128
   

How can we be sure that all religions are wrong?

 
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Wed 24 Feb, 2016 11:29 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
...if anything the good stuff about X is that you don't need to explain it. X is and can only be replaced by another X when you say it isn't, which in turn is an exercise in futility. Denying it has the effect of positing it.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Wed 24 Feb, 2016 11:40 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
...this is precisely the sort of perfect example that made me deny "nothingness' or have in my signature a sentence which is a small piece of my own wisdom when I say "truth is its own...meaningless !"
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Thu 25 Feb, 2016 01:10 am
@Leadfoot,
You are playing the old psychological game of imagining 'a world without humans' in your current human head. Every word in your response requires the current human condition for its meaning! In particular, words concerning time, like 'before' are recognized as psychological constructs with no axiomatic status as far as general physics is concerned. The need for a causal explanation is an aspect of our species specific pre-occupation with prediction and control. Indeed, religion can be considered as another. Causality per se resists philosophical analysis (Hume).
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Thu 25 Feb, 2016 04:18 am
@fresco,
Tell us Fresco free from the chacles of subjective experiencing as you seem to be what are "humans" in a non naive realist way ? You are bedrocking humans as the source but I say humans are not real except perhaps in your naive realist aproach to experiencing. Wink
I can play your stupid game on language against you just the same.
Have you tried to point a camera at a screen in a self referential system ? What does it show ? Is not an infinite sequence of screens within screens ?
Your "humans" are no better wording then " world"...
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Thu 25 Feb, 2016 04:22 am
@fresco,
Quote:
You are playing the old psychological game of imagining 'a world without humans' in your current human head.
You mean you can't do that?

Which of us is more limited..
Fil Albuquerque
 
  0  
Thu 25 Feb, 2016 04:30 am
@Leadfoot,
If he wanted to be coherent within his pov the least he could do ought to take him to solipsism...but alas not bright enough to even get there...he admits there are others outside his mind and throught it he raises "the world" while simultaneously actively tries to deny it. Must be his famous fuzzy logic at work.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  0  
Thu 25 Feb, 2016 07:44 am
@Leadfoot,
Of course we all do it in order to 'explain' the current status quo. But that hypothetical 'world without humans' ignores the fact that it is the construction of the human who imagines it and therefore contains at least one human 'observer'. It is the same nonsense as the 'tree unobserved in the forest'.....the phrase is vacuous....observation is happening in 'the mind's eye' of the utterer.

NB As Maturana put it, what we call 'observation' always involves a verbal report....a point well worth thinking about with respect to say Heidegger's view that much of 'being' involves unconscious coping with the world.
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Fri 1 Apr, 2016 06:48 pm
@fresco,
Thank you for all that you have shared with us over the years. I have learned many things that I find valuable from you. I"m no longer a naïve realist but rather a naïve pragmatist "possibly transitioning to a full blown pragmatist.
fresco
 
  1  
Sat 2 Apr, 2016 01:58 am
@reasoning logic,
Appreciated !

Anybody who understands the central point that 'world states' are co-extensive with 'observer states', and that 'states' and their transitions, are always expressed and negotiated in terms of a socially acquired language, might come to our conclusion.

TO ALL
The negotiation here is concerned with whether 'states of religious belief' are beneficial or otherwise. (The words 'right' and 'wrong' are too simplistic to be meaningful because ultimately 'evidence' is negotiable and lies in the eye of the beholder). I repeat my view that although such states may be deemed beneficial at the parochial level, history shows they tend to be pernicious and divisive at the global level. The divisiveness factor is inevitable since different religions have their own parochial linguistic origins and limitations which reify and are enmeshed with the tribalistic tendencies we have in common with other primates.
0 Replies
 
naemlis
 
  -1  
Sun 3 Apr, 2016 07:06 am
@reasoning logic,
Hmm, I like this one one. But all it proves is that we humans don't understand everything I.e. we are human. I can think of explanations like: we do have scripture and can study if we really want, G-d , as a living being , could be bound by ideals of fairness and justice,; maybe there are lessons we gotta learn and if it was all within,CIT would be too easy for a JUST G-d to offer reward on. But I myself am bound by my limitations and can't say for sure ( yet). My point is, our lack of understanding does not disprove G-d, if anything, it proves our need to search Him out. What do ya think?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sun 3 Apr, 2016 12:13 pm
@naemlis,
You can't search out what doesn't exist. The reason there are so many man-made gods is the fact that humans need to find and seek something more than themselves. That's the reason so many cultures created so many gods. It's a human need or craving. Many also want the assurance that there's more to life than life on earth, so they created heaven.
0 Replies
 
