Religion

[potterwolf]

You cannot see how it could still be applicable?

 

And yeah, actually, most religions are saying God is like these things because these are things we can apprehend in our own limited way and so must use them as analogies to try to explain something above us. Judges are humans, forces are things like wind, humans are, well, humans. Unless you are speaking of a religion which has deity equal to and perfectly understandable by humans?

 

This is not to say all religions are right, but to say the fact that some contradict one another does not prove them all wrong, as per the elephant story.

Not all descriptions of God are analogies. They claim that God is omnipotent, omniscient, jealous, wrathful, just, merciful, loving, forgiving, or any combination of these traits, along with others. These are not analogies.

 

Also, they claim things about what he's done in history. "God came to Earth in human form". This is not an analogy. "God spoke to mankind through Muhammed". Not an analogy. Either God did those things or he did not.

[Princess Artemis]

Not all descriptions of God are analogies. They claim that God is omnipotent, omniscient, jealous, wrathful, just, merciful, loving, forgiving, or any combination of these traits, along with others. These are not analogies.

 

Also, they claim things about what he's done in history. "God came to Earth in human form". This is not an analogy. "God spoke to mankind through Muhammed". Not an analogy. Either God did those things or he did not.

This is all true. That does not make all things religions say about deity contradictory and wrong though, does it? It allows for not having the whole picture.

 

I've allowed they cannot all be correct. Of course they cannot. Will you allow that the fact that not all agree must perforce mean all are incorrect?

[potterwolf]

Will you allow that the fact that not all agree must perforce mean all are incorrect?

I don't think I understand what you're asking. Obviously, the contradictions don't prove that all of them are incorrect. One of them could be correct.

[Princess Artemis]

I don't think I understand what you're asking. Obviously, the contradictions don't prove that all of them are incorrect. One of them could be correct.

Or many of them could be. Just not have the whole picture and be fully, wholely correct the way that the men were with the elephant. If you'll allow that, I don't know what we're debating about, as that was how your initial statement to philpot came across, that the contradictions said something informative about how accurate all religions could be, that for three to see the divine in a contradictory way meant the divine was self-contradictory, not that maybe we just ain't that good at seeing.

[potterwolf]

Or many of them could be. Just not have the whole picture and be fully, wholely correct the way that the men were with the elephant. .

No, that's what I'm objecting to. Many of them couldn't be true if they were contradictory. I don't understand this idea. If two religions make different claims about God that contradict each other, they can't both be right. They just can't.

 

If you'll allow that, I don't know what we're debating about, as that was how your initial statement to philpot came across, that the contradictions said something informative about how accurate all religions could be, that for three to see the divine in a contradictory way meant the divine was self-contradictory, not that maybe we just ain't that good at seeing.

 

What I said was that if religions aren't contradictory, they can't all be correct. If more than one religion was true, but made opposing claims about God, then God would be self-contradictory. But only in the case of multiple religions being 'correct'. I don't think that I ever said God must be self-contradictory just because religions themselves are contradictory.

[Princess Artemis]

No, that's what I'm objecting to. Many of them couldn't be true if they were contradictory. I don't understand this idea. If two religions make different claims about God that contradict each other, they can't both be right. They just can't.

 

 

 

OK, then I've exhausted my desire to contend on this point, as greater minds than I have pondered it, and they came up with blind men and an elephant : )

 

What I said was that if religions aren't contradictory, they can't all be correct. If more than one religion was true, but made opposing claims about God, then God would be self-contradictory. But only in the case of multiple religions being 'correct'. I don't think that I ever said God must be self-contradictory just because religions themselves are contradictory.

 

You said something which I read so right here:

 

But it's still stupid, because in order to have contradictory images, God himself would have to be self-contradictory. It's not a good analogy, but I think that it's better.

[potterwolf]

In reference to my quote: I was trying to form an analogy that represented the situation better than the "each religion is a tree species" analogy. When I pointed out that a God providing contradictory images of himself to different groups of people would be self-contradictory, I was pointing out a flaw in my own analogy. I didn't say that God actually was self-contradictory, I was just acknowledging the weakness in my comparison. No analogy is perfect after all.

[Caracus]

Ok. I am Baptist. I have taught all my life to believe in God. I understand why it could be so hard to believe in him I mean yeah it sound pretty far fetched so I really feel for those of other religions. These other so called Christians who bash ppl for not believing are ignorant and hypocritical cause if they were to read those nifty little Bibles of theirs it would tell them not to do that. That's just how it is. I mean I believe in God don't get me wrong but that's my choice. Everyone is entitled to that choice even the Bible says so. Sorry for the rant..

[Caracus]

For me it is. I don't usually talk much. Unless of course its in person lol

[StraVir]

Never meant any offence, I was trying to lighten a friend's mood and that's all. I'm sorry if someone took it the wrong way, I deleted to post.

 

I made a post earlier about me being Pagan. Pagans and Baptists don't generally get along in most cases, but in this one with Caracus, he's been my friend for years, if anything we're both curious as to what eachother believes. It seems difficult though for others to accept someone from another religion.

