How can we be sure that all religions are wrong?

@Leadfoot,

Benign - not hurting anybody.
Malignant - hurting people and spreading.

If you condone and try to spread ideas that result in the detriment of others, to the point that somebody dies, then a whole lot of resistance is in order. Vaccine denialism, climate change denialism, faith healing, suicide bombings, crusading, suicide cults, etc etc. The bigger the threat to society/humanity, the more resistance is justified.

2 Replies

@FBM,

I'm good with that. Except if people want to try and heal each other with faith that's ok with me as long as they stop short of preventing needed medical attention.

0 Replies

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

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

"Condone" means to overlook, forgive, or disregard (an offense) without protest or censure.
As God has overlooked the rebellion and handed over the reins of power to the Devil he has allowed it.

And you're dodging the question, "if God isn't allowing the Devil to rule the world, how is it, then, that he's ruling the world?"

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

. . . As God has overlooked the rebellion and handed over the reins of power to the Devil he has allowed it. . .

But God has not overlooked the rebellion.

And Satan's rule over the world is not without God's limits. Otherwise, Jesus would not have survived infancy.

1 Reply

@FBM,

Belief that God exists is benign by your definition as it doesn't hurt anyone.

I think you are still conflating belief that God exists with the various additional beliefs that can be associated with it (usually through religion) e.g.

I believe in the existence of God and I believe he wants me to do my best to make others believe in his existence as well.

I believe in the existence of God and I believe he wants me to kill everyone who doesn't believe in him.

The first additional belief might be considered "malignant" if the word only meant to spread, but it doesn't. Proselytizing can and usually is annoying, but it's really no different than someone ringing your door bell and trying to sell you magazine subscriptions. If either the zealot or the salesperson takes your first no for an answer, where's the harm?

I agree that if you think a belief is actually harmful to yourself and others you should resist it with the degree of resistance being proportionate to the degree of believed harm, but as a practical matter, the beliefs that there is a God or that there isn't don't harm anyone.

Your examples of harmful beliefs are interesting, but I wonder if they don't require beliefs on your part to consider them dangerous.

1 Reply

@neologist,

My but you're a slippery eel.

So, God has not overlooked the rebellion. How is it that the Devil is ruling the world?

So, God intervenes now and then. OK.

2 Replies

@InfraBlue,

We are not only not on the same page. We are not even in the same library.

1 Reply

@neologist,

Your tired cliché does not address the question of how is it that the Devil is ruling the world if not by the consent of God?

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

Tired?
I am sorry if you continue to miss the point.
Consent was not a priori.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

Quote:

So, God has not overlooked the rebellion. How is it that the Devil is ruling the world?

I think that Neologist's God is OK with evil or he would would have given freewill to do what ever is good "only" but No Neologist's God took it a step further and gave people the free will to be rapist, serial killers and so forth.

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

InfraBlue wrote:

So, God has not overlooked the rebellion. How is it that the Devil is ruling the world?

reasoning logic wrote:

I think that Neologist's God is OK with evil or he would would have given freewill to do what ever is good "only" but No Neologist's God took it a step further and gave people the free will to be rapist, serial killers and so forth.

Hmmm! From earlier.

reasoning logic wrote:

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

neologist wrote:

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

1 Reply

@neologist,

Quote:

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

Quote:

rejected God's sovereignty

I thought this was God giving freewill to do bad. What father would put something in his children's playpen that would kill his children if they ate it?

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

reasoning logic wrote:

I thought this was God giving freewill to do bad. What father would put something in his children's playpen that would kill his children if they ate it?

Uhh!
Are you saying they were children?
Are you saying he didn't warn them?

1 Reply

@neologist,

Quote:

Are you saying they were children?

I thought they were God's children. You know children that had their eyes closed to the knowledge of good and bad. I did not think they were informed scientists with a scientific method to evaluate their circumstance.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Belief that God exists is benign by your definition as it doesn't hurt anyone.

I think you are still conflating belief that God exists with the various additional beliefs that can be associated with it (usually through religion) e.g.

