NationStates Jolt Archive

I would like to challenge any theists who believe their religion is the only "true" religion. In another thread I created about "truth", many people said they knew their religion was "truth" because they "felt it". That's not proof by any stretch of the imagination. I challenge you to explain why your spiritual/religious beliefs are "true" in such a way that a nontheist would accept it.

NOTE: This thread was not intended to flame.

I think you might be mis-interpreting a bit. Lots of people use faith as a way to justify their religion to themselves. And faith is something that needs no proof. The difference is, that you can't expect to convert people with pure faith. Either you have it or you don't. It doesn't need proof. it just is.

Occams (sp?) razor is an argument for the necessity of faith for religion. That is, it's the unknown in every equation. You cannot quantify God, so you cannot prove God. Faith is the only way to be religious, according to Occam.

It's the people that use faith as proof that has a problem, as they tend to be completely opposing.

edit: I'm fairly agnostic, I don't have a religion, so you know.

That's lovely. Then they are simply believing in their "god" for no other reason than it's simplicity. They are only mindless robots conforming to some twisted perception of morality produced by a conspiracy of close-minded, opressive male bigots. They are only reinforcing nontheist stereotypes of Christianity. They must be so proud of themselves.


I'd like to give theists a chance to speak their own mind, and perhaps turn negative views of their beliefs to positive ones.

That's lovely. Then they are simply believing in their "god" for no other reason than it's simplicity. They are only mindless robots conforming to some twisted perception of morality produced by a conspiracy of close-minded, opressive male bigots. They are only reinforcing nontheist stereotypes of Christianity. They must be so proud of themselves.


I'd like to give theists a chance to speak their own mind, and perhaps turn negative views of their beliefs to positive ones.

When did theists = Christianity? That's a hell of a leap you've just made. Maybe you'd just like to tell us the answer you're looking for, as you've obviously got some sort of bone to pick with Christianity in this thread.

When did theists = Christianity? That's a hell of a leap you've just made. Maybe you'd just like to tell us the answer you're looking for, as you've obviously got some sort of bone to pick with Christianity in this thread.
She was speaking of Christianity, from what I could tell. I had separate paragraphs between the use of "Christians" and "theists" in my posts to indicate that they were separate thoughts.

she was speaking of Christianity, from what I could tell. I had separate paragraphs between the use of "Christians" and "theists" in my posts to indicate that they were separate thoughts.


No, I was speaking about all religions. They all require faith, as the only sure way to check if they exist is by dieing, and that's a one way trip. Besides, it's not a robotic obedience to a religion, it's a faith that what their holy book and teachers say. Think of it this way. Can you disprove religion? You have faith, of a sort, that their teachings are nonsense. They have faith that their teachings are true. Which is more viable?

*corrected* :D


No, I was speaking about all religions. They all require faith, as the only sure way to check if they exist is by dieing, and that's a one way trip. Besides, it's not a robotic obedience to a religion, it's a faith that what their holy book and teachers say. Think of it this way. Can you disprove religion? You have faith, of a sort, that their teachings are nonsense. They have faith that their teachings are true. Which is more viable?
Dammit! I made gender assumptions AGAIN! :headbang: I corrected myself. Now your post looks stupid. :p

Okay, I thought you were speaking specifically of Chrisitians.

No, I do not believe that anyone's religion is nessecarily wrong/untrue. Therefore I have no "faith" that their religion is not "true" in any way, shape, or form.

Because everything else is lies!

Because everything else is lies!
And how do you know that?

I'd like to give theists a chance to speak their own mind, and perhaps turn negative views of their beliefs to positive ones.

One might ask why you have such a negative view of theism. It would probably be the best place to start.

No, I was speaking about all religions. They all require faith, as the only sure way to check if they exist is by dieing, and that's a one way trip. Besides, it's not a robotic obedience to a religion, it's a faith that what their holy book and teachers say. Think of it this way. Can you disprove religion? You have faith, of a sort, that their teachings are nonsense. They have faith that their teachings are true. Which is more viable?

Douglas Adams was not being sarcastic when he said that proof denies faith. Faith genuinely is by definition unconditional, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. What is a bad thing is not investigating the other side first (the "blind" in blind faith). One way, you're just following an arbitrarily-chosen way because your parents, community leaders or whoever has chosen it for you; the other way, you've had a chance to make up your own mind.

One might ask why you have such a negative view of theism. It would probably be the best place to start.
Oh, that is very simple. I grew up in Alabama, part of what is known as the "Bible Belt". From my very birth religion was forced on me. Not only that, my birthday happened to be a very major Christian holiday; December 25th. I went along with Chrisitanity for a fair portion of my childhood, as I was pressured by my peers to do.

In K-5, my first year in elementary school, I was a shy little girl. I didn't know how to make friends and I didn't know anyone in my class already. At lunch I saw a sweet little girl sitting all by herself. I asked other kids why she was sitting by herself. Answer? She was Jewish, and being cast out by all the young children who had been taught not to socialize with her because she was doomed to hell. I eventually became her friend. I didn't understand why anyone had a problem with her. It hurt me to think how unaccepting people were.