Edited December 11, 2011 by StraVir

[Kelkelen]

Perhaps there is a divine essence, if you will, and every religion just has their own way of worshiping this divine essence under different name(s) and practices.

 

We see this divine essence in different manifestations because we are human. We have our own life experiences and morals to shape our religious and spiritual beliefs.

 

Perhaps no religion or belief is "right" or "wrong".

 

Just some food for thought.

I think this post may have been overlooked in the shuffle, but I'm quoting it here because I rather like it.

 

Really, we're human. We're complex. There are so many cultures all over the world, and so many ways to be different inside the human heart, that it only makes sense to me that there is variety in religion. It doesn't seem like "proof" that God is impossible -- rather, more like a sign that God exists, because it seems like all peoples for pretty much all of history have perceived, worshipped, and sought God. One way to see it is that all religions are equally right or valid. Another way to see it is that some religions have a bigger piece of the puzzle, or maybe have collected the most recent pieces, that others don't yet have. Maybe one religion is a clearer or easier path to God, but all the different paths lead there eventually.

 

Humans are different from animals. Animals live from day to day, hunt and kill and mate and eat and sleep, and have no sense of conscience; they don't (or at least, the VAST majority don't) feel guilt, or shame, or an impulse to help other, weaker creatures, rather than to kill, eat, or shun them. Animals live by rules of survival. And yet, for some reason, human beings have that pesky thing called a conscience. We feel a deep admiration for altruism, sometimes even an awe of it. We desire to help others -- in fact, we're constantly attempting to improve the quality of life for the infirm, disabled, and elderly. We're also capable of conscious cruelty, of a sort that does not come naturally to animals, because it is also irrelevant to survival. There's definitely something in the human spirit that is more or less *born* with a moral compass, and a desire for good; which can also be twisted into a desire to spite good. This is one of the reasons I believe God exists. Otherwise, what is this conscience FOR? Why would people be inclined to go *against* basic instinct, why would we even possess the *capacity* for concepts such as guilt, atonement, charity, and forgiveness, why would humans since the dawn of their existence *seek* God, if there were no such thing in the first place?

 

Also, without God, what would be the basis of spiritual experience? Of the sensation of the numinous? I'm not talking about spiritual experiences that could have been evoked through drugs or an altered state of consciousness, but simply those moments which so many, many people have felt, moments where it seems like the veils drop away and there is God present in all things, through the world, through us. Moments where one feels the imminence of the divine. Various theologians, mystics, and devout followers of many different faiths have all described *that* experience in amazingly similar terms. While the dogma of religion may vary, this sort of immediate spiritual experience is universal. It isn't something felt by every person every day -- who could live in a state of constant transcendence? and what would be the sense of experiencing it when we weren't in need of it? -- but it is something so commonly experienced by many followers of many faiths that I'm willing to see that as "evidence," if you will, of the universal nature of God.

[Keriel]

One thing i always argued about with my dad (and i will make this tie in to religion in a bit) is existence of spirits/ghosts.

 

Dad is skeptic bordering close minded cynic. i'm more open minded and have argued every side of the fence when it comes to religion and supernatural. while my current religious stance is in limbo as i don't know what i believe (thanks Ashley for changing everything so drastically .-.), my veiw on possible existence of spirits/ghosts hasn't change for as long as i can remember.

I believe in their existence. Dad asks for my justification constantly so i retell the same tired old stories from my childhood and one or two from early teens to which he attempts to find scientific justification (often failing). recently i thought harder about it... you look through every culture and in that culture somewhere there are spirits of those who have passed away. in each culture they manifest in similar ways. the basic idea surrounding the spirits from culture to culture is the same (from what i can tell i am no expert)

 

As for existence of gods and goddesses it varies much more. from gender to how many gods or Gods there are. to weather or not the god is giving loving and generally nice or a vengeful god you wish to avoid. this doesn't discredit religion but does make things rather confusing. i mean in all these debates what happens to the smaller religions and beliefs such as the Australian Aboriginals?? Completely different to western religion mainly containing "spirits".

Why is there so much variety when god/s come into play when the beliefs around spirits are generally the same??

 

all this has only come from my limited experience. could be completely wrong

[potterwolf]

Just because there are similar themes in spiritual beliefs across cultures, doesn't mean that those beliefs are true. It could just as easily be a result of the way our brains work. If our brains naturally interpret 'spooky experiences' as being supernatural or spiritual, then there will be a lot of similarities across cultures regarding the experiences we have.

 

You can't just assume that because lots of people believe similar things about ghosts, then ghosts must be real. Lots of people also experience deja vu. (when you feel as though you've experienced your current situation before) That doesn't mean that people are actually experiencing things twice. It just means that sometimes an error occurs in our brains, and we misinterpret information. It happens all the time.

 

It isn't evidence for ghosts.

[xxCatastrophic]

I'm Agnostic.

 

I don't know what to believe, I have numerous beliefs. I guess I could by Polytheistic as well.

 

Will edit later.

[philpot123]

Just because there are similar themes in spiritual beliefs across cultures, doesn't mean that those beliefs are true. It could just as easily be a result of the way our brains work. If our brains naturally interpret 'spooky experiences' as being supernatural or spiritual, then there will be a lot of similarities across cultures regarding the experiences we have.

