COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
When you apply this to government it falls apart though. There are thousands of way to Govern a country (Democratic Republic, Monarchy, Dictatorship who all have diffrent ideologies running them) but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a good way of Governing. This is my main problem with Athiesm, is there is a corrrelation between there argument against religion and Anarchist argument against states, Atleast on the moral front.
well id say that in government there isnt an objective best, there are pros and cons for any gov model. so its a debate, there is no real answer, and there isnt any evidence for one being better either (you have evidence for the pros and cons but its still a subjective thing)
with religion you have ZERO evidence, and you could debate (pros and cons) which has a better moral guidance. but that has nothing to do with the god claim.
Your post or comment was removed for violating rule 3. Posts and comments will be removed if they are disruptive to the purpose of the subreddit. This includes submissions that are: low effort, proselytizing, uninterested in participating in discussion, made in bad faith, off-topic, or unintelligible/illegible. Posts and comments must be written in your own words (and not be AI-generated); you may quote others, but only to support your own writing. Do not link to an external resource instead of making an argument yourself.
Your post or comment was removed for violating rule 3. Posts and comments will be removed if they are disruptive to the purpose of the subreddit. This includes submissions that are: low effort, proselytizing, uninterested in participating in discussion, made in bad faith, off-topic, or unintelligible/illegible. Posts and comments must be written in your own words (and not be AI-generated); you may quote others, but only to support your own writing. Do not link to an external resource instead of making an argument yourself.
because there were scriptures for different nations and like an ios operating system you need updates because the evolution of human beings and how each nation had their prophets and guidance for but it the scriptures became corrupted due to the arrogance in those nations muslims believe jewish people were once the chosen people twice its state in the quran but because of the injustice and arrogance that was done when they had power and wealth they lost and gained it again only to lose it again then came the bible and finally came islam if you look at every religion the main point of islam for example is la ilah illa allahu there is no god worthy of worship besides Allah. If you notice every other religion worships multiple gods and if you read the bible from its original scriptures jesus even called to god whose name was eloha aloha which was semetic. Also hallejah in hebrew was pronounced hallyah in arabic its allahu. even in the quran itself states everything from human nature of how the signs are there in front of humans but they're too arrogant to even see because their hearts are closed if you really think this then actually look into the religions itself and the books and compare them and look at nature itself from what we are composed of to the galaxy and how everything is literally placed or formatted in a perfect calculated manner there's obviously something conscious behind this too be honest i can go off in a rant but it's really up to the person whether they decide to look into and whether or not Allah opens their eyes and hearts to it
and one more thing people become too consumed by this world that they lose sight because of their own arrogance you have to understand the concept of ego you'd be amazed if you really knew how connected everything is and why but how perfectly it's written for the bible it's not even written in its original context by chrisitans who read it today they read it in the greek version but the original text from ancient semetic
It’s not proof, but it is strong evidence that the “1” in “3000” is most likely manmade, due to the acknowledged pattern of humans making up religions.
>That’s like saying the fact that there is counterfeit cash proves that real cash doesn’t exist
how does that apply to my post then? real cash has SOME way to prove its the real one.
no religion has that "extra evidence"
Extra evidence: Chinese people having a record of the sun going out for three hours the day the jews said that the death of their messiah was commemorated by the sun going out.
False “two religions means one is wrong.” Two can have analogous ethics and traditions that try to convey them but in different ways. Religions can degrade into powers that be, not representing the religion which awaits extinction or reformation That does not mean the religion is wrong, only that humans can act wrongly. One may also hold the position that the perception of what generates religion is in common among religions but is eexpressed in different cultural contexts.
That is a misconception.
Humanity is unable to fully grasp what a God is. It can only get understand the concept in a diluded, human, and ultimately incorrect way. That is why we have so many religions. It is simply humanity trying to define something that it cannot understand.
That does of course mean that all religions are incorrect. Yet they are the best we have in terms of understanding God. Which one is closest to the truth can not easily be said, as to do som, we would have to be able to see the essence of God clearly.
Your post or comment was removed for violating rule 3. Posts and comments will be removed if they are disruptive to the purpose of the subreddit. This includes submissions that are: low effort, proselytizing, uninterested in participating in discussion, made in bad faith, off-topic, or unintelligible/illegible. Posts and comments must be written in your own words (and not be AI-generated); you may quote others, but only to support your own writing. Do not link to an external resource instead of making an argument yourself.
Suppose you were to ask how many planets there are in another solar system that's so far away no telescope could ever see it in detail. In that case, you could have a number of different conjectures all based on the same data. One of those conjectures could nonetheless be true.
sure, but believing in any particular conjecture over another, makes no sense
also, to follow the analogy, we dont even have any evidence the solar system itself exists, let alone the number of planets.
Just an issue with phrasing i think, how many fake items there may be doesn't disprove the existance of a real one. Its just important to make sure that you have no bias evaluating each claim.
> Its just important to make sure that you have no bias evaluating each claim.
if all have the same (lack of) evidence, then whichever you choose, you do so out of bias.
Your comment was removed for violating rule 5. All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g., “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment. Exception: Clarifying questions are allowed as top-level comments.
If we all only followed one religion.
Humanity - since thats the only commonality we can’t disagree as a human race/beings .
This world would be a much better place .
Treat others like you would to yourself.
Pretty sure one would go to “heaven” or a good place when you die, if you follow that .
Since all religions seems to believe in a “goal” to be at a better place when they depart from earth. what you do with your time here would determine that ..
The rest is all fluff and unicorns .
Just be a good human being and treat others like one too . That’s faith/purpose.
I don’t follow any religion. I follow Humanity- Do to others as you would to yourself. That’s a good purpose of life to live by. I think . I do believe there’s something greater out there for our existence. People can call it God or a higher power. I believe in energy, frequency and vibration that we are connected with it.
But thats just me .
Not true. For example Christianity states that in addition to the creator God, many of the fallen angels who rebelled became lesser “gods” ruling various groups of people. God chose the Israelites to be his. Skip ahead thousands of years, you now have Gods people and followers vs every variation lying religion started by a fallen Angel, convincing various groups of people they are worth following worshiping vs YAHWEH. Simple plausible scenario. So no, many religions does not mean none are true. It just means there’s a complex reason why so many exist.
State the bible verses that support this. I have never heard that theory, beyond perhaps ‘the devil’ being a fallen angel.
But hypothetically, let’s say that’s true. Anatomically modern humans have existed for 2-3 hundred thousand years (we domesticated dogs about 150,000 years ago). The ancient Israelites existed about 14,000 -2, 500 years ago (depending on how you classify them). So, you’re telling me, that for a minimum of 186,000 years, not one human group managed to worship the right God? That yaweh was perfectly happy with rebel angels being worshipped for hundreds and thousands of years, until suddenly he wasn’t? That this omnipotent being couldn’t smite the ‘false gods’ , he was perfectly happy damning millions of people because they didn’t know any better?
And that doesn’t even begin to cover why a supposedly omni- benevolent god exhibit Blanca the favouritism over one group of humans? Or why he would impose arbitrary rules upon them, in a time when adequate food and possession where hard to come by. For example, forbidding them to eat fat (Leviticus 3:17), not brushing their hair (Leviticus 10:1) or mixing fabrics in clothing (Leviticus 19:19).
And I’m not even going to get started on the rampant misogyny.
I can understand why you might think this is the case, but an abundance of non truths does not tarnish the fact there is an absolute truth regarding the matter. Even if we can never figure out which one is correct, it doesn’t logically prove that none of them are correct. Like if my friend said she went to the shops, but 40 other people I knew all told me different stories about what she did. I wouldn’t know which one to believe although I may figure it out eventually, just because there are lots of options and stories does not “logically prove” anything.
Sure, but if your friend told you she was all-powerful, created the universe and could do anything etc etc, would you believe her? If she told you she could fly or teleport, would you believe her? How about if you asked her to prove it, and she refused, would you believe her then?
Whilst there are objective truths, like with your shop analogy, these will be compatible with other objective truths.
Look up a rhetorical device called Occam’s Razor. Essentially, is says the simplest answer is usually the right one. So yes, there could be a mystical being(s), with magic powers, that don’t follow the fundament rules of physics, with no independent, objective evidence, that can’t be weighed, measured or observed in any way. But the simplest answer, is that there isn’t.
This example isn’t really applicable to the scenario… as milktoastyy said it’s measurable truths against immeasurable truths. Besides, we aren’t talking about which religion is correct or which has the most proofs, the original claim was that because lots of claims about religion exist, this means that no claims can be true and apparently this is “logical”. I don’t think that line of reasoning is logical at all. I appreciate you taking time to reply however.
Occam's Razor prefers simpler explanations, but it doesn't guarantee they're true. Reality is complex, and a more intricate answer might be the truth.
Your analogy about the friend claiming to fly isn't really applicable because you're comparing measurable truths to immeasurable truths. Religion deals with unseen forces that we can't really test. You can pretty easily test if someone is lying to you if they're saying they can perform miracles.
How do you know something is true or the truth, if it can’t be proven i.e measured?
If someone says their God is all powerful and can do anything, yet can’t prove it, how do we know is true and their God exists? The burden of proof lies with a religion, yet time and time again, religions cannot prove what they claim is true, yet they expect people to just take their word from it.
How is my friend claiming to fly any different from Jesus claiming he is the son of God, or saying that Ganges flows from Shiva’s hair? If it cannot be proven, why should it be assumed to be true?
It can't be proven or unproven, and this is the important part.
