Thread: Whose Religion is Right?

Originally Posted by Spartiate

I meant to say that we have no "evidence" of creationism except through religion. Religion is where our concept of god and creation comes from.

I think that anybody who believes in god without religion is kidding themselves, they're probably still heavily influenced by religion, especially the Abrahamic ones.

We may be arguing about the semantic definition of religion instead of something more interesting. I'll re-state my opinion without using the word religion:

It is very, very possible to believe that some form of consciousness created the universe, WITHOUT said consciousness being an "active" part of our lives (by talking to us through ridiculous means like burning bushes). It's possible that some consciousness created everything, and left it at that. It's possible that something created the universe and genuinely doesn't care enough about "worship" to show itself to us. In fact, it's possible that something created our universe "in passing" and hasn't thought of it since. This is a stand-alone PHILOSOPHICAL perspective, and anyone can invent it on their own, without needing to refer to any pre-existing faith. There is a word for this: Deism.

Whether such a philosophy is desirable to you, or has a point to you, is your opinion, and you're welcome to that opinion.

Well, there's only got to be one "true" religion because each of them only involves their god(s) and no others. That means one of the religions is right, or none of them are (in which case, athieism is the true religion).

Originally Posted by Puffin

Well, there's only got to be one "true" religion because each of them only involves their god(s) and no others. That means one of the religions is right, or none of them are (in which case, athieism is the true religion).

I don' think it fair or accurate to call atheism a religion. There is no faith involved to be an atheist or to accept the scientific understanding of our solar system and the diversity of life. We don't know exactly how life started yet but that doesn't make "goddunnit" a real explanation. We just don't yet know and that's ok.

So that pretty much leaves us where we were when I last posted: A dice based fight to the death amongst the different religions to determine which one has the more powerful god(s). Only now I guess I have to specify that atheism isn't a religion and so it's not allowed to play. At any rate it wouldn't be much of a contest. Atheism doesn't even have gods to influence the dice for it. What a joke.

Originally Posted by Replicon

We may be arguing about the semantic definition of religion instead of something more interesting. I'll re-state my opinion without using the word religion:

It is very, very possible to believe that some form of consciousness created the universe, WITHOUT said consciousness being an "active" part of our lives (by talking to us through ridiculous means like burning bushes). It's possible that some consciousness created everything, and left it at that. It's possible that something created the universe and genuinely doesn't care enough about "worship" to show itself to us. In fact, it's possible that something created our universe "in passing" and hasn't thought of it since. This is a stand-alone PHILOSOPHICAL perspective, and anyone can invent it on their own, without needing to refer to any pre-existing faith. There is a word for this: Deism.

Whether such a philosophy is desirable to you, or has a point to you, is your opinion, and you're welcome to that opinion.

I see your point, what I'm trying to say is that there's absolutely no evidence of any kind of god besides from religious texts, so why bother claiming there is one? If you're not influenced by religion to make this claim, then you'd be making it up in your head.

It's like if I claimed that centaurs are real. There is no evidence for the existence of centaurs anywhere. Now did I get my idea of what a centaur is from greek mythology or did I completely make it up independently in my mind? If it's the former then it would be equivalent to being influenced by religion, and if it's the latter then what's the point?

Hope that makes sense .

whose religion is right

mine

Originally Posted by no-Name

mine

been done

The question should be rephrased. Something along the lines of

'which religion is the best means by which humanity can obtain the most peace, and the least amount of suffering?'

When it comes to the big picture, it shouldn't be about right/wrong good/evil, should it? People do stupid things with the best of intentions all the time (I'm one to know). According to Judeo/Christian/Muslim laws the suppression of women was 'good' and 'right' for thousands of years, but it clearly wasn't wise or compassionate.


Edit: agnostocism is a belief too (and a lot more logical, less hypocritical than atheism)

PS: would humanism be considered a religion?

Originally Posted by Spartiate

been done

did it again!

Originally Posted by dreamsickle

The question should be rephrased. Something along the lines of

'which religion is the best means by which humanity can obtain the most peace, and the least amount of suffering?'

When it comes to the big picture, it shouldn't be about right/wrong good/evil, should it? People do stupid things with the best of intentions all the time (I'm one to know). According to Judeo/Christian/Muslim laws the suppression of women was 'good' and 'right' for thousands of years, but it clearly wasn't wise or compassionate.


Edit: agnostocism is a belief too (and a lot more logical, less hypocritical than atheism)

PS: would humanism be considered a religion?

