Religion

[padfoot]

I am religiousless. I find the philosophy of every religion fascinating and love to talk about it but I don't side with any of them. There is always some kind of major flaw that turns me away.

[Cecona]

My mom made me go to church and Sunday school since I was very little but I could never really get into it. I'm a literal thinker and things need to make sense for me. Religion just didn't do that and the teachers got pissed at me when I questioned them and the bible. Eventually my mom realized neither my sister or I wanted to go and stopped forcing us. I consider myself an atheist, and rely more on science but I would never in anyway talk down to someone about their religion. I may think it's wrong, they may think I'm wrong, but so long as they don't try to convert me or tell me I'm going to hell (like my mom does though in a much more subtle way by saying I wont go to heaven with her) I could care less what their religious views are.

[MaelstromOfTheStars]

I am of the belief that there is one true god and that if I'm a good person that I'll go to heaven.

I also believe that atheists and other non-believers who haven't done too many negative things will also enjoy this heaven. If I'm wrong about the second one, so what. What I really fear is for the second one sometimes but most of my friends are religious but its those few who I worry about. Otherwise I'm honestly religious and tolerate most people.

 

The only people I have a problem with are the militant atheists on the internet and those who hate religion and that think I am literally Hitler, These are the Le Redditz Fedora toting neckbeards who honestly warrant more disgust than anything else, besides that y'all cool

[Awdz]

This is what I take issue with. If I and someone else both make contradictory statements about the nature of the supernatural, one of us or both of us must, by logical necessity, be wrong. Might my statement SEEM right to me? Yes. Might my statement make me happy? Yes. In that sense, it's subjectively "right" for me, but in that case, you're defining "rightness" according to taste and preference. But regardless of what feels right to me, either my claims about the supernatural are accurate or they are not. So yes, that DOES make one (or both) of them wrong.

People can say seemingly contradictory statements and both be right.

 

For example, take food allergies. Someone not allergic to them can say peanuts are a good nutrition source and part of their balanced diet. Someone allergic to them would say peanuts are deadly and they cannot eat them safely. Both are correct for their situation.

 

Now suppose the person not allergic to peanuts is allergic to eggs, while the person allergic to peanuts thrives on eggs. They can argue with each other until they are blue in the face about why their particular diet is excellent and the other's makes no sense, but each needs the diet they are on, not the other's.

 

In a similar way, I believe God reaches out to us based on our own situations. What is good for one person's relationship with God may be terrible for another. Thus, two completely different beliefs in the nature of God may simply reflect how each person can best understand, to establish a healthy relationship with God - and both be correct.

[Cecona]

Religions are full of contradictions, so why should it be any different when saying both options can be considered right?

[philpot123]

People can say seemingly contradictory statements and both be right.

 

For example, take food allergies. Someone not allergic to them can say peanuts are a good nutrition source and part of their balanced diet. Someone allergic to them would say peanuts are deadly and they cannot eat them safely. Both are correct for their situation.

 

Now suppose the person not allergic to peanuts is allergic to eggs, while the person allergic to peanuts thrives on eggs. They can argue with each other until they are blue in the face about why their particular diet is excellent and the other's makes no sense, but each needs the diet they are on, not the other's.

 

In a similar way, I believe God reaches out to us based on our own situations. What is good for one person's relationship with God may be terrible for another. Thus, two completely different beliefs in the nature of God may simply reflect how each person can best understand, to establish a healthy relationship with God - and both be correct.

Statements regarding food and food allergies are not logically contradictory, because they are necessarily subjective. I, myself, am allergic to eggs. I make no statements about the objective quality of the egg by saying that I am allergic to it. If I was to say that eggs contain protein, that would be an objective statement about an egg that happens to be true. If someone was to say "that egg has no protein," logically contradicting my statement, one of us would be right, and the other would be wrong.

 

When one makes claims about religion, or God and His nature, it is not a subjective statement like "eggs are deadly to ME." It is a claim about the substance of something outside of myself. Would it always be true for someone to say "I FEEL this way"? Yes, but again, that's basically tautological. I feel a certain way, therefore it is true that I feel a certain way. That's not productive. When we start discussing our opinions about things outside of ourselves, like the existence of deities and their respective qualities, those opinions are either true or they are false. Either they accurately reflect reality or they do not. And if I claim that ONLY one God exists, and you claim that two or more exist, or that none exist, both of us cannot be correct. This unitarian idea that everyone is right is absolute nonsense, first, and does not foster reasonable discussion, second.