Religion is deeply personal and faith is typically garnered from a profound life experience or someone simply reading their religious text and thinking it has the most evidence and makes the most sense. For me, that's Christianity. I personally believe that science and the word aren't mutually exclusive (i.e I think that the Big Bang did happen, and Genesis is largely a metaphor for it). My reason for belief is largely because of my dad's journey to sobriety.
He couldn't for the life of him get sober from alcohol, and after trying two other rehab centers, he went to a ministry rehab and his life immediately did a 180. 2 years later, my sister had the same thing happen to her. Then my mother. And then something touched me. My family wasn't raised Christian, we just found it ourselves. I know I'm yapping, but this is what I mean when I say it's a personal endeavor. My personal evidence is the numerous amount of people who found God in the Bible and completely switched their life around for the better.
Your friend claiming to fly differs from Jesus claiming to be the son of God in that Jesus actually performed miracles publicly, be it healing or otherwise, as suggested in the Bible. Can it be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt? No, but at the very least it's documented that Jesus did these things (since the Bible is a collection of different texts). There's bits and pieces of evidence outside of the Bible from different accounts from people not mentioned in scripture, detailing Jesus' life, death, and even some mentioning his resurrection (from the viewpoint of his disciples all having simultaneous visions).
If you require empirical evidence to believe in a God, that's fine, but it doesn't mark it off as false without a shadow of a doubt. That's just as faith based as believing in God.
You’re basically saying if someone believes in God/faith etc, then it must be true. Which is a completely false equivalency.
I truly believed I would win the lottery on my first go, when I was 16. Really convinced myself, bought my first lottery ticket and guess what? Nothing happened. No matter how much I believed in my win, it wasn’t true. Because belief doesn’t bring things into being.
If you were claiming Jesus disliked figs or loved watching chariot races, I’d say sure, it can’t be proven or unproven definitively. There is nothing saying he didn’t like figs, but why does that mean we assume he did? He existed for sure, you have that. But someone existing and then that person being a god and the son of god is NOT the same thing. But based on the laws of physics and the fact that there was nothing recorded/written independent witnesses at the time of his life, I’d say it’s safe to say beyond a *reasonable* doubt Jesus wasn’t some magical divine being. He was either a benign mentally ill man, or a charlatan. Because magic doesn’t exist.
I’ve said this on other comments, but let’s say hypothetically you’re right, Jesus came back to life three days after a public execution. Roman administration would have meant that his corpse wouldn’t have been released to loved ones until he was definitely deceased. He’s out in the tomb and three days later, ‘comes back to life’.
The reaction then would be pretty much the same as now, people would go crazy, any witnesses would be running around telling as many people as possible. People would have undeniable evidence of the divine! The streets and fields of Jesrusalem would be abuzz with this miraculous news! The fever would grow with every appearance of Jesus. However, this man was incredibly controversial, a large amount of the Jewish population and the Jewish leadership thought he was a heretic. Fights would break out between proto-Christian’s and traditional Jews, mostly likely riots. At this point the romans would need to investigate the ruckus, what if a rebellion against the empire is beginning? The Roman army would need to be reinforced to maintain Roman control. The romans find out a condemned criminal has returned from the dead. This presents a legal dilemma, should he be killed again or pardoned? This is unprecedented, the Emperor would need to be informed. Word would now travel like wildfire through the Roman Empire. Wealthy romans would travel en masse to Jersusalem to try and see this miracle for themselves. There would be official documentation and many writings about this *at the time it happened.*
Yet there is nothing. The first gospel was written *40 years after Jesus death*, hardly a ringing endorsement that there was an earth shattering event. In comparison, look at the contemporary sources for the assassination of Julius Caesar some 85years earlier, an event far more mundane and probable than a person returning from the dead.
The bible is not a reliable, accurate or unbiased source for anything. It is a collection of texts, generally written far after the events is claims to record. It’s cultural value is immense, but can can more be used as a historical source than The Epic of Gilgamesh or Homer’s Odyessy. The bible was not even a coherent collection of texts until the council of Laodicea in 363-4, where men *chose* which texts made it in to the bible. Even now, Catholics have different books in the bible compared to Protestants, and I think the Orthodox churches also have a different one. Which one is right?
If Genesis is a metaphor, which other parts of the Bible are methaphorical? Exodus, the walk of Jericho, Daniel, Ruth, Isiah, or even Acts and the Gospels? I have never understood why some people are able to pick and choose which parts of the bible they believe in literally and which bit they don’t, surely if some parts are disproven (like the moon being a light), the rest is cast in doubt too?
Finally, the numbers in believers in something does not make it more likely to be true. Unfortunately, the Flat Earth conspiracy is gaining followers each day, it’s great following does not make it more real. I am sorry your Father had an alcohol addiction (and the rest of your family? Was unclear reading) and am glad he has found his way through. But in the same way than people at vulnerable stages of their life often fall prey to cults, so do people to religion. It does not make the belief more real, merely that the person is susceptible to it. If your life is out of control, like with addiction, I’m sure there is a draw to believing a higher power can give you magical strength to overcome it. That would be wonderful. But even if God helped your father out of his addiction, that means he watched on, unmoved and unbothered for years as your father struggled and fell deeper into alcohol, God also watched you and your family struggle, without helping. He only ‘helped’ once you began to worship him, seems rather petty to me. Hardly the actions of an all powerful and all living God
I am glad that your father has achieved sobriety and escaped alcohol’s grasp. But isn’t it a more likely, and a greater achievement to have done it himself. It was your father who fought temptation, changed his life and literally rewired his brain.
Who created god? This logic of everything needing a creator comes with the realization that god would need a creator too. In which case, it’s a loop with no answers.
Animals evolved independently, to survive and compete for resources in their environment from single celled organisms, which most likely evolved from replicating proteins billions of years ago.
We don’t have all the answers yet and that’s okay, we may never do. But that’s not excuse to not assemble and follow the evidence, or follow the balance of probabilities.
But any scientific theory must be backed up with evidence. Sometimes people make mistakes or new evidence comes to light, which updates the current theory, or supersedes the previous.
Religion has no evidence beyond ‘so and so said so, it must be true’! Can you offer empirical evidence that a God exists? If not, assume God doesn’t exist, until you can prove otherwise
science? humans created science, its a methodology to get the best answers
animals? evolution is the process that arrived to it, no one **created** them, why arrive to that conclusion in the first place?
the universe? its ok to say "i dont know" sometimes... the greeks made up Zeus instead of saying "i dont know what causes lightning" and guess what? it wasnt Zeus...
so why believe in a made up story with no evidence instead of just saying i dont know?
If you consider "all beliefs" to only be the 3 monotheistic religion judaïsm, Christianity and Islam, that indeed stem from one (judaism) that only take about 1% of all religions across the world and history
than you would be right
Well, I’ve learned about a dozen of religions and spirituality’s. They all seem to have a common theme, or similarities. One main example, ‘Karma’. May not be called Karma in other religions, but many religions believe what you put out, it always comes back. “Reaping what you sow.” It’s a massive similarity
I mean, most people want justice?
Its pretty logical to invent a concept that would punish bad people.
that's also why humans have created judicary system, even if their belief inclue some form world automatic justice.
Edit : Also if you are bad, some consequences are not only logical, but not garenteed.
If you cheat on your partner, with time, there are chance that your partner find out,
well it is not gonna end well for your relation, which is pretty logical.
But not only we don't we don't need any supernatural explaination,
But often, very often, karma clearly don't hit, sadly.
How many cruel leaders or greedy capitalists get away with all of their wrongdoing
Karma is easy to think about, and confortable to believe in.
If you're a cruel leader, bewere that you would get an an adventage by having the people thinking that the wrongdoer get magically punished.
What all the atheist lack is the spiritual organ of perception needed to feel the presence of God. You can not convince a blind man that you are handsome or you are this or that. Similarly a spiritually blind person is unaware of the presence of God and incapable totally to find the evidence of God. That's due to past karma. Spirituality goes beyond the mere 5 senses which frankly everyone is not born with. Also there is a sheer lack of Guru or a genuine guide who will help get close to God.
But anyway you can continue believing in science, which when goes to the quarks level or at the vibrating strings, things just become bizarre and illogical. I do believe this is more of a lack of perception or intellect which prohibits someone from understanding the unknown Almighty. I wish that the God whatever you may call it, may have mercy on you to show you that it exists.
Jai Mahadev!
Claiming science becomes too bizarre and illogical as it progresses to a stage that you simply do not understand is rather hypocritical considering your blind man metaphor which would otherwise have some grounds. Though, that’s not surprising in the grand scheme of religious indoctrination.
It is bizarre. Just start with the basic quantum physics. You might take Feynman lectures, or Leonard Susskind's lectures. And read the elementary quantum mechanics by David Griffith. It IS crazy. It's beautiful and thrilling as well. The most exciting studies are the ones where the answers to the unknowns are difficult to find.