In 1st grade, I bought a WWJD? bracelet because it was popular. I considered it a fad just like Backstreet Boys or Giga Pets.

In 2nd grade, a member of my family died. I questioned everything. One of those things was religion. I asked myself, "Do I really believe in God?" and the answer was no, I had just been trying to fit in. When I shared my beliefs, I quickly realized they were unacceptable. I also loved Harry Potter books. I heard that there were actually people who would ban those books, or even burn them without reading them. Mostly for religious reasons. The source of my negative view begins there.

When I was in third grade, my brother was part of a "bible class" for popularity. Meanwhile, I was hanging out with my brother's friend's older sister. She told me that I wasn't "saved" unless I "accepted Jesus into my heart". I was afraid that if I didn't take her little oath or whatever, she wouldn't be my friend, so I did everything she said. I later looked back on this disgusted with myself.

I could continue, but I think you get the idea.

Myself, I'm an eclectic Pagan. I'm also a monotheist, but I don't give a name to the Ultimate Source. I believe all "god/desses" are aspects of that Source.

Why do I believe this?

Personally, I can't reconcile that we are some big cosmic accident. I think of it as a cosmic science experiment. (Now this is just speculation mind you...my own...ideas.) I think something took what became the beginning of the universe...the first primordial soup mix, if you will, and kind of tossed it into a cosmic petri dish and sat back to watch what would happen.

Why do I think this? I don't know. It's just been a thought I've had for years.

HOWEVER...I believe all religions are valid. They all serve a purpose. I can't say any one particular religion is wrong, because I don't have proof. But I don't believe anyone of any particular religion can call my beliefs wrong, because they don't have proof of that either.

Myself, I'm an eclectic Pagan. I'm also a monotheist, but I don't give a name to the Ultimate Source. I believe all "god/desses" are aspects of that Source.

Why do I believe this?

Personally, I can't reconcile that we are some big cosmic accident. I think of it as a cosmic science experiment. (Now this is just speculation mind you...my own...ideas.) I think something took what became the beginning of the universe...the first primordial soup mix, if you will, and kind of tossed it into a cosmic petri dish and sat back to watch what would happen.

Why do I think this? I don't know. It's just been a thought I've had for years.

HOWEVER...I believe all religions are valid. They all serve a purpose. I can't say any one particular religion is wrong, because I don't have proof. But I don't believe anyone of any particular religion can call my beliefs wrong, because they don't have proof of that either.
Then my beliefs are very similiar to yours.

Then my beliefs are very similiar to yours.

See...you're not alone out there. ;)

Oh, that is very simple. I grew up in Alabama, part of what is known as the "Bible Belt". From my very birth religion was forced on me. Not only that, my birthday happened to be a very major Christian holiday; December 25th. I went along with Chrisitanity for a fair portion of my childhood, as I was pressured by my peers to do.

In K-5, my first year in elementary school, I was a shy little girl. I didn't know how to make friends and I didn't know anyone in my class already. At lunch I saw a sweet little girl sitting all by herself. I asked other kids why she was sitting by herself. Answer? She was Jewish, and being cast out by all the young children who had been taught not to socialize with her because she was doomed to hell. I eventually became her friend. I didn't understand why anyone had a problem with her. It hurt me to think how unaccepting people were.

In 1st grade, I bought a WWJD? bracelet because it was popular. I considered it a fad just like Backstreet Boys or Giga Pets.

In 2nd grade, a member of my family died. I questioned everything. One of those things was religion. I asked myself, "Do I really believe in God?" and the answer was no, I had just been trying to fit in. When I shared my beliefs, I quickly realized they were unacceptable. I also loved Harry Potter books. I heard that there were actually people who would ban those books, or even burn them without reading them. Mostly for religious reasons. The source of my negative view begins there.

When I was in third grade, my brother was part of a "bible class" for popularity. Meanwhile, I was hanging out with my brother's friend's older sister. She told me that I wasn't "saved" unless I "accepted Jesus into my heart". I was afraid that if I didn't take her little oath or whatever, she wouldn't be my friend, so I did everything she said. I later looked back on this disgusted with myself.

I could continue, but I think you get the idea.

That doesn't really explain anything. It explains the fact that you don't want to be part of a religion just to fit in - which is good. It explains the fact that you don't like those who presume to be right and attempt to pressure you into their religion without any real way of proving it - which is also a good thing.

Of course, those people make up only a small portion of theists.

I would like to challenge any theists who believe their religion is the only "true" religion. In another thread I created about "truth", many people said they knew their religion was "truth" because they "felt it". That's not proof by any stretch of the imagination. I challenge you to explain why your spiritual/religious beliefs are "true" in such a way that a nontheist would accept it.

NOTE: This thread was not intended to flame.
Truth? My religion is truth because its non-existant.

Not this actually makes sence. Pending I can get over my stomach exploding due to chinese food, i'll be able to explain this quite well.

Humans are random creatures.
As we can observe through feral children, a human either is a very blank piece of paper when it starts out, or it can be easily molded by the smallest little things to conform to any situation (ie the type of parenting).
Some place in South America is home to a tribe where children parent children. The adults stay at home in 'base camp' and the kids run around half naked in the rain forests teaching eachother what mushroom to eat and what monkey to stay way from. They smoke at age 6, and they arent censored from scary stories at any age. Compare that to the momma's boy that is commonly made fun of in first class North America and you dont exactly have an accurate judge as to what a human is.