 

Religions are full of contradictions, so why should it be any different when saying both options can be considered right?

 

What are you referring to, specifically?

[Totts]

I believe something quite strange, I feel like what you want to happen to you happens to you, Like if you are a Muslim you get judged, but if you are a Hindu you are reborn, If you're a Christian you get judged ect,.

[padfoot]

  I believe something quite strange, I feel like what you want to happen to you happens to you, Like if you are a Muslim you get judged, but if you are a Hindu you are reborn, If you're a Christian you get judged ect,.

 

Agnostic. Thats what that is called.

I have a few friends that believe the same thing.

[Totts]

Agnostic is like Not an athiest but not religous right? They claim that god may or may not be real, not having an opinion either way right?

[High Lord November]

Statements regarding food and food allergies are not logically contradictory, because they are necessarily subjective. I, myself, am allergic to eggs. I make no statements about the objective quality of the egg by saying that I am allergic to it. If I was to say that eggs contain protein, that would be an objective statement about an egg that happens to be true. If someone was to say "that egg has no protein," logically contradicting my statement, one of us would be right, and the other would be wrong.

 

When one makes claims about religion, or God and His nature, it is not a subjective statement like "eggs are deadly to ME." It is a claim about the substance of something outside of myself. Would it always be true for someone to say "I FEEL this way"? Yes, but again, that's basically tautological. I feel a certain way, therefore it is true that I feel a certain way. That's not productive. When we start discussing our opinions about things outside of ourselves, like the existence of deities and their respective qualities, those opinions are either true or they are false. Either they accurately reflect reality or they do not. And if I claim that ONLY one God exists, and you claim that two or more exist, or that none exist, both of us cannot be correct. This unitarian idea that everyone is right is absolute nonsense, first, and does not foster reasonable discussion, second.

You still don't get it. First of all, it is possible for contradicting thoughts to both be correct. That's a very black-and-white and generalizing view.

 

Second and most importantly: we are not comparing thoughts or personal religions between two or more people, so get that out of your head. You believe in God? Fine, that's right for you. I think there is no God? Fine, that's right for me. Don't compare the two against each other. That's not what we are talking about. Don't compare it to what is "real", as no religion has enough facts to actually say that they are 100% fact and right. So basically, YOU make up what you think is real, which is right for YOU because it is YOUR opinions and thoughts. On a subject in which there is no possibility for an answer, that's all anyone can do. Everyone slightly tailors their base to themselves so that it is right for them.

 

 

[Syaoransbear]

Agnostic. Thats what that is called.

I have a few friends that believe the same thing.

I don't think so. Agnostic is not believing there is or isn't a god because you don't have enough evidence for either one. I don't think believing everyone gets their personal afterlife based on what they believe in follows that.

[Totts]

Y'all need to resize ya images!

[MaelstromOfTheStars]

Y'all need to resize ya images!

Show me how master for I am not educated in the ways of photo editing

[Totts]

Me neither. Just follow the ways of the way of the way and on your way there will be a way.

[KageSora]

Agnostic. Thats what that is called.

I have a few friends that believe the same thing.

No, as Syaoransbear said, agnostic is believing we can't know.

 

You can also be theistic agnostic, where you believe there is likely something but that you'll never know for sure or atheistic agnostic where you believe there likely isn't something but that you'll never know for sure, IIRC.

 

 

Re: re-sizing images:

 

Simplest way to handle huge images here is just to link it instead of posting it as an image.

 

 

 

@Phil... The problem is, you appear to be looking at it in a "right = fact" kind of way.

 

You CANNOT prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that one religious belief is in fact 100% completely factually true and another is not. THAT is how you can have the concept of "each view is right, insofar as it is correct in the eyes of the holder of the view".

 

You appear to be trying to treat FAITH and PERSONAL VIEW as absolute fact in regards to the usage of the word "right", completely disregarding the context of the situation. And THAT is where the issue is--they are NOT absolute fact because they cannot be proven as such.

 

You're very hung up on the idea of "right" in the sense of factually accurate, not as in "right in a personal sense".

[philpot123]

You still don't get it. First of all, it is possible for contradicting thoughts to both be correct. That's a very black-and-white and generalizing view.