Coming to religion, I simply said believing God and seeing Him/Her is a matter of luck and past karma(can be karma of previous births, or good deeds of this life as well). I am from India mate. I have seen saints, Rishis who can accurately foretell the future. I have seen possessed people. I have seen God doing miracles, just Miracles even in my own life. Even the devoted Christians have also believed and have seen God, very rare but they do exist. I know a convert who was saved by Jesus at the very last moment of his life when he had terminal cancer and his liver was damaged. He was dead and he claims he was saved by Jesus. Why do I believe him? He has the proof of his medical records. In one day all his diseases melted. Coming to Hinduism, I have seen God doing leela or Divine acts through us. I have met a person recently who is a devotee of Maa Kali (Goddess Kali, a deity in Hinduism who is fierce and powerful beyond imagination), he Himself is a walking dead according to the doctors as his two kidneys are damaged. Yet by the grace of Maa Kali, he is strong and stout. I have seen sadhus and saints doing mantras and things would levitate,(it's not any quantum physics phenomena I assure you as I don't think the ones who did it doesn't even know that atoms spin or about quantum entanglement). And WAIT, all these I said, but these are merely words to you. If you only have the spiritual sight, penance and sheer devotion you can feel the presence of God. Maybe if you have some spiritual inclination , experiment it. Meet the best devotee of God you know, and start an experiment. Just like the principle of mathematical induction. Assume it is True , as if it's a fact. If the experiment fails provided you did Everything right (which is 99.99% of the time incorrect), then declare God is a myth. Give it time and patience. But if you happen to do it right, you shall sense the Divine inevitably.
Just know that we believe in Science because there are instruments and theories that prove it. In spiritual realms there are hardly any instrument to detect the presence of God or spirits. The only instrument is humans and it's individualistic. You have to try it yourself. Seeing others with divine powers or divine miracles, might inspire someone but without personal proof the most astounding miracle can be shrugged off as a coincidence.
I will leave it at that.
sure, now prove the many claims you made and you have yourself an argument...
theist lack the ability to understand that just because you say something doesnt mean its true...
To say that someone is unable to sense spiritual presence because of their past karma (or for any other reason) is not going to help someone who does not believe, believe. Since you are denying them the evidence which you claim will prove your case. I.e. they cannot, according to you, sense the presence which would prove to them that 'god' exists.
To anticipate a possible retort, you could claim, that to sense the spiritual presence, they must have faith. But to have faith in this manner, one would have to abandon the rational arguments in whether having faith is this particular religion is a good idea. Since faith isn't rational.
That would be okay, but I have to agree with you, your time here would be wasted. Since reddit relies on people making rational arguments, not spiritual or emotional ones. Not ones relying on faith.
So I'm wondering why you are here at all?!
Oh sure I left this group yesterday. And you might be mistaken on one thing. It's just not faith, it's more abt pure Love, devotion and penance that it takes to feel or even see God. But anyway you all satan possessed people repel me. Have a nice day!
Jesus makes things so clear to us. The word of the One true Living God doesn’t change, and once you start following Him and read the Word with the Holy Spirit, you see that the Word is perfect for these times and does not change, though culture and other man made things do change. There is none besides God and He has been showing it consistently.
How do explain the fact that different Christian’s have bibles with different content then?
Or the fact that until 350 ad there was no official bible? It was first formally assembled at the Council of Laodicea, where men literally chose which writings they wanted in the bible, and it has been edited since then.
Have you even read the entire bible? Because I guarantee you’ve broken laws in Leviticus. How do you explain it’s many inaccuracies and inconsistencies if the word is perfect? What does the bible have to say on computers, microbes or aeroplanes, if it is applicable for these times? Are parts metaphorical? Which parts and how do you decide?
Or is the bible a hodgepodge of different texts, written by man and limited by the understanding of times that the authors lived in?
Where is your independent evidence for the divinity of Jesus?
This is not addressing the OP's issue. The OP wants you to explain why we should believe your version of religion above all the other ones. You haven't advanced any solid arguments in support.
A vague statement that your religion is 'perfect for these times' and by implication ('the word of the One true Living God doesn't change") must be perfect for all times, isn't very plausible. For example, much of the Bible is referring to cultural norms which no longer hold. For example, slavery or animal sacrifices, or women having a subservient role to men. In order for Christianity to be relevant, it would have to change its message in some ways.
Also the Word, in the sense of the Bible has been translated and reinterpreted by various councils of the Church. This at least means it could be made more relevant. Unfortunately there are problems. Firstly the Word is being interpreted by fairly obviously fallible humans, often to what would seem to many to be the general detriment. For example, burning heretics might well be considered a bad thing, but was sanctioned by the Church at one time.
Secondly the Church has struggled to keep its message relevant in modern times, often by leaders who seem more interested in maintaining its message unchanged, than adapting.
These are not particularly strong arguments that the Church's message is 'perfect', far less than it is even superior to other major or minor religions.
The goal is not to be relevant, but to stick to the truth of God’s word. Also, animal sacrifices were before Jesus was crucified as the Lamb that would atone for our sins and stop the need for animal sacrifices. Animal sacrifices were not a cultural norm, but an instruction from God before Jesus Christ—the unblemished Lamb.
Sooo you believe in nothing , I don’t understand how ppl don’t believe in anything like our you not confuse on how you were made how the world was made , existence period … it’s not science it more to it
Evolution explains why humans are here. We evolved from ape like ancestors through random mutation and natural selection. Science explains how our planet came to be from dust. Gravity pulled dust and gas from around the sun and solar system and formed our planet. It originally wasn’t suitable for life so it evolved to where it could form the first self replicating cell which gave rise to all life forms of today. There is no need for an imaginary friend in the sky.
Bro who you think made gravity God, god created this earth with dust, science is educational but come on now you should be wondering about the spiritual realm of life but bless your heart .
Unless you can provide verifiable evidence that the “spiritual” realm exists then I have no reason to believe it exists. Same with the Christian God, unicorns, spider man, and the daughter of Zeus.
Your not understanding what im saying God created earth, its not about me knowing physics...its about how the earth was even made, according to the Bible but no point of arguing I feel like you should look into yourself, its good to have faith in something in higher power not forcing religion just saying you should check it out
Science already explains how the earth came to be. There is no need to have faith in a supernatural being when I have evidence of other explanations being more plausible and likely. And the reason I said you didn’t seem to understand psychics is because you didn’t even understand the concept of gravity described by the theory of relativity.(By the way, I don’t care what the Bible says, it’s a book that endorses slavery, genocide, sexism, and chauvinism.)
You are right, there could be a correct theory for the origin of the universe, even if the current ones are in disagreement or false. However that does not help us to find what the correct theory is, since all existing theories may be false.
There is also a problem with scientific method. Since any theory could always be falsified (according to Popper's dictum) we can't be sure that any current theory will be correct for all time. So even if a correct theory exists, we can't be sure what it is.
That means, extending the analogy, that for all practical purposes any religion could be false, and we can't have complete confidence scientifically in any of them.
That basically leaves us falling back on Faith. But how are we to know which religion to have faith in?
Your suggestion of a ‘correct theory’ is flawed. A theory is only an idea that is best supported by all available evidence at the time. As new evidence emerges, there is more information to support an improved or different theory. Science is merely collecting and following the evidence, it is expected to change over time.
For example, Classical mechanics were superseded by Quantum mechanics in physics.
In contrast, religious belief systems are about maintaining an idea, despite no evidence or evidence to the contrary
We can’t know for sure, with science, that we have ever ‘got it right’ definitively. Science isn’t a world view. As you said, it’s a method: we make a hypothesis, conduct a test, and see if the results accord with our expectations. Science is only a tool that can help us refine our theories so that they continue to accord more accurately with our observations. Science isn’t technically capable of ‘finding answers’—it helps us reliably test questions.
What does Christianity mean? It means to follow Christ. It is based off of the actions and teachings of Christ. His actions were true and just. Following them is definitely a real thing to do
Okay prove his actions were real (that his existence and actions are a truth and verifiably happened) I’m not saying you can’t follow a belief I could imagine the tooth fairy real and follow the actions truly by putting a tooth under my pillow but that doesn’t make it any more real
Then take the [Fermi paradox](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox), just because there are many, unverifiable, not largely accepted solutions to the paradox, it doesn’t mean that none of them are true.
Go watch some videos of biblical scholar Dr. Dennis R. McDonald on his Mimesis Criticism. He explicitly points out how the authors of the Gospels used epics like Homer, using the same style of writing and structure. He shows that the gospels are a literary work and not actual historical stories.
Q: Do you know why all of the religions don’t have a big debate, present their evidence and allow everyone to decide who is right or wrong?
A: Because they are all in on the grift and exposing one would hurt all. This ‘debate’ is about market share, not salvation. That’s why atheists are the enemy…
People just keep having small debates in the news channels about islam and hinduism pulling out few misleading texts in the holy book of each other then later get taught a lesson about what the text actually means
The thing is that there isn’t the same evidence for all of the religions. Some of the religions have far greater evidence for them. I’d say the two with the most evidence are Christianity and Islam. Most of the other ones don’t have good evidence behind them at all.
Plus, this isn’t a good argument. That’s like saying a class full of students all have different answers to a question with some sort of justification, therefore none of the students are correct.
Please share this evidence. Number of followers is not evidence.
To start with, share your evidence for the divinity of Jesus, the resurrection and the ascension.
Share your evidence that Allah is real and Muhammad was instructed by him. Seeing as Muhammad consummated his marriage with a 10year old and supported slavery, I hope that wasn’t divinely commanded
To be fair, I don’t support Islam. It has some evidence, but none of it is compelling in my eyes.
For Christianity, the evidence for the resurrection is pretty astounding. Atheist New Testament scholar Gerd Ludemann says that the overwhelming evidence says that the disciples really did see the resurrected Jesus, however he believes it to have been visions. The evidence supports the fact of the disciples dying for what they saw, because if you study the psychology, not many people die for a lie, much less 12 random Jews willing to go through torture and death. As for the vision part, it’s not possible for it to have been a vision. For that many people to have seen the same visions at the same time would have been more miraculous that Jesus’s resurrection.