I believe in the existence of God and I believe he wants me to do my best to make others believe in his existence as well.

I believe in the existence of God and I believe he wants me to kill everyone who doesn't believe in him.

The first additional belief might be considered "malignant" if the word only meant to spread, but it doesn't. Proselytizing can and usually is annoying, but it's really no different than someone ringing your door bell and trying to sell you magazine subscriptions. If either the zealot or the salesperson takes your first no for an answer, where's the harm?

I agree that if you think a belief is actually harmful to yourself and others you should resist it with the degree of resistance being proportionate to the degree of believed harm, but as a practical matter, the beliefs that there is a God or that there isn't don't harm anyone.

Your examples of harmful beliefs are interesting, but I wonder if they don't require beliefs on your part to consider them dangerous.

I tried to make it clear that I wasn't conflating simple belief in a god with the malignant beliefs often associated with it. Thus the distinction between benign and malignant.

Finn, it seems to me that you may be conflating me with Frank. When I say that I don't have any beliefs, it's not for me a point of honor or something to brag about. It's just an experimental philosophy project (Pyrrhonism) that I've been working on. I don't claim perfection; I simply am not aware of any beliefs that I have, particularly regarding metaphysics. I've spent several years identifying the belief-based issues, setting them opposition and suspending judgment on them. If you or anyone else were to find a belief that I had, I'd appreciate it. Then I'd treat it the same way I've treated the others. Set it in opposition and suspend judgment.

That said, I do make rhetorical comments in certain situations in order to draw out certain types of responses from my interlocutors. I don't have a problem with switching between rhetoric and logic. If you want me to clarify when I'm using which while I'm interacting with you, I'll be happy to do that, too.

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

You assume 2 things:
>The knowledge of good and bad is/was somehow necessary to those with a perfect conscience.
>A knowledge of "science" would be necessary to understand the admonition "if you eat it you will die".
Neither assumption is correct. Nor are they in any way suggested by the account, the caterwaulings of naysayers to the contrary.

0 Replies

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

Tired?
I am sorry if you continue to miss the point.
Consent was not a priori.

By allowing the rebellion to continue consent is a posteriori. That's the point which you continue to miss.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

Are you saying God should have executed the rebels on the spot and started over? He could have. But God's power was not questioned. What was questioned was God's honesty, his right to set standards for his creation, the integrity of humans (and angels), and mankind's ability to set and live by their own standards.

If he had terminated them immediately, you and I could not have been born. God's name, meaning "He who causes to become" would be judged a lie. And the above issues would remain unresolved.

Time is required. But as far as Jehovah is concerned, the rebellion has been in effect for less than a day. A million years from now, it will seem like only a day to us as well. That's whether we are here to witness or not.

1 Reply

@FBM,

Not to get too far into the weeds on this but you suggested that, among others, climate change denial is a malignant belief. I wouldn't go so far as to say that "climate change acceptance" is malignant, but I do think it requires a belief or two once challenged.

A simple test: Freeman Dyson, one of the most brilliant scientific minds of our time, has been considered a "climate change denier." Now if you value his opinion over the vast number of "researchers" who depend on the existence of climate change danger to put food on their tables, you either must question their conclusions or Dyson's motivation. Either, it seems to me, requires a belief.

Having said this, I'm fine with your approach to "belief." I don't think it requires any more discussion unless you wish it.

0 Replies

@neologist,

I'm not saying God should have done anything.

Whether God's power or honesty was questioned is irrelevant to the point.

Whether I could have been born is irrelevant to the point.

Whether God, by his name, would be judged a lie is irrelevant to the point.

Whether time is required to resolve these issues is irrelevant to the point.

The point is that God, by allowing the rebellion to continue, whatever the rationalizations may be, is condoning/ allowing/ consenting to the Devil's rule over the world.

I don't know how much simpler it could be.

And you continue to ignore the question, how is it that the Devil is ruling the world if not by God's consent?

2 Replies

How can we be sure that all religions are wrong?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know