It's my opinion that it isn't possible for two contradicting thoughts to both be correct. Stop forcing your opinion on me, I'm just as right as you are.

 

 

(Also, not just my opinion. It's kind of what the word contradiction means.)

 

 

@Phil... The problem is, you appear to be looking at it in a "right = fact" kind of way.

 

You CANNOT prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that one religious belief is in fact 100% completely factually true and another is not. THAT is how you can have the concept of "each view is right, insofar as it is correct in the eyes of the holder of the view".

 

You appear to be trying to treat FAITH and PERSONAL VIEW as absolute fact in regards to the usage of the word "right", completely disregarding the context of the situation. And THAT is where the issue is--they are NOT absolute fact because they cannot be proven as such.

 

You're very hung up on the idea of "right" in the sense of factually accurate, not as in "right in a personal sense".

 

But they are CLAIMS about fact. I hold opinions because I think they ARE factual. I wouldn't hold them if I didn't. Again, I've conceded that everyone's opinions are "right" to them. That's tautological and useless to say. It doesn't need to be said. You wouldn't believe what you do if you didn't think you were right. But those things aren't just opinions about yourself, your mind, your being. They're opinions about things outside of yourself. So I'm saying that religious conversations are only useful and productive if we talk about whether or not your opinions reflect reality, whether or not my opinions reflect reality, and how our beliefs measure up to each other. Otherwise we don't accomplish anything. We could just sit around and say everybody is right and feel good about ourselves, or we can challenge each other and debate according to fact and grow intellectually. I only participate in one of those

Edited October 12, 2013 by philpot123

[Cecona]

Well which one is right then? If it's impossible for all beliefs to be the "correct" belief, which one do you think is the right one?

[philpot123]

Well which one is right then? If it's impossible for all beliefs to be the "correct" belief, which one do you think is the right one?

If this is aimed at me, I hold to a Reformed Christian worldview.

[Totts]

Why is it impossible for all beliefs to be correct? someone could say about this apple

 

 

That is it red, and another could say it is green, they are both correct, but are seeing it from different perspectives.

Edited October 12, 2013 by Totts

[Ælex]

Why is it impossible for all beliefs to be correct? someone could say about this apple

 

 

That is it red, and another could say it is green, they are both correct, but are seeing it from different perspectives.

That apple looks delicious.

[HeatherMarie]

So I'm saying that religious conversations are only useful and productive if we talk about whether or not your opinions reflect reality, whether or not my opinions reflect reality, and how our beliefs measure up to each other. Otherwise we don't accomplish anything. We could just sit around and say everybody is right and feel good about ourselves, or we can challenge each other and debate according to fact and grow intellectually. I only participate in one of those

That's..... a little narrow-minded, I think. Our conversations are only "useful" if we argue who's opinions are more grounded in reality?? That leaves out the MAJORITY of great religious discussions.

 

Why can't we simply talk about WHAT we believe?

Person 1: I believe that God is the Almighty force in our lives and everything we do is influenced by him.

Person 2: I believe in God, but definitely not like (1). God gave us free will for a reason, he wouldn't give us free will and then dictate everything we do.

Person 3: I'm not sure how much I believe in God, but I do think there is a Higher Power.

 

etc etc. That IS indeed a "useful" conversation about religion, in that we are *talking about religion* (without fighting) and responding to each other's beliefs. Does the fact that no one said anything about which "reflects reality" more suddenly mean the conversation is useless? No way.

 

A few weeks ago my Fellowship got into a long discussion about a passage we were reading in the Bible. None of us really understood what was trying to be said in the passage, and we picked over lines and compared it to what was before and after in the passage, and everyone gave opinions about what it really meant. There was NO "THIS is the reality" type of talk, and actually none of us came to a firm conclusion. Was it not a "useful" conversation, then? PERSONALLY it was VERY useful because I still consider myself a beginner when it comes to the Bible and the discussion really helped me *think*.

[prairiecrow]

So I'm saying that religious conversations are only useful and productive if we talk about whether or not your opinions reflect reality, whether or not my opinions reflect reality, and how our beliefs measure up to each other. Otherwise we don't accomplish anything. We could just sit around and say everybody is right and feel good about ourselves, or we can challenge each other and debate according to fact and grow intellectually. I only participate in one of those

With "reality" being determined in relation to Christianity, I suppose, and all other religions are automatically less "real"?

[philpot123]

That is it red, and another could say it is green, they are both correct, but are seeing it from different perspectives.