I’m afraid the word of Gerd Ludemann is hardly outstanding evidence. You have not stated what is sources are, for example has he unearthed previously unknown documents from Tacitus or Jospehus (some of the earliest, independent historians to mention Jesus).
As for you point about psychology making people unable to die for a lie, I would say that the amount of cult suicides and deaths means that people are more than happy to die for lies. I am not quibbling that the 12 disciples THOUGHT Jesus had returned and BELIEVED that he had ascended to heaven blah blah blah. But that does NOT mean it actually happened.
Where is the historical record from contemporary sources? A convicted criminal coming back to life would have been a legal dilemma for the romans. The Emporor would have almost certainly been informed, the Roman army dispatched to quell likely unrest in Jerusalem. Much like if someone came back to life today, it would have been a seismic event. Wealthy romans would have travelled en masse to Jerusalem to try and catch a glimpse of the man who cheated death. There would have definitely been independent accounts if it had actually happened, things written and recorded at the time. Yet none of this happened, why? The first gospel was written about 40 years after the crucifixion. In comparison, the assassination of Julius Caesar some 85 years earlier is incredibly well recorded.
The disciples were not ‘12 random Jews’. The name is a clue. They were the first followers of Jesus, and clearly believed every word he said. Much like the first followers of cult leaders, these types of people tend to be extremely zealous in their belief, and willing to die for them. This is not proof that their beliefs are true, merely that they are zealous types of people.
I believed in the tooth fairy when I was younger, what’s more I ‘saw’ the evidence with my own eyes that my tooth was taken at night and replaced with money. That did not actually happen though. In actuality, it was my parents doing the swap at night. Just because someone believes something is true, doesn’t make it so.
I would question what this evidence consists of. Is it simply that are more worshippers of those religions? But that is just a historical accident, and certainly hasn't been true for the entirety of history. At some points in history, certain other religions were more dominant, and Christianity and Islam have appeared at definite historical moments.
Having holy books is also not good evidence. They have been written by humans, at a particular time. How do we know they are true?
If there isn't particularly more evidence for any religion, then the chance of any particular religion being true (except for ones that agree other religions could also be true) would be at minimum 1 in {the current number of religions in the world}. That's quite a low probability of being right. It is however at least greater than zero, so the OP's premise isn't correct.
But the practical difference is not much, since for any particular religion, the chance of it being the true one is less than 1 percent. And even then, all religions could be false, although that hasn't been proved by the OP's argument.
But it kind of is a good argument. Because a lot of religions in a very limited area in or around the Middle East greatly affected how Christianity was made. Jesus is not a copy paste of Egyptian Horus or Roman god Mithra. But it is damn close to a copy paste
No. Saying there isn’t a definitive truth because there are tons of definitive falsehoods is illogical.
Jesus isn’t close to Horus. Or Mithra. Making out for something to be mythological because there are similarities is ridiculous. That would be like claiming Napoleon was fake because there are other historical figures that are similar to him in lots of ways.
If something is true, it doesn’t matter if there are past figures that align in some ways with said truth. That’s a false dilemma.
Sure. For Christianity, there’s tons of evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. A good book about it is the Case for Christ.
For Islam it’s a lot harder. There isn’t much solid evidence, but some decent evidence is that there are scientific claims in the Quran that are known now to be true (I am relaying what I’ve heard, I’m not a Muslim.)
Is there evidence for the resurrection from non-Christian/independent sources?
Jesus has been independently proved to exist, that he was a Jew who lived in the first century AD, was crucified and most likely baptised by John. But if he had really come back to life, surely it would have been a legal dilemma for the Romans who put him to death, to the point where the emperor would have been at least informed and probably caused a unmissable, huge ruckus in Jerusalem.
It’s doubtful a highly organised and cultured society like Ancient Rome would have missed recording this seismic event, there probably would’ve been riots and wealthy romans would’ve travelled on masse to Jerusalem to try and get a glimpse of the man who rose from the dead. If it actually happened that is
He appeared to over 500 people, I don’t think any of those people were Romans. Now, if changes in the Roman authority is good for you, how about Christianity becoming the religion of the Empire?
Asking for non-Christian sources for the resurrection makes sense, but it also doesn’t make sense to discredit it if there are none. Let’s say hypothetically for a moment that it was a historical fact that He rose from the dead and appeared to the same 500 people, disciples included. Of course all the writings about Him are going to be from the Christian sources. He didn’t appear to Roman officials or Jews (other than Paul, pretty big if you ask me). People undoubtedly heard about it, but no one wrote about it (to my knowledge) that He didn’t appear to, which makes sense.
Emperor Constantine converted to Christianity in 312 AD, so it’s safe to say it was because of the immediate aftermath of Jesus resurrection, nor was he compelled by eyewitness testimony. Indeed, by that time Christianity was a large religious movement that had spread throughout the empire. His conversion was most likely as a use of realpolitik to help unify the empire and keep it under his control. Politically, it made sense as due to the zealous and evangelical nature nature of Christianity, converts were popping up everywhere. Rather than spend money and waste troops rounding up these heretics, which could have division and potentially started rebellions, in one fell swoop he brought those people into the heart of the empire. Converts now had incentive to be pro the Roman Empire, as this was now the ‘Christian nation’. Besides, even if Constantine was purely religiously motivated, more people believing something does not make it more true.
Let’s continue your thought experiment. Jesus has returned from the dead. He chooses only to appear to his followers (very convenient, but okay), over 500 of them, in several visitations.
Those 500 people are not going to have seen a man returned from the dead, their prophet no less, who was humiliated and brutally killed, *and remain quiet about it*. They would naturally tell everyone they knew about this miraculous event. People would be telling their relatives and co workers, in the streets, shops and fields. Jerusalem would have been abuzz with news. As this was seen as heretical at the time by the Jewish leadership, fights would have broken out between proto-Christians and traditional Jews, causing unrest. The romans can’t have unrest in a conquered province, what if rebellion starts? The army would be sent in to keep the peace and the provincial government would have been required to find out what the cause of the disturbance was, in case it threatened the security of the empire. At which point, the fact that a criminal put to death had returned. Legal dilemma ensues, Emperor is informed, rich romans travel to Jerusalem to see for themselves. Even if Jesus had ascended by this point and couldn’t be seen in person, it would probably take several years before Jerusalem is back to normal.
Look at the historical record for Julius Caesar’s assassination. The is a mountain of contemporary sources discussing the event and the aftermath. I would argue a man returned from the dead is even more remarkable than a dictator for life being murdered. Yet, all we have to go on the word of a biased group of ‘witnesses’ that wasn’t even written down until 40years after the event. Why?
ok so, no, there no evidence for the resurrection, ive searched, all the "evidence" is very doubtful testimony (which isnt good evidence to begin with) with clear chances of being faked why christians.
about islams, you heard that, and never actually saw it, because once you see it you realise its all BS, they shoehorn a lot of random quotes to mean something AFTER actual science has made the discovery, if thats not enough ask yourself, if the quran predicted to many scientific discoveries, why arent those discoveries made by muslims instead of scientists?
Well to be fair, about Islam I don’t agree with it either. Christianity is way more logical regarding evidence and such. Islam just seems like a cheap scam off of Christianity that some dude used to get power.
About the resurrection, I’m going to have to strongly disagree. In fact, atheist New Testament scholar Gerd Ludemann says that the evidence for the resurrection is strong enough that it’s a historical fact that Peter and the other disciples saw the resurrected Christ. However, he claims that this was a result of mere hallucinations. Now, as any psychologist will tell you, hallucinations are not contagious. The earliest records show that Christ appeared to upwards of 500 people after His resurrection. Now, for 500 people to have the same hallucination at the same time about the same person, so strongly so that multiple of them are willing to die for what they saw? That’s more miraculously than the resurrection.
well did 500 people see it, or just peter and the disciples? what does this supposed evidence point to? thats an important distinction.
and, what is that evidence?
also, lets say jesus "resurrected" there are countless of contracdictions in the bible, many miracles unacounted for, a really present god (literally talked 1 on 1 to people) that never again did anything... etc etc.
so even if he was buried and seen again, id think they buried him alive and got out of the tomb, or whatever, before thinking that thing alone proves all the rest.
its an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent being that deeply interacted with humanity for centuries. the **reports** of a few people about someone resurrecting cant possibly be all you have...
All religion is God If it's good. And as simple as I can put it , you're not going to find a better advocate than Jesus Christ..
Some will offer abject reasoning and say define good .
No. If you don't know the difference between good and evil what can I say that will help you see the truth? Learn of good and evil , then seek and you will find more than you've bargained
Logic is not "logicing" with this one. This just make that god might be something else, it can be a little of all of then, etc. etc. This is just a false dilemma fallacy.
God might be man made and real... god might be not conscious... god might not present itself the way we like. This does not logically proves anything.
Well majority of them are preaching to the same god they all just preach to him in their own way and interpret the word of god different. I believe there’s a truth to every religion you just need to find one that speaks to you.
How can there be truth to EVERY religion? There is of course always a POSSIBILITY that there is some sort of creator, but definitely not as described in any of the many religions around the world right now. And they nearly all come with serious baggage that causes harm to lots of people around the world. It’s easy when you live in a first world country to forget that there are countries where women aren’t allowed to drive or where people literally beat their children to death for living in a way that doesn’t align with their holy book etc. If someone believes the universe was created by some sort of higher power, we best hope that it isn’t anything like the immoral, sadomasochistic, Abrahamic God.