 

You can't just assume that because lots of people believe similar things about ghosts, then ghosts must be real. Lots of people also experience deja vu. (when you feel as though you've experienced your current situation before) That doesn't mean that people are actually experiencing things twice. It just means that sometimes an error occurs in our brains, and we misinterpret information. It happens all the time.

 

It isn't evidence for ghosts.

It's a form of argumentum ad populum, a logical fallacy. Just because most people/most people from a certain group believe something doesn't make it true. You can't say that ghosts necessarily exist because most cultures believe in them any more than you can say evolution is NECESSARILY true because most scientists believe it. There has to be an argument beyond "the majority says so" or it's a fallacious argument.

[potterwolf]

It's a form of argumentum ad populum, a logical fallacy. Just because most people/most people from a certain group believe something doesn't make it true. You can't say that ghosts necessarily exist because most cultures believe in them any more than you can say evolution is NECESSARILY true because most scientists believe it. There has to be an argument beyond "the majority says so" or it's a fallacious argument.

Well, sort of. But I don't think the OP was saying that they believe in ghosts just because lots of other people do. I think they were saying that they believe in ghosts because the similarities in ghost stories across cultures led them to believe there was something real behind those stories.

 

It's different.

[philpot123]

Well, sort of. But I don't think the OP was saying that they believe in ghosts just because lots of other people do. I think they were saying that they believe in ghosts because the similarities in ghost stories across cultures led them to believe there was something real behind those stories.

 

It's different.

But again, just because most people believe the same thing doesn't mean it's true. Similarities can lend weight to scattered stories, but that still doesn't mean they're necessarily true. There are lots of cultures that believe in similar gods, but that doesn't mean they're real. There are cultures that can have similar superstitions, but that doesn't mean they're true. Etc.

Edited December 13, 2011 by philpot123

[potterwolf]

But again, just because most people believe the same thing doesn't mean it's true. Similarities can lend weight to scattered stories, but that still doesn't mean they're necessarily true. There are lots of cultures that believe in similar gods, but that doesn't mean they're real. There are cultures that can have similar superstitions, but that doesn't mean they're true. Etc.

Of course. Which is what I was arguing. But it isn't quite an argumentum ad populum, though on the surface, it seems to be. Trust me, I had the same thought as you did. But I still think her point was significantly different.

[Kelkelen]

Of course. Which is what I was arguing. But it isn't quite an argumentum ad populum, though on the surface, it seems to be. Trust me, I had the same thought as you did. But I still think her point was significantly different.

I agree. The two ideas look similar, but they're not the same. For one thing, what Keriel's discussing (supernatural experiences involving ghosts/spirits of the dead) is not based on ideas or beliefs alone, but also on personal experiences. It's not the same as "everyone thinks the world's flat, so it's flat" logic. It has more to do with immediate sensory experience.

 

If many people in several different countries and cultures and times have all had the experience of seeing a loved one after their death -- or of seeing someone they don't recognize at all, only to learn that the apparition they saw looked like the person who used to live/work in a certain area -- or of objects moving seemingly of their own accord, when there's no logical or scientific reason for them to do so -- or of a sudden cold temperature when they see or hear such a thing -- that says more than just "lots of people *think* it." It's not just "the majority says so" but "the majority experiences it firsthand."

 

One drawback of the modern world is that we've become so reliant on and trusting in the concept of science that it leads us to *discount* personal experience as any sort of evidence. But science is just understanding what's already around us. Who knows, maybe one day, someone will discover an accurate scientific way to gauge things like spiritual activity (something beyond electrospectrometers and rapid-frame photography), and all the people who experienced it will be "justified." I think it's a fallacy to disbelieve personal experience based on the five senses out of hand, when it's possible that science simply hasn't caught up to explaining this aspect of human experience, yet.

 

That isn't to say that everyone agrees on what these visions or experiences *mean* -- if they're souls or 'echoes' of strong emotional impressions or something else entirely -- but the nuts and bolts of the experiences do seem similar across a variety of cultures.

[Kai]

There is a reason why personal revelation is not evidence.

[Kelkelen]

There is a reason why personal revelation is not evidence.

Not sure which post you're replying to, here. In the one above yours, I wasn't talking about "revelation," but sensory experience. I do think that someone's first-hand experiences of vision, sound, and touch shouldn't be immediately dismissed as unsound.

[Kestra15]

Not sure which post you're replying to, here. In the one above yours, I wasn't talking about "revelation," but sensory experience. I do think that someone's first-hand experiences of vision, sound, and touch shouldn't be immediately dismissed as unsound.

Even hallucinations?

[Princess Artemis]

Even hallucinations?

One discovers something is a hallucination typically by not immediately dismissing it, is that not so?

[JaziandCo]

Even hallucinations?

That's a lot of hallucinations if every single experience is dismissed as simply that.

[elderberrysyrup]

That's a lot of hallucinations if every single experience is dismissed as simply that.

Hallucinations are more common than one would think. The brain is easily fooled even by itself.