Amoh5
 
  1  
Tue 5 Apr, 2016 07:27 am
I sense a tone of discrimination in this discussion. Most religions are not wrong, its just certain individuals who are driven by greed or madness. There are bad and good apples in all groups including atheism.
I get a lot of A2kers telling me rubbish about how great science is, and I think why is it polluting our planet, killing people, people are still sick and starving, science is gonna save us? It'll probably end up killing us if we are not careful.
But realistically I know there is nothing wrong with science, its just careless individuals that use it irresponsibly.
I saw a question on why people would acknowledge or seek God, or the spirit of God to be precise. Personally I think its because we know that we are not perfect beings. Once people start thinking they are perfect they run into a whole lot of trouble. I definitely don't think I'm perfect, or think any other human being is perfect. Only God is perfect...
rosborne979
 
  2  
Tue 5 Apr, 2016 07:47 am
@Amoh5,
Amoh5 wrote:
I sense a tone of discrimination in this discussion. Most religions are not wrong...

If there are thousands of religions (which there are), and all of them claim to be the one-and-only truth (which they do), then how can most of them not be wrong?
Amoh5
 
  1  
Tue 5 Apr, 2016 07:56 am
@rosborne979,
I'm referring to humanitarian ones...
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Tue 5 Apr, 2016 08:35 am
@rosborne979,
Quote:
If there are thousands of religions (which there are), and all of them claim to be the one-and-only truth (which they do), then how can most of them not be wrong?
In that sense they are of course, all wrong.

In another sense most of them are not wrong. The exceptions are the ones that were formed explicitly for the purpose of extracting money from their followers. There are more than a few of those.

But the vast majority were born from the virtually universal desire to know the truth about God. That desire is not wrong but the real world obstacles to accomplishing that offer ample opportunity to incorporate errors. That includes the ones who make science their religion, for they too are seeking the truth about God.
0 Replies
 
Smileyrius
 
  2  
Tue 5 Apr, 2016 09:57 am
@Amoh5,
Quote:
Most religions are not wrong, its just certain individuals who are driven by greed or madness. There are bad and good apples in all groups including atheism.

Do you believe in a judgment day my friend? if so what do you think the criteria are for the judgment? does this God have any standards and how has he made them known?
Quote:
I think why is it polluting our planet, killing people, people are still sick and starving, science is gonna save us? It'll probably end up killing us if we are not careful.
Between Ecclesiastes 8:9 and Revelation 11:18 This is addressed, albeit I wouldn't call the culprit Science, but hey, it appears you haven't either Smile
Amoh5
 
  2  
Wed 6 Apr, 2016 02:23 am
@Smileyrius,
Hello my brother, how are you these days?
My generalisation on religions was referring to the humanitarian types or people who wish goodwill to other people.
For example, I'm not impressed with the profile of Mohammad, but I have met some good Muslims in my time. So I don't discriminate people because of their beliefs, as long as we can meet on a goodwill and human level.
Judgement Day? Didn't Arnold Schwarzenegger act in that?
I'm sorry just joking, but seriously no I don't think about anything Lord Jesus hasn't mentioned. I know John mentioned something like that from his dream. But I have only one teacher, Lord Jesus. If he didn't mention a Judgement Day then its not worth thinking about. As far as God's judgement is concerned, we need to follow the teachings and commandments of Lord Jesus to be at peace with God.
Yes science is a great tool, but like anything else, its how you use it, for doing good or doing bad...
Leadfoot
 
  2  
Wed 6 Apr, 2016 06:10 am
@Amoh5,
No judgement?

You seem very selective in your reading of Jesus's words. Start Reading his words at John 5:25 and tell me what you think it means.
Smileyrius
 
  1  
Wed 6 Apr, 2016 06:22 am
@Amoh5,
I'm doing pretty good thanks Amoh, and I agree with you on discrimination, I know of very good people in a number of different walks of life
Quote:
As far as God's judgement is concerned, we need to follow the teachings and commandments of Lord Jesus to be at peace with God.
I am very much in agreement with you here too, he pretty much nutshells all previous commandments with the Golden Rule.
0 Replies
 
Smileyrius
 
  1  
Wed 6 Apr, 2016 07:22 am
@Leadfoot,
highlighting verse 28
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 02/19/2025 at 08:43:46