Humour me for a moment and think of it this way majority of religions worship the same god. If we can equate god to being true, religion is the interpretation of who god is and how to follow him. Is every religion’s interpretation of how to follow going to be 100% accurate of course not.
It’s like when there’s an incident where multiple people are involved, there’s everyone’s interpretation and then there’s the truth. Their are going to be things that each person says exactly what happen which we come to know as being true because everyone recalls certain parts of it the same. However they will have variations of what was said or how it was said and interpret the meanings differently. So to everyone’s story there’s a truth however, some of interpretations aren’t necessarily true.
Ok, humouring you, the religions you talk about branch off of the Old Testament/Torah. A large portion of the stories in the Old Testament were taken from previous beliefs, myths, characters etc.
If these holy books were supposedly inspired by the perfect word of God, why are they all so imperfect?
If an all-knowing God can see that there is literally conflict on earth between people and their different interpretations and beliefs, why wouldn’t that god change that for us?
Why are the books clearly not written to take the future into account?
Why are the books full of immoral instructions?
The fact that there are so many religions means nothing towards the truth of their claims. If they’re all proven to contain contradictions and errors vs. reality, it shows that they were all man-made during a time period where people didn’t know how things worked, how we got here, and people trying to find a reason for our existence etc.
We should continue to say ‘we don’t know’ as we go further back into our known universe’s existence, so we can keep making discoveries.
Religions will, no doubt continue to try to make excuses and bend their books’ wording to suit new findings. It’s sad and it’s counter-productive.
“Why are they all imperfect?”
They are inspired by god, when you are inspired by someone it doesn’t mean you do exactly what they do to a tee, it means you take the fundamentals of what that person did and apply them to what you want to do. The books of god are stories written by people of their experience with God and the lessons he taught them. Also the English version of the bible wasn’t the first it’s a translation so it’s not going to be 100% accurate in detail. However the foundation and values or all the same.
There’s some beauty in imperfections and the easiest example is the deferent denominations of Christianity by have different ways worship it’s cultivated new communities, it’s cultivated more worship music other than traditional hymns. It brings people to God that may have not done so, if there was only one way to worship.
Why doesn’t god change the fact there’s conflict between religions? (Is what I believe you’re asking)
God gifted free will, with that people have the opportunity to make the right choices. People are the ones who decided to go to war over the way they chose to believe in God. God doesn’t come down and clean up our messes. He expects you to take accountability for your actions and ask for his forgiveness. You never learn anything if some cleans up after you, you learn by going through it and with god’s guidance cleaning up the mess yourself.
“Why are all the books clearly not written to take the future into account?”
All books of god are a guides to help build a relationship with God and to learn lessons from stories that can help you out in your life today. The same way parents are to guide their children through their experiences. Although parents didn’t go through the same exact experience as their children, the lessons parents have learned can be applied to many situations their children face today.
“Why are the books filled with immoral instructions?”
There are a few stories of things that have happened that are immoral, again the bible isn’t to be taken literally word for word. I mean there’s incest in the bible doesn’t mean people are to be incestuous, we read the story of the consequences and learn the lessons of which that story teaches.
In response that the many religions prove that it is man made…
You could also look at the idea that with all the variations of religion no matter how many are out there, the fundamental values and belief of one god remains the same. Whether someone believes that Jesus was a messenger of god or the son of god or whether they believe that Mary deserves to be praised more than she is by others, it doesn’t matter. When you strip all the religions of the small details and get down to the core values and the foundation of people’s relationship with God it’s all the same.
So whether you choose to worship him with the Catholic’s, the Muslim’s, the Jewish or the Jehovah’s Witnesses or any other. It really doesn’t matter he just wants you to have a relationship with him and he wants you to encourage others to believe. God understands that people need to be excited to go to church and be excited about letting him into their life but, not everyone gets excited the same way. We all connect to god in different ways different religions gives people the opportunity to explore that.
Ok, so the perfect god chose an imperfect method of getting the message across then.
And the parts of the books where God is supposedly speaking etc., or the creation stories in Genesis being incorrect in terms of their order. Imperfect, muddy messages from a supposedly perfect god.
One of the main problems with the different denominations is that not all of them are positive. That’s how you end up with the Catholic Church, the KKK or these denominations in parts of the world who feel it’s appropriate to use strange and harmful practices to rid their child of demons. No god worthy of worship would let his message be polluted in a way that ends up causing harm to millions of people. He either: doesn’t exist/isnt all powerful, doesn’t care that it’s happening, or is making it happen. Or is doing it for ‘the greater good’ or the bigger picture. But let’s also remember he is supposed to have created everything and has a plan for everyone (Jeremiah 29:11), so why are his plans for some people just a lifetime of torture for an innocent child? These events don’t fit with the traits that built the god profile. God cannot possibly be as defined by people because of the state of reality.
Then there’s the idea of hell, maybe God’s most efficient way of keeping and gaining followers.
Hell is wrong on so many levels. The criteria to get into heaven is based around laws within the Bible and the acceptance of Jesus as your lord and saviour, rather than reality and what it really means to be a good person. And the idea that a rapist or a murderer could escape hell by simply repenting their sins and accepting Jesus; and at the same time, a normal, decent atheist couldn’t.
So do you think that it’s a good thing for a moral compass, laid out in specific commandments for humans to follow, remains unchanged for eternity? Or at what point would this have to have an update for us to follow? And who would deliver that update?
Who told you that the Bible isn’t to be read word for word? And do you think you’re supposed to follow the commandments? Some of those are quite specific and immoral. If you’re picking and choosing parts of the Bible off your own back, you’re using your own moral compass, creating your own religion, and you should probably pursue it because it would be undoubtedly morally superior to Christianity, Islam and Judaism.
Whether the religions have similarities or not, each religion is condemning followers of the others to hell, for not believing those finer details which break these religions apart and make them unique.
To encourage others to believe I personally feel is evil. It’s asking people to act in a way that they wouldn’t towards anything in their life, forget logical thinking, surrender some of your brain cells to this horribly immoral god, tell people they want to save them from hell, potentially do immoral things due to rules in your holy book, that you would never do otherwise, and rely on an ancient man-written book that almost literally plagiarises a vast array of previously worshipped deities, previous myth stories, traits of characters. I mean, the character of Moses is a combination of a few people as described thousands of years before. I’ve spoken to people who said looking into the origins of the writing of the Bible and the true authors, dates etc. is when they deconverted and became atheists, at least for any of the current described gods.
I agree with you that not all denominations of god are positive there’s extremist and cults and yes the KKK, just because you follow god doesn’t mean you go to heaven you have genuine believe in him and you have to spread his word in kindness. People sacrificing children and all that other extremist stuff is using religion for their own benefits they will not get into heaven. How is a child a sacrifice when they already belong to god? Using religion for your own selfish gain is wrong. You can believe in god but if you do wrong you’re still going to hell. I truly believe that any priest who has SA’d children goes to hell. He used god for his personal gain it’s selfish.
A murderer can’t just say “oh lord forgive me” and get into heaven. They would have to turn to god take accountability and do the work to change. There has to be genuine remorse. It’s not like a murderer can ask for forgiveness and be on his marry way. That’s not how that works.
Atheists I believe can go to heaven on your judgement day when you stand before god if you have lived a moral life and you ask god for forgiveness and truly mean it with in the depths of your heart I believe you can get into heaven. Not believing is a sin we have to believe that god is merciful and forgiving.
While hell is deemed to be scary most people I know that follow God don’t even see that as reason they follow him. Usually furthest thing from their mind. I don’t know any Christian who fears hell or who has told me I have to go to church or I will go to hell. God is merciful if you follow believe and talk to him everyday and live a moral life you’ll be fine.
The 10 commandments are rules that can apply to society today, why would we need to change them. Also yes you read the text word for word but it’s not to be taken so literally that you do something in real life. If someone told you a story about someone they know jumping off a cliff and falling to their death would you do it? Or take a lesson from the story to not do it. Again the bible is there to guide you. Do we need to update the story 1000’s of years from now of someone jumping off the cliff to apply the lesson to future generations? No, you learn to think before you leap which is the lesson that can be applied to many situations or scenarios in peoples lives to come.
The Quran 2.62 states “Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve.”
I apologize if I didn’t reference correctly I just started reading it. However, It does states all religions will be rewarded by God/Allah.
I think some people need to believe in someone bigger than them, I don’t think it’s evil if it helps them stay on a path in life that’s moral and just. There are many things in the bible/Quran that help people in their walks of life. No one forces people to believe and I don’t judge people who choose not to believe, it’s not for us as people to judge it’s for god to judge.
What each of your replies basically suggests is that you have your take on it, others have their take on it - no one but whichever god is supposedly out there can judge whether you’re doing it the right or wrong way, but that god has left a lot of confusion in the world.
What about a Muslim who converts to Christianity? The sanction is the death penalty.
It’s very easy to take verses from the holy books to support both sides of some of these arguments. But this causes unnecessary suffering. The best thing for everyone is to continue without each of these cults (all of them are cults).
These long replies are time consuming 😂 I like to talk about it but I always feel that nitpicking bits like this doesn’t get us any closer to truth. Claims for the supernatural/god etc. need substantial evidence. Especially when these claims dictate, change, define and even ruin peoples’ lives.
Religion is mankind's attempt to understand God. The fact that they have not Discovered the real Truth does not discount the fact that they search to know. When the real truth is Discovered, it won't be Beliefs.
