How can we be sure that all religions are wrong?

@High Strangeness,

You're missing the point. You seem clueless about a simple statement; "All religions are not wrong."

@High Strangeness,

Quote:

Here ya go..-
(Koran 9.123)- "O you who believe! fight those of the infidels who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard against evil"
(Koran 5.51)-"O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends

Luke 19:27

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

I guess it was this that led me to think you believed in some kind of supernatural. If you think they are 'involved' then they/it must exist.

But in view of your later statements, I assume you must mean the supernatural only exists in the imagination.
Sorry, I didn't make myself clear, I meant that what we call the supernatural is included in what we reify. So, we can have a conversation with ourselves or with an imaginary person.

Now, I am not saying that when it pertains to the supernatural, that, to the person, it is the same as talking to oneself or what we we call an "imaginary friend" (although depending on the depth, it could be).

While I believe that the underpinning for the two is the same (hence super-naturalism is contained under the general cause - or one of the causes) 'on the ground' as it were, to the person experiencing these things, they can be percepted quite differently.

Without going into massive detail, (mostly because I don't know all the details!), one of the differences is the emotional 'tags' that come along with religions apparently inevitable sidekick: morality.

These things are also contained under the idea of polymorphous perversion - our ability to love anything (animate, biologic, inanimate objects). Precisely we do this because of reification. We can love someone that we have never met, never talked to, don't even really know, except their name if someone told us that they did something wonderful for us and we happen to believe it (for whatever reasons).

If this was believed, it wouldn't take much of a thought experiment to know that when we met them, there would be an actual, real, 'tangible' emotional connection to that person. Firefighters save unconscious people and when those saved people meet their benefactor..

Those are powerful emotions that stir within us and as un-nuanced as I was in my example, apply aptly to religion. So, these things are real to us. The moral dimension is especially powerful and, I believe, while reification is the engine, morality is the fuel that makes religion go. It is hard to conceive of religion without it. In fact the bible makes this explicit when James reprimanded Paul for his insistence that faith alone saves.

So, yes, in the imagination, that's where most likely exists, but, it is real to us..

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

Thanks for the props again RL. I'm still learning and just trying to get a nut like all of us! Cheers!

0 Replies

@catbeasy,

Quote:

@Leadfoot,
I guess it was this that led me to think you believed in some kind of supernatural. If you think they are 'involved' then they/it must exist.

But in view of your later statements, I assume you must mean the supernatural only exists in the imagination.
Sorry, I didn't make myself clear, I meant that what we call the supernatural is included in what we reify. So, we can have a conversation with ourselves or with an imaginary person.

Now, I am not saying that when it pertains to the supernatural, that, to the person, it is the same as talking to oneself or what we we call an "imaginary friend" (although depending on the depth, it could be).

While I believe that the underpinning for the two is the same (hence super-naturalism is contained under the general cause - or one of the causes) 'on the ground' as it were, to the person experiencing these things, they can be percepted quite differently.

Without going into massive detail, (mostly because I don't know all the details!), one of the differences is the emotional 'tags' that come along with religions apparently inevitable sidekick: morality.

These things are also contained under the idea of polymorphous perversion - our ability to love anything (animate, biologic, inanimate objects). Precisely we do this because of reification. We can love someone that we have never met, never talked to, don't even really know, except their name if someone told us that they did something wonderful for us and we happen to believe it (for whatever reasons).

If this was believed, it wouldn't take much of a thought experiment to know that when we met them, there would be an actual, real, 'tangible' emotional connection to that person. Firefighters save unconscious people and when those saved people meet their benefactor..

Those are powerful emotions that stir within us and as un-nuanced as I was in my example, apply aptly to religion. So, these things are real to us. The moral dimension is especially powerful and, I believe, while reification is the engine, morality is the fuel that makes religion go. It is hard to conceive of religion without it. In fact the bible makes this explicit when James reprimanded Paul for his insistence that faith alone saves.

So, yes, in the imagination, that's where most likely exists, but, it is real to us..

That was the longest 'yes' I ever heard.

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

Quote:

Luke 19:27 -But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

That's just the parable of the 10 minas, where a king went ballistic.. Smile

1 Reply

@High Strangeness,

Quote:

That's just the parable of the 10 minas, where a king went ballistic..

That is what I call a parable that a person with an antisocial personality disorder would find appealing.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Yeah, if brevity is the soul of wit, I am witless!

I know you've taken things in a way I hadn't meant before, so I wanted to be clear in my meaning. I understand it can be quite the insult to put God on par with an imaginary friend. People use it loosely, colloquially, fine. But talking about it on a philosophy forum requires, IMO, a bit more depth as I think that the experience an imaginary friend and deep religious conviction over the existence of God are not only processed differently in the brain, 'soul', emotional machinery, but they are felt as radically different 'things'.

