologist wrote:
Whether we like to hear it or not, Satan has kidnapped the world for this day.
InfraBlue wrote:
It's not kidnapping if it was done entirely with God's consent, though.
There is a huge difference between permission beforehand and accommodation after. The rebellion brought up issues never before raised.

This entirely dodges the point that it's not kidnapping when done with God's consent.

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

Quote:

Sociological currents are very strong.

And swimming upstream is hard.
Nobody said it was easy.

0 Replies

@InfraBlue,

neologist wrote:

Whether we like to hear it or not, Satan has kidnapped the world for this day.

InfraBlue wrote:

It's not kidnapping if it was done entirely with God's consent, though.

I wrote:

There is a huge difference between permission beforehand and accommodation after. The rebellion brought up issues never before raised.

you wrote:

This entirely dodges the point that it's not kidnapping when done with God's consent.

Tell me at what point God gave consent. Had he prevented the mutiny, we would no longer have had free will.

2 Replies

@neologist,

Quote:

Tell me at what point God gave consent. Had he prevented the mutiny, we would no longer have had free will.

What could be so bad if a God gave freewill to do anything except bad things?

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

reasoning logic wrote:

What could be so bad if a God gave freewill to do anything except bad things?

He did that. Adam and Eve had perfect consciences until they rejected God's sovereignty by eating the fruit.

1 Reply

@neologist,

What could be so bad if a God gave freewill to do anything except bad things?

Quote:

He did that

Quote:

they rejected God's sovereignty by eating the fruit.

So eating the fruit was freewill to anything except bad things?

I see this whole thing about the tree and death to be true in a philosophical sense.
If you eat the knowledge of good and bad things "study or ponder the ideas of what is good and bad you will learn that death is not a good thing and you will have a new concept that you did not have before". Now death has been created where it did not exist as a concept before.
The concept of death.
Animals do not have this concept. Well not as in depth as we do.

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

I'm not sure I follow your line of reasoning logic.

Obeying God's command to not eat the fruit represented their acceptance of God's authority and would have assured that none of their choices would be 'bad'.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

...
In any case we obviously look at life in a somewhat different way and there''a nothing wrong with that. I just have a problem with anyone who presumes to know something that is unknowable (at least at this time), and then use that presumption to criticize or impugn people who think otherwise. Believer or Non-believer.

Good words. I see that happening a lot. The ones that seem to stick in my craw the most are the science denialists, as they're potentially dangerous to society. I have also made it clear elsewhere that I don't claim to know that there is no god, and I've debated several people who claim such knowledge.

For me, it boils down to this: I claim sovereignty over what goes on between my ears, and acknowledge others' right to think and believe what they do. The caveat is that when those ideas escape the cranium and start initiating behaviors that hurt others, resistance is appropriate. I don't have a problem with others' benign beliefs, just so long as they remain benign.

1 Reply

@neologist,

That we would no longer have had free will is irrelevant to the fact that he gave consent when he allowed the mutiny, your religion uses the word "rebellion," to occur in the first place and continue.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

You and I obviously do not agree on the meaning of free will
You seem to prefer a leash

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Well I don't have a problem per se with emotions. Maybe that's the difference.

In and of itself, emotions as an aspect of religious belief isn't problematic, generally speaking. Usually, if it is problematic, there's more to it that's involved.

0 Replies

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

You and I obviously do not agree on the meaning of free will
You seem to prefer a leash

This as well does not address the fact that God condones the kidnapping.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

'Condone' would the word you selected to fit your confirmation bias. We all do things against God's will.
He doesn't condone any of it.

1 Reply

@neologist,

Confirmation bias?
So, if God isn't allowing the Devil to rule the world, how is it, then, that he's ruling the world?

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

What happened to your word 'condoning'?
'Allowing' is not a synonym in this case.

1 Reply

@FBM,

Quote:

For me, it boils down to this: I claim sovereignty over what goes on between my ears, and acknowledge others' right to think and believe what they do. The caveat is that when those ideas escape the cranium and start initiating behaviors that hurt others, resistance is appropriate. I don't have a problem with others' benign beliefs, just so long as they remain benign.

Don't know for certain what your definition of 'benign' is but you sound a lot like Bill Nye 'The Science Guy'. He says that certain ideas (ID for example) are not benign and we (meaning Government, ie, force) must prevent susceptible young people from being exposed to them. He thinks even the domain of thought is dangerous and 'resistance' is appropriate to prevent inappropriate thought.

Not accusing you of this but there are numerous examples of thoughts/ideas not being considered benign. My former favorite forum website was shut down simply because of the thoughts I was expressing. The owner could have easily just banned me but that would have made his intolerance of certain thoughts obvious.

Where do you draw the line of appropriate 'resistence'?

1 Reply

How can we be sure that all religions are wrong?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know