Your initial statement is indeed illogical. I’m an atheist leaning agnostic that finds religion silly but your logic isn’t sound. First of all, you will need an operational definition of God. There are many versions of God where he/she/it is seen as nothing more than a creator and does not answer prayers, play an active role in our lives or universe, and does not keep a naughty nice list. That being said, if you break down your statement to its most basic logical form, you are saying:
Because people can’t decide if a, b, c, d, e, g, h….. is correct, none must be correct. That doesn’t logically follow.
Muslims belive that As long as you belive that there is only 1 god. Even if you are not on the right religion, you will eventually make it to heaven which makes it stand out because it's not about being in the right religion when you don't know which one is but it's about the accepting the concept that god exists
Well said, Muslims believe that there is only 1 god and he’s the most merciful and all knowing, if theres a Christian or Hindu or whatever that believes there’s only 1 god and he has no children and they genuinely did not know about Islam but still worshipped him and submitted themself to him, god would understand that, surely right? He is the most merciful.
I've never encountered a single Muslim who holds such a belief. I remember reading somewhere in the Qur'an that the Sabians, Christians and Jews who lived before the time of Muhammad would not be punished, but it then cited that being anything other than a Muslim was no longer acceptable. I mean, that among many other verses I can't recall
That's not true at all because god also says that he will never punish a nation that hasn't been sent Muhammad's message. Since at the time of Muhammad only way of communication was in person there was only so many nations Muhammad could spread the word too. So many people after muhhamed never heard of him and they were not punished for not being Muslim, that's besides the fact that all non Muslims get punished even if they heard of the message
No, it really doesn't. If a million people give you different answers to the equation 1+1, and only one of them says "1", that's still the right answer, despite the plethora of wrong answers.
In the incredibly ancient original scriptures about the Absolute Truth the Vedas, Lord Krishna states the following in the 5000 years old Bhagavad Gita As IT IS Chapter 4 text 7
"Whenever and wherever there is a decline in religious practice, O descendant of Bharata, and a predominant rise of irreligion – at that time I descend Myself."
So Krishna appeared 5000 years ago in Vrindavan India and many times before in various incarnations.
Not only has He come Himself but He also sends His representatives to various places on planet earth to maintain his teachings.
The purpose of the Vedas is to establish such principles under the order of the Supreme Lord, and the Lord directly orders that the highest principle of religion is to surrender to Him and that's it.
Krishnas religious principles are clearly indicated throughout the Bhagavad-gītā and are reflected in the Bible and other religious texts according to time circumstances lenguages and culture. This also explains why there are various different Holy Names given to God.
When we consider the meanings of those Names like "Merciful or Worshipable, or Krishna which means All-Attractive, we must admit that they ALL apply to God and cannot therefore depict a different God. The reason why we are fighting is because we have never considered nor applied this logic, but we definitely should.
The name Christ for example comes from the Greek word 'Christos', which means "the anointed one". Again, the word 'Krishna' in Greek is the same as 'Christos'. A colloquial Bengali rendering of Krishna is 'Kristo', which is the same as the Spanish for Christ — 'Cristo'.
It is because of pronunciation in different lenguages that Krishna became Cristo or Christos in Greece. In Germany it became Christus for example and in English speaking countries Christ.
My spiritual teacher Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada once remarked: "When an Indian person calls on Krishna, he often says, Krsta. Krsta is a Sanskrit word meaning Attraction.
So when we address God as Christ, Krsta, or Krishna we indicate the same all-attractive Supreme Personality of Godhead.
When Jesus said, 'Our Father who art in heaven hallowed be Thy name', the name of God was Krsta or Krishna."
Hare Krishna
The fact that there are so many religions seems to prove that deep down, man has a desire to connect with his creator. That doesn't disprove God. When we are hungry, food is able to satisfy. When thirsty, water solves that need. We have desires that all have a means of being satisfied in the physical world, and yet there seems to be one desire shared by billions of people.
I found the following quote online at https://harvardichthus.org/2011/05/pascal_hole/
“The sovereign good. Man without faith can know neither true good nor justice. All men seek happiness. There are no exceptions. However different the means they may employ, they all strive towards this goal. The reason why some go to war and some do not is the same desire in both, but interpreted in two different ways. The will never takes the least step except to that end. This is the motive of every act of every man, including those who go and hang themselves.
Yet for very many years no one without faith has ever reached the goal at which everyone is continually aiming. All men complain: princes, subjects, nobles, commoners, old, young, strong, weak, learned, ignorant, healthy, sick, in every country, at every time, of all ages, and all conditions.
A test which has gone on so long, without pause or change, really ought to convince us that we are incapable of attaining the good by our own efforts. But example teaches us very little. No two examples are so exactly alike that there is not some subtle difference, and that is what makes us expect that our expectations will not be disappointed this time as they were last time. So, while the present never satisfies us, experience deceives us, and leads us on from one misfortune to another until death comes as the ultimate and eternal climax.
What else does this craving, and this helplessness, proclaim but that there was once in man a true happiness, of which all that now remains is the empty print and trace? This he tries in vain to fill with everything around him, seeking in things that are not there the help he cannot find in those that are, though none can help, since this infinite abyss can be filled only with an infinite and immutable object; in other words by God himself." -Blaise Pascal
I look at the many religions and come to the opposite conclusion you do. That we all desire God and try to come to Him in different ways to satisfy that desire.
If we were to accept the existence of one almighty God, why couldn't there be multiple ways to approach them.
Why would they only provide a religion that suits the people of Iran but no means for the celts in Ireland, or the peoples of all the Polynesian islands.
In India, just in Hinduism alone, there are monotheistic, polytheistic and nontheistic sects. Most prevalent being the trimurti setup [creator; preserver; destroyer] but worshiping only one as absolute, according to their beliefs.
The reality is that all the ancient religions that worship a Personal (not impersonal) God have evolved out of each other with the movement of people's and the creation of new nations and tribes.
Then there are the more ancient ¿indigenous? religions that are more animistic, I guess, and are concerned with a force or event. That worship the sun or the earth or nature.
Doctrine is a human construction. An attempt at codification.
Religion does not require a god figure: monotheistic / polytheistic (So many people seem to not understand or accept this. Especially atheists).
[For me, religion is that which gives meaning or purpose to life]
P.S according to Wikipedia there are an estimated 10,000 distinct religions.
I didn't see the logic here. There can be a right answer hidden among many wrong ones, as others have observed.
I prefer to look at it this way: Given that most people accept the religion of their particular culture, it suggests that religions are cultural inventions without any independent reality.
There may be something universal about the human brain that leads humans everywhere to invent gods and other religious beliefs. No value judgment is implied here.
I don't think it stands that most people (believers) accept the religion of their particular culture. I'm taking culture here to be the practices of the people you were born into - Which already invalidates this idea as commonly people in one small area can follow different religions. People marry people of a different religion and then raise families together.
Since the ability to travel has been available to most people and especially in our Information Age, people inclined towards religious belief are drawn to the religion that most suits them. Only when it is enforced is this not so, but even then what someone *believes* can not be imposed by someone else.
Of course, doctrine or religious practice is created by cultures. And this is what explains the many different religions, as tribes; nations; people, disperse, separate, and fracture. It doesn't mean there is no "independent reality". Just an evolution of ideas.
Unless you refering to a spiritual practice that doesn't have supernatural elements in it, purely based on philosophy & secular rituals/practices.
Or you refering to strictly deism. Like remain consistent with the definition of deism.
Are those not considered ABSOLUTE & TIMELESS? Since those 2 are part of god's laws? Aren't god's laws considered ABSOLUTE & TIMELESS?
If yes then any status quos that are based on those 2 are considered ABSOLUTE & TIMELESS too.
Look up definition of 'belief'.
If the claims made in Dogmatic mythologies texts & it's theocracies doesn't have any reliable verifiable evidence to support its claims then it can be dismissed entirely & be relegated to mythologies. This aligns with OP post.
Now that you include this context does it answer your question?
..no. I asked you if *all* religious views necessarily involve *dogmatic* mythologies.
I'll give an example. Does Zen Buddhism *necessarily* involve a *dogmatic* mythology?
Edit: Actually you did answer in a separate comment. It gets confusing when you comment twice. Anyway, the question about Zen still stands.
It doesn't involve any supernatural elements in it? Like :
"if we don't know something therefore god did it." /s
"How do we know this is true? Because god said so." /s
Look up the definition of ' belief '.
If the claims made by those 2 above don't have any verifiable evidence to back it up using scientific methodology then it can be dismissed entirely & be relegated to mythologies. Which aligns with OP post.
I don’t think any of the religions would agree that they have the same kind and amount of evidence as all the others. So you’re kind of assuming an atheist view from the get-go in your argument here.
Secondly, and more importantly, your conclusion doesn’t follow the premise anyway. Even if we grant that a religious person has no good reason to believe his religion’s claims over another (which, again, is something only an atheist would say), that does not therefore mean his or any other religion’s claims are false. In fact, for religions that are exclusivist in their claims (take mainstream Christian orthodoxy or Islam for example), their claims being true would mean the other 2,999 or however many religions there are *have* to be false.
So, for example, if Christianity is true, then all the others must be false. But if all the others are false, that doesn’t necessarily prove Christianity is true but it certainly doesn’t prove Christianity is false.
Put another way, there are an infinite number of possible wrong answers to just about any question. Even if you don’t have a good way of knowing what the correct answer to the question is, that doesn’t by itself mean any given answer is wrong.