We wear clothes when we dont need to. We work at jobs we dont like. We buy objects we dont need. We do things that are of no use to us.
We love. We hate. We know and we're stupid.

A major debate for spiritualists is that every culture seems to have some form of a being. This, infact, isnt true. But we'll let them think whatever they want. And for those people who are convinced that 'god' is watching them, us in the first world have a word for that: paranoia.

And its also clear that religion has been used to put people in their spot. Im not even going to try to prove this because it would take too long and everyone knows this already.

When a baby is born its hard to say whats the first thing that runs through its mind. It seems to be narrowed to either curriosity or fear. Take your best stab at it, but both feelings set the imagintion off. So we're pretty much genetically inclined to making bullshit up to soothe ourselves.

:S

Ok I cant explain this very well, i can feel sweet and sour pork comming up my throat. Basically, we're dumb stupid random creatures and genetically programed to make shit up. So people cant help but think somethings there. If its true or not is a different matter all together, but we'll always think we're right.

That doesn't really explain anything. It explains the fact that you don't want to be part of a religion just to fit in - which is good. It explains the fact that you don't like those who presume to be right and attempt to pressure you into their religion without any real way of proving it - which is also a good thing.

Of course, those people make up only a small portion of theists.
I know. But in my mind, all theists are out to convert me. It is a personal stereotype of mine which I am not at all proud of.

Can you disprove religion? You have faith, of a sort, that their teachings are nonsense. They have faith that their teachings are true. Which is more viable?

One can however show that not all religions can be correct: if two religions both claim that only theirs is the one and true religion, and they are not identical, then either one or both must logically be wrong. Even if multiple truths are possible - since the religions themselves do not accept that possibility.

So the question asked in the first post "why is your religion the true religion" is quite valid and logical.

I know. But in my mind, all theists are out to convert me. It is a personal stereotype of mine which I am not at all proud of.

Unfortunately, personal stereotypes are things which can only be worked out with time and effort. But for now, know that all of us are not simply out to convert you. If you would ever like to have a discussion about religion (whatever you may believe), I'll be happy to oblige. =)

One can however show that not all religions can be correct: if two religions both claim that only theirs is the one and true religion, and they are not identical, then either one or both must logically be wrong. Even if multiple truths are possible - since the religions themselves do not accept that possibility.

The problem with that statement is that neither have proof that they ARE the one true religion, and neither can prove the other IS wrong. So that becomes a circular argument. Anyone can claim to be anything, but without the proof to back it up, it's just lip service, but, also, without proof that negates their statement, one can't refute their claim.

I am a Buddhist and We dont claim we are the only truth

The problem with that statement is that neither have proof that they ARE the one true religion, and neither can prove the other IS wrong. So that becomes a circular argument. Anyone can claim to be anything, but without the proof to back it up, it's just lip service, but, also, without proof that negates their statement, one can't refute their claim.

Correct - you cannot show that a specific religion is not the true religion - but you *can* show that not all of them can be right. Which one(s) is/are right or wrong is another question.

Doughlas Adams was wrong. Faith in it's basic sense is the motivating power of all our actions. I act because I hope/believe that a certain action will result. I'm willing to jump in a pool of water because I have faith that I can swim as I have demonstrated to myself. The first time I jumped in someone I trusted told me it would be all right and I bit the bullet.

Religious faith is different only in the seen results. I follow certain teachings and my life changes in some way. I stop following those teachings and my life changes back to what I would consider to be an inferior state. I find that following these teachings makes my life more complete and happy.

I move on and pray. I start to get answers. These answers did not come from me unless I am a genius and don't know it. The answerer also has a personality definitely distinct from my own and I begin to learn of him. Following the answers I find myself avoiding and escaping danger of all kinds. I learn to trust these answers and listen more frequently.

Continuing the course, I move on to where I find myself changing into the image of Christ little by little. I start getting more counsel, see visions, begin to understand the nature of eternity and my destiny.

The change is real but I can prove nothing to another. Most refuse to believe me. A few come up with the idea that I'm delusional or unbalanced or attributing things to deity for some obscure psychological reason. These all ring false. The experience of having joy and pure intelligence poured into me is not something I would ascribe to a deity. If I could do it myself I would have figured out how to do it long since.

I try not to attack any religion I have not attempted to become a devout follower of. Only by doing that can you know whether it works or not. Attacks on scripture and doctrine by those outside the faith honestly sound silly to me. Probably about as silly as I sound to them.

Personal experience is what changed me from atheist to spiritual agnostic. The main problem I have with religious experiences is that all major religions have cases, but it's always a contact from their god. You'll never hear of a Muslim seeing Jesus, for instance. I see it as the body managing to accessanenergy, or force; possibly sentient, possibly not, possibly somewhere in between (animal, but not quite a "person" so-to-speak). The mind then takes this input and interprets it according to what it believes, and gives a more understandable ("user-friendly") sensory output - hence experiences usually conforming to that person's already established faith.