That's because the apple is both green and red. Those aren't contradictory statements, because they can both be true. However, the statements "every person must be saved through faith is Jesus Christ alone or suffer punishment" and "there are multiple ways to salvation/a good afterlife" are absolutely not compatible.

 

 

That's..... a little narrow-minded, I think. Our conversations are only "useful" if we argue who's opinions are more grounded in reality?? That leaves out the MAJORITY of great religious discussions.

 

Why can't we simply talk about WHAT we believe?

Person 1: I believe that God is the Almighty force in our lives and everything we do is influenced by him.

Person 2: I believe in God, but definitely not like (1). God gave us free will for a reason, he wouldn't give us free will and then dictate everything we do.

Person 3: I'm not sure how much I believe in God, but I do think there is a Higher Power.

 

etc etc. That IS indeed a "useful" conversation about religion, in that we are *talking about religion* (without fighting) and responding to each other's beliefs. Does the fact that no one said anything about which "reflects reality" more suddenly mean the conversation is useless? No way.

 

A few weeks ago my Fellowship got into a long discussion about a passage we were reading in the Bible. None of us really understood what was trying to be said in the passage, and we picked over lines and compared it to what was before and after in the passage, and everyone gave opinions about what it really meant. There was NO "THIS is the reality" type of talk, and actually none of us came to a firm conclusion. Was it not a "useful" conversation, then? PERSONALLY it was VERY useful because I still consider myself a beginner when it comes to the Bible and the discussion really helped me *think*.

I should have clarified. I love learning about other people's religions. I've had entire lunch conversations with people that consisted of my asking questions and them expositing their faith (or lack thereof). I love those sorts of conversations. They're fruitful for gaining knowledge of other faiths. But they don't accomplish anything past that. They don't seek to resolve any moral, philosophical, or epistemological issues. Simply stating beliefs is fine, but I refuse to stop there. I won't just say "well, you're just as right as I am, let's go on with our lives." From there, I'd like to accomplish something by discussing which view is accurate and workable external to myself. Yeah, you can say your belief is right to you. But how does it work in practice? What are the implications of it? Where does it lead morally? Those are discussions that involve objective fact. We cannot reduce those to subjectivity. We cannot simply say everyone is right and never deal with those issues.

 

The type of discussion you're describing is the sort that I enjoy. Everyone presents perspectives and argues/defends why they are RIGHT. It fosters discussion, it challenges presuppositions, and everyone benefits. But if ALL we ever do is say "everyone is right" and we fail to try to determine how things objectively ARE, then it's not productive.

With "reality" being determined in relation to Christianity, I suppose, and all other religions are automatically less "real"?

Oh, obviously. Because all I've done in this discussion is quote Bible verses and proselytize.

 

Sarcasm aside, obviously I believe the christian worldview reflects reality. You think your Wiccan (if I recall correctly?) worldview reflects reality. So again, I enjoy discussion that involves arguing particulars, exposing inconsistencies, etc. And you seem to enjoy that as well. The happy-go-lucky "everyone is right" thing bugs me because I run into people so often that are unwilling to defend their own beliefs. It's a "get out of discussion free card." If I present a challenge, they simply say "well, that's right for you, and what I believe is right for me. Leave me alone." Not many people here are like that. But the people I talk to in real life are. And it's a rather large pet peeve of mine.

Edited October 12, 2013 by philpot123

[Totts]

Yes, but in what I belive everyone gets their own way, so both of those are correct in my system, the person who said they'd suffer would see them suffer, but it wouldn't really be them, just a copy made by their vision of christianity

[Obscure_Trash]

That's because the apple is both green and red. Those aren't contradictory statements, because they can both be true. However, the statements "every person must be saved through faith is Jesus Christ alone or suffer punishment" and "there are multiple ways to salvation/a good afterlife" are absolutely not compatible.

I think the point of the picture is that you aren't viewing the apple head on like we see in the picture. You're on the red side and can't see the green side, so when someone on the green side says the apple is green, you can't see that they're not wrong even though it looks like they're wrong from your side.

 

And no "then I would just pick the apple up/walk to the other side" because that defeats the purpose of the analogy since you can't really do the same with religion - just pick up another one and agree with the other person right away.

 

I find the sentiment more akin to what you believe is correct for you but that doesn't mean other things can't also be true for someone else. Just personally.