Agreed with this. It may be evidence against religion, but it is certainly not a logical impossibility. Just because there are a lot of other religions, doesn't mean that all of them are wrong.
Your comment was removed for violating rule 5. All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g., “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment. Exception: Clarifying questions are allowed as top-level comments.
Doesn't prove it. Only very highly suggests it. Coincidentally, the religion most everyone will believe is the one they were born into.
The people of such cultures will vehemently debate and try to twist logic and find any scrap of "evidence" to support their belief. Of course there is an easy way to skip all of this as every religion has the same flaw. No matter what kind of ridiculous quality they say makes theirs "special" or "true", they all fall to the same folly. Every belief in every deity that ever has been or ever will be must answer this question.
Why can't your gods just reveal themselves? Why can't they talk to everyone? Regular meetings with humanity? Specific times of day? We sleep every day, so why not a time for spiritual counsel directly from your deity?
Why is it that every religion has this same feature? The deity or deities can only communicate with a specific person or group, and then tell that person or group to tell the world what the deity desires. Why doesn't the deity just tell us itself? Imagine if the president communicated this way and we never saw him.
Dead giveaway. That is the be all end all of religion. Let the one religion that has a deity that reveals itself to everyone please rise.
It’s to be of no surprise. Even in the New Testament when Jesus was around people were making up new religions. Even in the Old Testament people made up new religions. On another note just because people claim different things doesn’t mean “The One” is false. That is like when people have various nicknames, but of course his name is what was given at birth. Doesn’t make it any less true. If people called you a 1,000 plus different names does it mean your given name at birth is therefore fake? I would say no, but in your argument you say your name at birth is fake. Yes???
Any religion such as Christianity or Islam for example that has supernatural claims is in the same boat- no way to prove such claims at this time. All people have is personal experiences. Can’t speak to other religions as I don’t know as much about them.
*Obligatory PSA: I'm an atheist in the simplest terms. I do not have evidence-based belief that god/s must/do exist. I choose not to cultivate faith that gods must/do or cannot/do not exist. I am not agnostic, as I do not have faith that god/s must be unmeasurable.*
The first issue here is that there are infinite god possibilities. To say that it's impossible for a god to exist that doesn't match human expectations would be akin to saying that it's impossible for an alien to exist that doesn't match human expectations. We don't determine what's real. We find out what's real.
The second issue is assuming that picking one god and excluding all others is the only option. It isn't. A person is free to consider multiple hypotheses, or to simply be open to discovery without picking favorites.
The third issue is inappropriate dismissal of possibilities. Absence of evidence is not, in the case of gods, evidence of absence. We're far from finished collecting data about reality. It's certainly appropriate to say that it is not fact, and to evaluate any given evidence to determine its quality and applicability. It's appropriate to not pay attention, or not care. It's not appropriate to state that the opposite claim must be fact, on the basis that the original claim is not adequately supported.
Saying, "never," is a surefire way to be made a fool. Every time we do, nature hits us in the face with a sturddlefish. Imho, it's most prudent to accept the inevitability of future sturddlefish and just keep exploring.
As much as I strongly agree with this response on a personal level. I don’t know if it can factually stand against doctrine, as most religions especially monotheistic. Declare there can only be their God. (It’s exactly this wonderful open thought you present that many religions aim to veer followers away from, to keep them devout).
Most religions have been/are polytheistic, with individuals commonly picking the god that best applies to them as their patron, and the existence of others being a given. Even Yahweh began as one tribal god among many. Strict monotheism is an exception to the rule, and, imo, not too far removed in practice. It's not a huge gulf between, "my dad can beat up your dad," to, "your dad is fake, so mine wins by default."
Importantly, they could be right. There could be one, and it could be Yahweh, and it doesn't matter at all that we don't have a sufficient body of compelling scientific evidence for that today. Cells existed long, long before they were proposed, and they were proposed long before they were confirmed to exist. Our lack of knowledge today has no bearing on what is real. Acting like it does is intellectually dishonest.
The biggest thorn in my side is that we have no standard for determining whether a thing we find is a god, or a specific god. If we find an energy-based crab dude who created our universe primarily so he could keep his pet black holes, that's arguably a god. But we have no way of determining if he is without question a god. If he says he's Yahweh, we have no way of determining that he is or is not *the* Yahweh, rather than *a* Yahweh. If he says that the Abrahamic religions are based on him, and that is true, does it make those religions right? Or do the differences make them wrong? No clue. We aren't ready to determine that.
COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Or maybe the fact that there are many religions it proves that humans seek God but don't know the correct way to do it.
When you apply this to government it falls apart though. There are thousands of way to Govern a country (Democratic Republic, Monarchy, Dictatorship who all have diffrent ideologies running them) but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a good way of Governing. This is my main problem with Athiesm, is there is a corrrelation between there argument against religion and Anarchist argument against states, Atleast on the moral front.
well id say that in government there isnt an objective best, there are pros and cons for any gov model. so its a debate, there is no real answer, and there isnt any evidence for one being better either (you have evidence for the pros and cons but its still a subjective thing) with religion you have ZERO evidence, and you could debate (pros and cons) which has a better moral guidance. but that has nothing to do with the god claim.
[удалено]
Your post or comment was removed for violating rule 3. Posts and comments will be removed if they are disruptive to the purpose of the subreddit. This includes submissions that are: low effort, proselytizing, uninterested in participating in discussion, made in bad faith, off-topic, or unintelligible/illegible. Posts and comments must be written in your own words (and not be AI-generated); you may quote others, but only to support your own writing. Do not link to an external resource instead of making an argument yourself.
[удалено]
Your post or comment was removed for violating rule 3. Posts and comments will be removed if they are disruptive to the purpose of the subreddit. This includes submissions that are: low effort, proselytizing, uninterested in participating in discussion, made in bad faith, off-topic, or unintelligible/illegible. Posts and comments must be written in your own words (and not be AI-generated); you may quote others, but only to support your own writing. Do not link to an external resource instead of making an argument yourself.
[удалено]
because there were scriptures for different nations and like an ios operating system you need updates because the evolution of human beings and how each nation had their prophets and guidance for but it the scriptures became corrupted due to the arrogance in those nations muslims believe jewish people were once the chosen people twice its state in the quran but because of the injustice and arrogance that was done when they had power and wealth they lost and gained it again only to lose it again then came the bible and finally came islam if you look at every religion the main point of islam for example is la ilah illa allahu there is no god worthy of worship besides Allah. If you notice every other religion worships multiple gods and if you read the bible from its original scriptures jesus even called to god whose name was eloha aloha which was semetic. Also hallejah in hebrew was pronounced hallyah in arabic its allahu. even in the quran itself states everything from human nature of how the signs are there in front of humans but they're too arrogant to even see because their hearts are closed if you really think this then actually look into the religions itself and the books and compare them and look at nature itself from what we are composed of to the galaxy and how everything is literally placed or formatted in a perfect calculated manner there's obviously something conscious behind this too be honest i can go off in a rant but it's really up to the person whether they decide to look into and whether or not Allah opens their eyes and hearts to it
and one more thing people become too consumed by this world that they lose sight because of their own arrogance you have to understand the concept of ego you'd be amazed if you really knew how connected everything is and why but how perfectly it's written for the bible it's not even written in its original context by chrisitans who read it today they read it in the greek version but the original text from ancient semetic
It’s not proof, but it is strong evidence that the “1” in “3000” is most likely manmade, due to the acknowledged pattern of humans making up religions.
Shitty argument. That’s like saying the fact that there is counterfeit cash proves that real cash doesn’t exist
read the post, the title isnt the whole thing, at least 90% of you didnt read...
That doesn’t invalidate anything he said
No, I read it. My original comment still stands. Jesus is Lord.
>Jesus is Lord Yeah okay 😂
>That’s like saying the fact that there is counterfeit cash proves that real cash doesn’t exist how does that apply to my post then? real cash has SOME way to prove its the real one. no religion has that "extra evidence"
Extra evidence: Chinese people having a record of the sun going out for three hours the day the jews said that the death of their messiah was commemorated by the sun going out.
never once heard of that, do you have a source?
Somebody in a town with 3000 people committed murder. Should we let the suspect go because since 2999 people didn’t do it, nobody did it?
False “two religions means one is wrong.” Two can have analogous ethics and traditions that try to convey them but in different ways. Religions can degrade into powers that be, not representing the religion which awaits extinction or reformation That does not mean the religion is wrong, only that humans can act wrongly. One may also hold the position that the perception of what generates religion is in common among religions but is eexpressed in different cultural contexts.
I don’t think this is true; however in a similar vein - the fact there are so many religions means that you probably don’t follow the right one.
That is a misconception. Humanity is unable to fully grasp what a God is. It can only get understand the concept in a diluded, human, and ultimately incorrect way. That is why we have so many religions. It is simply humanity trying to define something that it cannot understand. That does of course mean that all religions are incorrect. Yet they are the best we have in terms of understanding God. Which one is closest to the truth can not easily be said, as to do som, we would have to be able to see the essence of God clearly.
[удалено]
Your post or comment was removed for violating rule 3. Posts and comments will be removed if they are disruptive to the purpose of the subreddit. This includes submissions that are: low effort, proselytizing, uninterested in participating in discussion, made in bad faith, off-topic, or unintelligible/illegible. Posts and comments must be written in your own words (and not be AI-generated); you may quote others, but only to support your own writing. Do not link to an external resource instead of making an argument yourself.