And yes, you probably are a genius but you don't know it. The subconscious and the mostly unused areas of the mind can be powerful tools, even if you don't know you're using them.

I act because I hope/believe that a certain action will result... Religious faith is different only in the seen results. I follow certain teachings and my life changes in some way. I stop following those teachings and my life changes back to what I would consider to be an inferior state. I find that following these teachings makes my life more complete and happy.

I move on and pray. I start to get answers. The answerer also has a personality definitely distinct from my own and I begin to learn of him.

The change is real but I can prove nothing to another.

<snip>

It is the final sentence of the above edited quote which betrays the irrationality of faith, for reasons you freely admit. You cannot explain, you cannot prove, because of what you feel is a private relationship with God. We cannot successfully communicate with you about this, because we do not
stand in the same relation to the divine; we could not, even if we were to subscribe to the same belief system as you, because we are all individuals.

However, what you as a believer cannot understand about people outside the sphere of belief is that logical considerations carry the same strength as the counsel you hear from God; if a literal contradiction is perceived within a belief system then it cannot be valid. Something cannot exist and not exist simultaneously, especially if it is the eternal, for then it cannot have changed. People find contradictions in various Scriptures, some of them correct, some of them misguided, but all of them sincere, and it is because they rationally believe in logic first and foremost that they are unable to find common ground with you. However, religious faith cannot be compared to the swimming pool example for most people, as most people do not have the direct evidence of the divine which you claim*, whereas most are capable of watching someone dive into a swimming pool and judging its safety for themselves.

Your tragedy is that you cannot explain your perceived relationship with the divine to others, and their tragedy is they cannot explain the strength of the dictates of logic to you, and for this reason, neither side will ever be reconciled to the other. Converts are made by way of Gestalt switches between which system people see as more convincing, whether they suddenly see God as filling the holes in/explaining secular life or in a desperate moment find they cannot trust the Creator implicitly anymore.

I disagree with you, therefore, that the only way religion differs is in the seen results. Most people don't have seen results on quite such a strong scale as you claim, Zenocide, and while they will trust a pragmatic hypothetico-deductive logic which produces results every day of their lives in their work and play and relationships they won't trust a system which doesn't bring them light and life. Long story short, Zenocide, people aren't willing to trust faith implicitly, precisely because it is not rational, because it cannot be rationally explained to others. Faith is the non-rational, and to be converted is to have to make the jump one way or the other.

*Please note, "claim", "perceived" etc. are not intended to be sceptical here, and mean no offence.

Something cannot exist and not exist simultaneously

Look up the meaning of my name and you'll see this is not necessarily the case ;)

I am a Buddhist and We dont claim we are the only truth

So according to Buddhism if someone thinks they can achieve nirvana by fixing themselves in desire and material pleasure then they can? Cool, I'm gonna try that!

I'm an atheist for a lot of different reasons, but as to why I think its true.....

The main justification I have that my religion is true is that I'm the only standard of truth that I have. What seems to me to be self evident must be self evident.

So according to Buddhism if someone thinks they can achieve nirvana by fixing themselves in desire and material pleasure then they can? Cool, I'm gonna try that!

Just because they don't claim the only truth doesn't mean all other "truths" are valid :rolleyes: and nirvana isn't what most people think it is, it's basically pure neutrality.

Religion is based on faith, not logic or truth. Therefore the question is moot. One can believe as chicken little did the sky is falling, chicken little had no data or logic behind the belief of this beloved fairy tale..but there was a faith in that little chicken that believed it.

If we looked at religion from truth and logic we would have to discount every religion in the world. Because even if there was a god (which I don't believe there is) you would need evidence to present an argument of truth. In the case of god(s) none can be made.

We can look to the logic of regional beliefs and of course the melding of said beliefs in multicultural societies that give the illusion of credence because "well so many can't be wrong" but yes, so many can be wrong.

If you take geographical territory where multicultural beliefs are static, then you see, you believe what you were told to believe. In free societies there is a margin of error because the many ideas to choose from.

At the end of the day, a god is unlikely from a scientific perspective, but don't argue that with the faithful, because their belief is compounded upon faith, not fact nor evidence and certainly not on logic.

Just because they don't claim the only truth doesn't mean all other "truths" are valid :rolleyes: and nirvana isn't what most people think it is, it's basically pure neutrality.

Just my interpretation: Buddhism isn't neutral to truths that it deals with (how to live a good life and avoid reincarnation), but to more theistic truths it is almost completely tolerant. That about right?

My point is that you still have those first truths that form the basis of your religion. Why do you think that they represent the only truth?

Just my interpretation: Buddhism isn't neutral to truths that it deals with (how to live a good life and avoid reincarnation), but to more theistic truths it is almost completely tolerant. That about right?

My point is that you still have those first truths that form the basis of your religion. Why do you think that they represent the only truth?

Who said they did?

Personal experience is what changed me from atheist to spiritual agnostic. The main problem I have with religious experiences is that all major religions have cases, but it's always a contact from their god. You'll never hear of a Muslim seeing Jesus, for instance. I see it as the body managing to accessanenergy, or force; possibly sentient, possibly not, possibly somewhere in between (animal, but not quite a "person" so-to-speak). The mind then takes this input and interprets it according to what it believes, and gives a more understandable ("user-friendly") sensory output - hence experiences usually conforming to that person's already established faith.