1 Reply

@catbeasy,

Your identity of the 'imaginary friend' speaks volumes about the christian religion. Since religion is based on faith and only faith, I personally find it difficult to seek anything beyond what I can observe objectively in my environment. The tooth fairy, santa clause, and alice in wonderland are all fictitious characters that were dreamt up by men. Since man has created more than one god, I find it obvious that mankind requires to find something greater than ourselves. ergo, god(s).

3 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Your identity of the 'imaginary friend' speaks volumes about the christian religion. Since religion is based on faith and only faith, I personally find it difficult to seek anything beyond what I can observe objectively in my environment. The tooth fairy, santa clause, and alice in wonderland are all fictitious characters that were dreamt up by men. Since man has created more than one god, I find it obvious that mankind requires to find something greater than ourselves. ergo, god(s).

What about the Passover Puppy?

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

..religion is based on faith and only faith..

Which religion?
As regards Christianity, Jesus was flesh and blood and strutted his stuff in front of thousands of eyewitness, surely they weren't all hallucinating?

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

personally find it difficult to seek anything beyond what I can observe objectively in my environment.

Quote:

I find it obvious that mankind requires to find something greater than ourselves. ergo, god(s).

That's the rub. To attain our highest fulfillment, we probably do need to believe in something greater than ourselves. Of course, that doens't have to be a god. It can be your parents, or the planet or the universe.

It is in this sense also that I believe we evolved to have religion, or perhaps more clearly, spirituality. At the very least its an ancillary process of other stuff. But regardless of its origin, spirituality seems like a very necessary process in our psychological makeup..

How you define that spirituality is interesting though. I think it can be broken down into several core components: morality and purpose. We are moral creatures (i.e. we make choices we deem 'good' and 'bad') and we need purpose (if we don't have some degree of purpose in life, or we feel we cannot find a purpose for ourselves, to that degree our lives will lack). I think these things provide the framework for everything else. If these lack, (and I don't mean objectively - everyone has their own degree of what is acceptable, to supreme, to bottom of the barrel) everything in your life will lack.

I think religion supercharges these spiritual things, in bad ways as well as good and non-religion can give equally positive and dissonance to these things as well. I think religion is worse by scale because of its social nature. One person's ill-defined morals cannot do as much damage as a unified, codified religious screed that many people subscribe to - unless of course that one non religious person has his finger on The Button!

Obviously (at least to me its obvious) you don't need religion to possess morality and purpose and therefore spirituality, but religion is a short cut to getting these things. Its nature defines purpose and morals for you. Spirituality, in the way I'm defining and distinguishing it from religion, requires you find these things yourself.

So, unless you are one of those people that are 'naturally' moral or through some freak happenstance, happen to know your purpose from a young age, it can be difficult cutting out a spiritual path for yourself without religion. I've gone through both.

1 Reply

@catbeasy,

Quote:

Obviously (at least to me its obvious) you don't need religion to possess morality and purpose and therefore spirituality, but religion is a short cut to getting these things.

That's also my conclusion, but it seems the majority of humans are need of a religion to fulfill their moral compass.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

it seems the majority of humans are need of a religion to fulfill their moral compass.

Maybe you never met someone with a belief like mine!

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

You're missing the point. You seem clueless about a simple statement; "All religions are not wrong."

What? Are you saying all religions are right?

1 Reply

@High Strangeness,

Quote:

What? Are you saying all religions are right?

Subjectively speaking yes, to the eye of the beholder.

2 Replies

@reasoning logic,

Quote:

Subjectively speaking yes, to the eye of the beholder.

Yes, "the blind leading the blind" as Jesus put it.. Smile

0 Replies

@reasoning logic,

You are right on this. Religions as institutions are the fruit of cultural mythological diversity that roots the ground of group experiencing on transcendental necessary topics. The mistake of beliving they are worthless dinossaurs without a place in tbe modern world tells alot about the lack of insight and proper education on human nature and group behaviour from which the new atheism movement is the perfect example. One needs to be a special kind of autistic personna to miss the big picture. Often leaderships confuse topics....in the US the problem is people not Religion. Whatever was to replace it with the same people would render the same stupid outcome.

0 Replies

@reasoning logic,

I think all religions have been filtered through the hands of humans; therefore, they have been contaminated.

With that said, there can be something to learn from each of them.

Moreover, in regards to God, I think they are all trying to describe the same concept - a concept that can never be defined by the limiting factor of words.

1 Reply

@saw038,

"God" is just a very complicated colorful concept for mathemathical UNITY in Reality. God is Logos. Other then that people like soap operas and have made the topic of God into one big cheap novel.

1 Reply

How can we be sure that all religions are wrong?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know