Even if there was a perfect religion that promoted peace and compassion and generosity and non-aggression etc. etc. So long as it was based on non-existent deities it would be an affront to the truth. I prefer to see the world as it is, free of any supernatural interference. Yes the world has violence and greed and misery but that is just human nature and something that we all have to learn how to deal with. Religion tends to be divided along ethnic lines anyways, so there will never be one that is applicable to everybody.

The universe is crazy and beautiful enough on its own, it doesn't need gods and the supernatural to spice it up. Lets try and learn from the universe instead of imposing our fables on it.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Even if there was a perfect religion that promoted peace and compassion and generosity and non-aggression etc. etc. So long as it was based on non-existent deities it would be an affront to the truth. I prefer to see the world as it is, free of any supernatural interference. Yes the world has violence and greed and misery but that is just human nature and something that we all have to learn how to deal with. Religion tends to be divided along ethnic lines anyways, so there will never be one that is applicable to everybody.

The universe is crazy and beautiful enough on its own, it doesn't need gods and the supernatural to spice it up. Lets try and learn from the universe instead of imposing our fables on it.

Buddhism and Taoism are agnostic religions.

Originally Posted by dreamsickle

Buddhism and Taoism are agnostic religions.

Yes but they still have supernatural elements like reincarnation (buddhism anyways, don't know much about taoism).

Originally Posted by dreamsickle

Buddhism and Taoism are agnostic religions.

Both of those need to be divided into philosophy and religious parts. They both have different strands that lean more heavily one way or the other. Taoism as taken from the source documents essentially says that the universe has a way and that it is best to not go against that way. A lot of koan like descriptions of the way follow. As I interpret it, no supernatural mechanism is desired.

Likewise with Buddhism, much of the actual scripture stands quite well as a philosophy of living based on direct personal experience of mundane events without any belief in anything supernatural.

Once either of them turn to supernatural beliefs, you start getting wacky shit like superstition for Taoism and the belief in a savior myth much like christianity for Buddhism.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

I see your point, what I'm trying to say is that there's absolutely no evidence of any kind of god besides from religious texts, so why bother claiming there is one? If you're not influenced by religion to make this claim, then you'd be making it up in your head.

It's like if I claimed that centaurs are real. There is no evidence for the existence of centaurs anywhere. Now did I get my idea of what a centaur is from greek mythology or did I completely make it up independently in my mind? If it's the former then it would be equivalent to being influenced by religion, and if it's the latter then what's the point?

Hope that makes sense .

Yes, it makes sense, thanks for clarifying.

I think the place where we differ is that I don't believe there is evidence even of gods in any of the mainstream religions. There is no difference to me between being influenced by a god someone else made up and just making one up, other than it takes less creativity to be influenced by it. So, in my mind's eye, your "where's the point" remark really applies to both god-sources.

...well, except the difference is that one of those sides sometimes (depending on who) tries to push their views on everyone else through the letter of the law. Honestly, that last bit is the only practical matter I really care about.

It was the one that said god was a flying spaghetti monster, but then I got high and the munchies made me eat him.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

Once either of them turn to supernatural beliefs, you start getting wacky shit like superstition for Taoism and the belief in a savior myth much like christianity for Buddhism.

Never heard about any savior from any Buddhist, except for the belief that only you can save yourself.

ok obviously nobody knows. Nobody has Logical proof any religion is right. They can't be proven or dis proven. So why even waste time arguing? end of story.

Originally Posted by erible

ok obviously nobody knows. Nobody has Logical proof any religion is right. They can't be proven or dis proven. So why even waste time arguing? end of story.

Because it's the "can't be disproved" thing I take issue with. Just because something can't be disproved, doesn't mean it should be accepted as being true or being even remotely plausible. Burden of proof, etc. Faith is not an excuse to suspend logic.

Originally Posted by Mario92

Because it's the "can't be disproved" thing I take issue with. Just because something can't be disproved, doesn't mean it should be accepted as being true or being even remotely plausible. Burden of proof, etc. Faith is not an excuse to suspend logic.

I didn't mean it in that context, I meant that it shouldn't be accepted as the absolute WHOLE truth

I think some people are missing the point, that many religions came from the same source. So it is entirely possible for desperate religions to be right at the same time. At least in the grand sense of being right. You would have to be pretty arrogant to think to think you could be 100% correct, down to the last detail. Especially when some of the really specific details are just what priests and higher up people in the church said, and not even related to god.