And yes, you probably are a genius but you don't know it. The subconscious and the mostly unused areas of the mind can be powerful tools, even if you don't know you're using them.

Belief in this force still encounters the same problems though, especially with experiments confirming that the feeling of such a force or "prescence" can be induced by causing microseizures in the brain that could be caused by various types of extreme stress.

Who said they did?

Well if they didn't they would accept the possibility that I could reach utter peace of mind through mindless debauchery, which they profess not to do.

God is usually irrelevant from a scientific perspective.

Belief in this force still encounters the same problems though, especially with experiments confirming that the feeling of such a force or "prescence" can be induced by causing microseizures in the brain that could be caused by various types of extreme stress.

That's not proof against it being there. If there is an energy, we need receptors to identify it. It may be that the areas where the microseizures occur are just such locations; being stressed is an ideal trigger for reaching out to gatherstrength and energy.

Attempting to arrive at universal truths based on private experience is absurd.

But considering Pascal's wager, you'd be wise to believe in a God. Just pick one!

What's Pascal's wager? Let's say you will be saved if you believe in God. If He doesn't exist, nothing happens to you after you die whether you believe or not. But if He does exist, and you believe, then you are saved; otherwise not. Why would you want to take that chance? If heaven's all it's cracked up to be, it's probably worth a bit of personal inconvenience (convincing yourself that God exists).

Attempting to arrive at universal truths based on private experience is absurd.

But considering Pascal's wager, you'd be wise to believe in a God. Just pick one!

What's Pascal's wager? Let's say you will be saved if you believe in God. If He doesn't exist, nothing happens to you after you die whether you believe or not. But if He does exist, and you believe, then you are saved; otherwise not. Why would you want to take that chance? If heaven's all it's cracked up to be, it's probably worth a bit of personal inconvenience (convincing yourself that God exists).

I am god.

Give me £5 or go to hell.

Use Pascals wager.

I'll expect your cheque in the post.

Attempting to arrive at universal truths based on private experience is absurd.


I disagree. A personal experience, if inspected and questioned, is evidence. Just because others cannot directly quantify it doesn't make it entirely invalid.

I am god.

Give me £5 or go to hell.

Use Pascals wager.

I'll expect your cheque in the post.

Sorry, EH, I feel like being a Roman Catholic today. But I'll send you some cash when I feel like worshipping you.

Sorry, EH, I feel like being a Roman Catholic today. But I'll send you some cash when I feel like worshipping you.

You don't need to woship me, just send me £5.

oh, and this guy needs you too

http://www.jhuger.com/pascal.php

I disagree. A personal experience, if inspected and questioned, is evidence. Just because others cannot directly quantify it doesn't make it entirely invalid.

However, it is more than a little difficult to verify that you are yourself infallible. The inspection and questioning process could well be flawed. Even if you did verify it through introspection, you have only verified it for yourself. In that case it's valid for yourself, but it's still absurd when applied universally.

For me the "truth" of my religion is through experience. There is no other real truth than truth that is experienced. As absolute truth is a myth we can only go by observational truth. I have met God. I have observational proof that he exists and wants me to live a certain way and that that is the only way. He told me so himself.

(Sorry if that sounds a bit weird but that's how it is)

For me the "truth" of my religion is through experience. There is no other real truth than truth that is experienced. As absolute truth is a myth we can only go by observational truth. I have met God. I have observational proof that he exists and wants me to live a certain way and that that is the only way. He told me so himself.

(Sorry if that sounds a bit weird but that's how it is)
You met God. :rolleyes: Details?

I haven't even posted in this topic and I'm already bored of it.

Seems to be a lot of these lately.

Oh well.

Ok ... I'll answer.

Why Is Your Religion "Truth"?

Because, frankly, if it wasn't, I wouldn't follow it.

However, it is more than a little difficult to verify that you are yourself infallible. The inspection and questioning process could well be flawed. Even if you did verify it through introspection, you have only verified it for yourself. In that case it's valid for yourself, but it's still absurd when applied universally.

How is it hard to verify that experience is valid? I met God, I can point to lots of people who can say he was there. Therefore my experience is valid.

I haven't even posted in this topic and I'm already bored of it.

Seems to be a lot of these lately.

Oh well.

Ok ... I'll answer.



Because, frankly, if it wasn't, I wouldn't follow it.
That defines everything? A lot of people follow other religions, ones that would most likely conflict with yours. What makes yours the "true" religion?

That's not proof against it being there. If there is an energy, we need receptors to identify it. It may be that the areas where the microseizures occur are just such locations; being stressed is an ideal trigger for reaching out to gatherstrength and energy.

Nah, they've got a much clearer explanation for why the micro-seizures do that. It involves the fact that they disrupt pathways that identify the self, making one feel the prescence of "another self" or a "spiritual prescence". In short, it could easily just be all in your head. The question is why you choose to believe that your manifestation is different.

You met God. :rolleyes: Details?

Details, hmm. Well I was praying with a load of people at Uni and then suddenyl God was there. We talked for a while and he showed me how and why to live my life and I was filled with the Spirit. It was the most amazing experience of my life. I've been in touch with God ever since.

You don't need to woship me, just send me £5.

oh, and this guy needs you too

http://www.jhuger.com/pascal.php

My priest tells me that this is the only true religion. I'm going to accept that. So the necessary consequence is that you are not.

Good point though. And that guy's pretty nice too. Unfortunately, the reducto ad absurdum process not so much invalidates the wager, but validates my first statement concerning universal truths. I would urge you to try to find a flaw in the wager itself.

I admit it takes a bit of effort to really convince yourself, but it's easier for some. Some mental flexibility and capacity to doublethink makes it all easier.

Details, hmm. Well I was praying with a load of people at Uni and then suddenyl God was there. We talked for a while and he showed me how and why to live my life and I was filled with the Spirit. It was the most amazing experience of my life. I've been in touch with God ever since.
You have no people without obvious bias to vouch that you met your "god".

You have no people without obvious bias to vouch that you met your "god".

There is no such thing as a lack of bias. All the world is a complex flux of consequence.

My priest tells me that this is the only true religion. I'm going to accept that. So the necessary consequence is that you are not.

Good point though. And that guy's pretty nice too. Unfortunately, the reducto ad absurdum process not so much invalidates the wager, but validates my first statement concerning universal truths. I would urge you to try to find a flaw in the wager itself.

I admit it takes a bit of effort to really convince yourself, but it's easier for some. Some mental flexibility and capacity to doublethink makes it all easier.

Pascals wager is riddled with flaws. Please see this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=415198) thread for your convenience.

Details, hmm. Well I was praying with a load of people at Uni and then suddenyl God was there. We talked for a while and he showed me how and why to live my life and I was filled with the Spirit. It was the most amazing experience of my life. I've been in touch with God ever since.

Check out the stuff I said in response to Catushkoti. Many experiences of God can be explained by these sorts of micro-seizures in the brain. Even the most sane people can get them under stress. They give experiences pretty much like you described.

I know my religion is truth because mine is the oldest.
(as in Atheism.)
Course, it isn't a religion, but hey!

Also, it is the only belief system that stands up to logical arguments, so that way I go.

How is it hard to verify that experience is valid? I met God, I can point to lots of people who can say he was there. Therefore my experience is valid.

You overestimate the weight of "lots of people" compared with all sentient beings for all time. For a universal truth would apply to them all. Plus, I'm cool with you meeting God, just not with the fact that, since you met him, I should meet him too.

There is no such thing as a lack of bias. All the world is a complex flux of consequence.
If this is an actual occurance, it does not matter because everyone in the room wanted your "god" to exist.

I know my religion is truth because mine is the oldest.
(as in Atheism.)
Course, it isn't a religion, but hey!

Also, it is the only belief system that stands up to logical arguments, so that way I go.

Your main argument is a classic example of a logical fallacy, but that's ok.

If this is an actual occurance, it does not matter because everyone in the room wanted your "god" to exist.

Not true. Several atheists and agnostics were present. I was reading and I'd asked them to come along and support me. God turned up for them too.

That defines everything? A lot of people follow other religions, ones that would most likely conflict with yours. What makes yours the "true" religion?

Because none of those other religions would work for me. Truth is subjective, but never objective.

Not true. Several atheists and agnostics were present. I was reading and I'd asked them to come along and support me. God turned up for them too.

could you get him to pop over to me?

You overestimate the weight of "lots of people" compared with all sentient beings for all time. For a universal truth would apply to them all. Plus, I'm cool with you meeting God, just not with the fact that, since you met him, I should meet him too.

Why do all beings for all time need to experience a truth for it to be universal? If the truth that the world is round is true for all monkeys but only a very small amount of monkeys know this, all monkeys are still on a round world.

Not true. Several atheists and agnostics were present. I was reading and I'd asked them to come along and support me. God turned up for them too.

What were you all smoking at the time?

I should write up your experience in script form, its priceless.

could you get him to pop over to me?

I'll give him a ring lol. He tends to be quite busy at this time of night though.

Pascals wager is riddled with flaws. Please see this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=415198) thread for your convenience.

Some good stuff there. I see you like to refer to other people's arguments. I like to do that too. In all deference to millenia of philosophers, let's halt all intellectual speculation, since those smart guys must have thought of everything already, and why are we wasting time debating?

Speaking of wasting time, I am an idiot. I really need to study for finals. Chill-out.

What were you all smoking at the time?

I should write up your experience in script form, its priceless.

Haha very funny. Humor is the last refuge of the dakmned and all that. Seriously though, I was not under the influence of anything

Why do all beings for all time need to experience a truth for it to be universal? If the truth that the world is round is true for all monkeys but only a very small amount of monkeys know this, all monkeys are still on a round world.

But any monkey with a well and a stick could demonstrate that the world is round. Demonstrating god requires some more expensive stuff, probably of the illegal variety.

Some good stuff there. I see you like to refer to other people's arguments. I like to do that too. In all deference to millenia of philosophers, let's halt all intellectual speculation, since those smart guys must have thought of everything already, and why are we wasting time debating?

Speaking of wasting time, I am an idiot. I really need to study for finals. Chill-out.

I referrence other people when I have been through the arguments too many times, and am too lazy to run through them all again.

I'll take the sarcasm of your post in good humour.

Attempting to arrive at universal truths based on private experience is absurd.

But considering Pascal's wager, you'd be wise to believe in a God. Just pick one!

What's Pascal's wager? Let's say you will be saved if you believe in God. If He doesn't exist, nothing happens to you after you die whether you believe or not. But if He does exist, and you believe, then you are saved; otherwise not. Why would you want to take that chance? If heaven's all it's cracked up to be, it's probably worth a bit of personal inconvenience (convincing yourself that God exists).

Well, here we go.

According to Pascal, there are several possibilities:
1. God exists - if you believe in it, your win will be infinitely great. If you disbelieve, your loss will be infinitely great as well.
2. God does not exist - if you believe in it, you have lost little. If you do not believe in him, you have won very little.

Now, here's the problems with that wager. Let's say God exists. If you believe in God (no matter what religion) and spend your life worshipping it, living by its word, then you better hope that yours is the one true religion, because God probably wouldn't be too happy if it found out you were doing things totally wrong in its name. If you don't believe in God and it is real, and you have lived a decent life, then you should have little to fear. With so many religions, how can you be expected to choose the right one? Perhaps the atheist is better than those who committed crimes in the name of their lord.

If God does not exist, and you believe in it, you have essentially wasted your life, sorry. When you could have been enjoying every moment, you lived as if this life was just a trial run to something more important. Instead of taking action, you prayed. Now if you don't believe in God, and it isn't real, then what have you lost? You will have lived a full life, acting instead of praying to mythical beings, and realizing this is probably all there is.

Now do you see the folly of Pascal's Wager?

But any monkey with a well and a stick could demonstrate that the world is round. Demonstrating god requires some more expensive stuff, probably of the illegal variety.

Any person with the will, the Way and a bit of perseverance can demonstrate god. Free of charge!

Why do all beings for all time need to experience a truth for it to be universal? If the truth that the world is round is true for all monkeys but only a very small amount of monkeys know this, all monkeys are still on a round world.

How do YOU know you are on a round world? Sorry, sorry, i shouldn't have brought that up, but that's just the nature of things you take on faith. Sparring with logic is fun, but any conclusions you obtain are ultimately predicated on the validity of the axioms you assume. Philosophy is really just intellectual games.

Any person with the will, the Way and a bit of perseverance can demonstrate god. Free of charge!

demonstrate then. Turn my lights off.

Haha very funny. Humor is the last refuge of the dakmned and all that. Seriously though, I was not under the influence of anything

Its still possible that the experience was just concocted by your mind, as I explained earlier, though the corroboration makes it less so.

On an unrelated note, how do you know that said God was telling you the truth and wasn't Satan, anyway?

Anyway, I'm tired. Goodnight sinners and heretics! I'll pray for your souls!

Yours in Christ
Grand Duke Fritz von Splurgenhof

Any person with the will, the Way and a bit of perseverance can demonstrate god. Free of charge!

True, but they can "demonstrate" any god whatsoever! They can "demonstrate" that they are really a Tibetan monk that lost his memory!

Anyway, I'm tired. Goodnight sinners and heretics! I'll pray for your souls!

Yours in Christ
Grand Duke Fritz von Splurgenhof
Goodbye, puppy. I'll... not. :p

demonstrate then. Turn my lights off.

He helps those who help themselves. Get yer lazy ass up and hit the switch. :p

I would like to challenge any theists who believe their religion is the only "true" religion. In another thread I created about "truth", many people said they knew their religion was "truth" because they "felt it". That's not proof by any stretch of the imagination. I challenge you to explain why your spiritual/religious beliefs are "true" in such a way that a nontheist would accept it.

NOTE: This thread was not intended to flame.
there is no such way. faith is exactly that, faith, and if you are not willing to have faith, then faith cannot be explained t you.

Anyway, I'm tired. Goodnight sinners and heretics! I'll pray for your souls!

Yours in Christ
Grand Duke Fritz von Splurgenhof

There goes a crazy, crazy man.

there is no such way. faith is exactly that, faith, and if you are not willing to have faith, then faith cannot be explained t you.
Then you have just contributed to the atheist arguement.

He helps those who help themselves. Get yer lazy ass up and hit the switch. :p

but he did the fire for Elijah...

there is no such way. faith is exactly that, faith, and if you are not willing to have faith, then faith cannot be explained t you.

I'm interpreting this thread based on what I wish it was intended to be, and if I'm wrong I'll be very sorry.

I think the question being asked here is what, per se, faith is, and where it comes from. Is it just an arbitrary decision, or is it something with more emotional power? Why do you put your faith where you put it, and do you have a choice?

but he did the fire for Elijah...

Sure ... but then he carried him away in it! :eek:

Riding up into the heavens on a lightbulb might not be so glamerous.

[QUOTE=The Alma Mater]One can however show that not all religions can be correct: if two religions both claim that only theirs is the one and true religion, and they are not identical, then either one or both must logically be wrong. Even if multiple truths are possible - since the religions themselves do not accept that possibility.



Maybe the same spiritual being revieled itself to many people and was interpreted differently by those people. The three major religons in the world are all similar. The differences may have been caused by the profets interpretations. I believe humans have free will i also believe that they are easily corrupted. what may have begun as a truth may have been twisted to fit what the person wanted it to say. As for the fact that some people are excluded from groups because of their religion, that is not often what is taught from the apocrapha. Merely what human nature convinces us to do. But "theists" are not the only ones who do this, often times athiests exclude "theists" from the group simply because they have chosen a path, while the athiests are inclined to sit at a crossroads. I try not to tight on these forums because i am not adequetly educated or well versed to deal with others who so desperatly defend their own beliefs. I try not be a step that others use do raise themsevles.

One can however show that not all religions can be correct: if two religions both claim that only theirs is the one and true religion, and they are not identical, then either one or both must logically be wrong. Even if multiple truths are possible - since the religions themselves do not accept that possibility.



Maybe the same spiritual being revieled itself to many people and was interpreted differently by those people. The three major religons in the world are all similar. The differences may have been caused by the profets interpretations. I believe humans have free will i also believe that they are easily corrupted. what may have begun as a truth may have been twisted to fit what the person wanted it to say. As for the fact that some people are excluded from groups because of their religion, that is not often what is taught from the apocrapha. Merely what human nature convinces us to do. But "theists" are not the only ones who do this, often times athiests exclude "theists" from the group simply because they have chosen a path, while the athiests are inclined to sit at a crossroads. I try not to tight on these forums because i am not adequetly educated or well versed to deal with others who so desperatly defend their own beliefs. I try not be a step that others use do raise themsevles.

The three major world religions are:

1) Christianity
2) Islam
3) Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist (or Hinduism, depending on whether you consider "nonreligous" a religion or not :p )


Obviously Christianity and Islam are similar, because they are based on the same God, and the same first two "Books".

The third (secular) is not in any way similar to the others, nor is Hinduism.


Judaism, the 12th biggest religion, is also obviously like Christianity and Islam, because it uses the same first "Book".

Now now, Christianity isn't all bad. It did give us Neon Genesis Evangelion and the golden rule is a pretty good ethical concept if you ask me.

Now now, Christianity isn't all bad. It did give us Neon Genesis Evangelion and the golden rule is a pretty good ethical concept if you ask me.

But the golden rule didn't originate in Christianity. Besides, it's common sense, not a Christian ideal.

Treat others as you would like to be treated yourself.

Details, hmm. Well I was praying with a load of people at Uni and then suddenyl God was there. We talked for a while and he showed me how and why to live my life and I was filled with the Spirit. It was the most amazing experience of my life. I've been in touch with God ever since.

You realize the Bible states that were a mortal to hear the voice of God, he'd die, right? I believe the same applies to seeing God. If I'm wrong, someone correct me.

Anyways, I'm an eccletic Pagan, and I've never once stated that my beliefs are the best, or the most sound, or even "true". It's simply that they are MINE, and have become so from personal experiences and observations. I try my best to not insult the beliefs of others, though I do slip sometimes. The thing is, what one person deems as "proof" of the existance (or lack thereof) of a supreme deity, or a collection of nonsupreme deities, or any combination, may not apply to someone else.

Edit:

Anyway, I'm tired. Goodnight sinners and heretics! I'll pray for your souls!

Yours in Christ
Grand Duke Fritz von Splurgenhof

It's precisely these sorts of comments that DO get me riled up, as well as many others. Condemning people and judging them isn't the way to get them to agree, or even listen to you. In fact, the Bible states that judgement of the soul is for God and God alone. Those who judge FOR him are bound to be judged the same as the people they are judging.

Besides, the last person I want praying for me is someone who's already condemned me, and thus insulted me. So do please refrain.

You realize the Bible states that were a mortal to hear the voice of God, he'd die, right? I believe the same applies to seeing God. If I'm wrong, someone correct me.

Anyways, I'm an eccletic Pagan, and I've never once stated that my beliefs are the best, or the most sound, or even "true". It's simply that they are MINE, and have become so from personal experiences and observations. I try my best to not insult the beliefs of others, though I do slip sometimes. The thing is, what one person deems as "proof" of the existance (or lack thereof) of a supreme deity, or a collection of nonsupreme deities, or any combination, may not apply to someone else.

Edit:



It's precisely these sorts of comments that DO get me riled up, as well as many others. Condemning people and judging them isn't the way to get them to agree, or even listen to you. In fact, the Bible states that judgement of the soul is for God and God alone. Those who judge FOR him are bound to be judged the same as the people they are judging.

Besides, the last person I want praying for me is someone who's already condemned me, and thus insulted me. So do please refrain.

Dont forget, "he who holds will be held." Meaning, if he feels the need to pray for you, he too will need prayer. Its that little rule everyone overlooks. Just like you said, its a nice little checks-and-balances for the soul ^^.

Dont forget, "he who holds will be held." Meaning, if he feels the need to pray for you, he too will need prayer. Its that little rule everyone overlooks. Just like you said, its a nice little checks-and-balances for the soul ^^.

Ahh..thank you. I didn't know that one.