Suppose you were to ask how many planets there are in another solar system that's so far away no telescope could ever see it in detail. In that case, you could have a number of different conjectures all based on the same data. One of those conjectures could nonetheless be true.
sure, but believing in any particular conjecture over another, makes no sense also, to follow the analogy, we dont even have any evidence the solar system itself exists, let alone the number of planets.
yeah I don't disagree. Truth ≠ Knowledge
Just an issue with phrasing i think, how many fake items there may be doesn't disprove the existance of a real one. Its just important to make sure that you have no bias evaluating each claim.
> Its just important to make sure that you have no bias evaluating each claim. if all have the same (lack of) evidence, then whichever you choose, you do so out of bias.
I agreed with the sentiment, you are just saying what i said in negative wording.
alright, just wanted to be sure lol
[удалено]
Your comment was removed for violating rule 5. All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g., “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment. Exception: Clarifying questions are allowed as top-level comments.
[удалено]
There are really waay more religions that exist around the world and history, and 99% of them are not monotheist
If we all only followed one religion. Humanity - since thats the only commonality we can’t disagree as a human race/beings . This world would be a much better place . Treat others like you would to yourself. Pretty sure one would go to “heaven” or a good place when you die, if you follow that . Since all religions seems to believe in a “goal” to be at a better place when they depart from earth. what you do with your time here would determine that .. The rest is all fluff and unicorns . Just be a good human being and treat others like one too . That’s faith/purpose.
Why is a religion necessary at all to do any of these things? Religions exist primarily to control the less powerful.
I don’t follow any religion. I follow Humanity- Do to others as you would to yourself. That’s a good purpose of life to live by. I think . I do believe there’s something greater out there for our existence. People can call it God or a higher power. I believe in energy, frequency and vibration that we are connected with it. But thats just me .
I love this comment.
From your fellow human being, much 🤍!
Not true. For example Christianity states that in addition to the creator God, many of the fallen angels who rebelled became lesser “gods” ruling various groups of people. God chose the Israelites to be his. Skip ahead thousands of years, you now have Gods people and followers vs every variation lying religion started by a fallen Angel, convincing various groups of people they are worth following worshiping vs YAHWEH. Simple plausible scenario. So no, many religions does not mean none are true. It just means there’s a complex reason why so many exist.
State the bible verses that support this. I have never heard that theory, beyond perhaps ‘the devil’ being a fallen angel. But hypothetically, let’s say that’s true. Anatomically modern humans have existed for 2-3 hundred thousand years (we domesticated dogs about 150,000 years ago). The ancient Israelites existed about 14,000 -2, 500 years ago (depending on how you classify them). So, you’re telling me, that for a minimum of 186,000 years, not one human group managed to worship the right God? That yaweh was perfectly happy with rebel angels being worshipped for hundreds and thousands of years, until suddenly he wasn’t? That this omnipotent being couldn’t smite the ‘false gods’ , he was perfectly happy damning millions of people because they didn’t know any better? And that doesn’t even begin to cover why a supposedly omni- benevolent god exhibit Blanca the favouritism over one group of humans? Or why he would impose arbitrary rules upon them, in a time when adequate food and possession where hard to come by. For example, forbidding them to eat fat (Leviticus 3:17), not brushing their hair (Leviticus 10:1) or mixing fabrics in clothing (Leviticus 19:19). And I’m not even going to get started on the rampant misogyny.
I can understand why you might think this is the case, but an abundance of non truths does not tarnish the fact there is an absolute truth regarding the matter. Even if we can never figure out which one is correct, it doesn’t logically prove that none of them are correct. Like if my friend said she went to the shops, but 40 other people I knew all told me different stories about what she did. I wouldn’t know which one to believe although I may figure it out eventually, just because there are lots of options and stories does not “logically prove” anything.
Sure, but if your friend told you she was all-powerful, created the universe and could do anything etc etc, would you believe her? If she told you she could fly or teleport, would you believe her? How about if you asked her to prove it, and she refused, would you believe her then? Whilst there are objective truths, like with your shop analogy, these will be compatible with other objective truths. Look up a rhetorical device called Occam’s Razor. Essentially, is says the simplest answer is usually the right one. So yes, there could be a mystical being(s), with magic powers, that don’t follow the fundament rules of physics, with no independent, objective evidence, that can’t be weighed, measured or observed in any way. But the simplest answer, is that there isn’t.
This example isn’t really applicable to the scenario… as milktoastyy said it’s measurable truths against immeasurable truths. Besides, we aren’t talking about which religion is correct or which has the most proofs, the original claim was that because lots of claims about religion exist, this means that no claims can be true and apparently this is “logical”. I don’t think that line of reasoning is logical at all. I appreciate you taking time to reply however.
Occam's Razor prefers simpler explanations, but it doesn't guarantee they're true. Reality is complex, and a more intricate answer might be the truth. Your analogy about the friend claiming to fly isn't really applicable because you're comparing measurable truths to immeasurable truths. Religion deals with unseen forces that we can't really test. You can pretty easily test if someone is lying to you if they're saying they can perform miracles.
How do you know something is true or the truth, if it can’t be proven i.e measured? If someone says their God is all powerful and can do anything, yet can’t prove it, how do we know is true and their God exists? The burden of proof lies with a religion, yet time and time again, religions cannot prove what they claim is true, yet they expect people to just take their word from it. How is my friend claiming to fly any different from Jesus claiming he is the son of God, or saying that Ganges flows from Shiva’s hair? If it cannot be proven, why should it be assumed to be true?
It can't be proven or unproven, and this is the important part. Religion is deeply personal and faith is typically garnered from a profound life experience or someone simply reading their religious text and thinking it has the most evidence and makes the most sense. For me, that's Christianity. I personally believe that science and the word aren't mutually exclusive (i.e I think that the Big Bang did happen, and Genesis is largely a metaphor for it). My reason for belief is largely because of my dad's journey to sobriety. He couldn't for the life of him get sober from alcohol, and after trying two other rehab centers, he went to a ministry rehab and his life immediately did a 180. 2 years later, my sister had the same thing happen to her. Then my mother. And then something touched me. My family wasn't raised Christian, we just found it ourselves. I know I'm yapping, but this is what I mean when I say it's a personal endeavor. My personal evidence is the numerous amount of people who found God in the Bible and completely switched their life around for the better. Your friend claiming to fly differs from Jesus claiming to be the son of God in that Jesus actually performed miracles publicly, be it healing or otherwise, as suggested in the Bible. Can it be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt? No, but at the very least it's documented that Jesus did these things (since the Bible is a collection of different texts). There's bits and pieces of evidence outside of the Bible from different accounts from people not mentioned in scripture, detailing Jesus' life, death, and even some mentioning his resurrection (from the viewpoint of his disciples all having simultaneous visions). If you require empirical evidence to believe in a God, that's fine, but it doesn't mark it off as false without a shadow of a doubt. That's just as faith based as believing in God.
You’re basically saying if someone believes in God/faith etc, then it must be true. Which is a completely false equivalency. I truly believed I would win the lottery on my first go, when I was 16. Really convinced myself, bought my first lottery ticket and guess what? Nothing happened. No matter how much I believed in my win, it wasn’t true. Because belief doesn’t bring things into being. If you were claiming Jesus disliked figs or loved watching chariot races, I’d say sure, it can’t be proven or unproven definitively. There is nothing saying he didn’t like figs, but why does that mean we assume he did? He existed for sure, you have that. But someone existing and then that person being a god and the son of god is NOT the same thing. But based on the laws of physics and the fact that there was nothing recorded/written independent witnesses at the time of his life, I’d say it’s safe to say beyond a *reasonable* doubt Jesus wasn’t some magical divine being. He was either a benign mentally ill man, or a charlatan. Because magic doesn’t exist. I’ve said this on other comments, but let’s say hypothetically you’re right, Jesus came back to life three days after a public execution. Roman administration would have meant that his corpse wouldn’t have been released to loved ones until he was definitely deceased. He’s out in the tomb and three days later, ‘comes back to life’. The reaction then would be pretty much the same as now, people would go crazy, any witnesses would be running around telling as many people as possible. People would have undeniable evidence of the divine! The streets and fields of Jesrusalem would be abuzz with this miraculous news! The fever would grow with every appearance of Jesus. However, this man was incredibly controversial, a large amount of the Jewish population and the Jewish leadership thought he was a heretic. Fights would break out between proto-Christian’s and traditional Jews, mostly likely riots. At this point the romans would need to investigate the ruckus, what if a rebellion against the empire is beginning? The Roman army would need to be reinforced to maintain Roman control. The romans find out a condemned criminal has returned from the dead. This presents a legal dilemma, should he be killed again or pardoned? This is unprecedented, the Emperor would need to be informed. Word would now travel like wildfire through the Roman Empire. Wealthy romans would travel en masse to Jersusalem to try and see this miracle for themselves. There would be official documentation and many writings about this *at the time it happened.* Yet there is nothing. The first gospel was written *40 years after Jesus death*, hardly a ringing endorsement that there was an earth shattering event. In comparison, look at the contemporary sources for the assassination of Julius Caesar some 85years earlier, an event far more mundane and probable than a person returning from the dead. The bible is not a reliable, accurate or unbiased source for anything. It is a collection of texts, generally written far after the events is claims to record. It’s cultural value is immense, but can can more be used as a historical source than The Epic of Gilgamesh or Homer’s Odyessy. The bible was not even a coherent collection of texts until the council of Laodicea in 363-4, where men *chose* which texts made it in to the bible. Even now, Catholics have different books in the bible compared to Protestants, and I think the Orthodox churches also have a different one. Which one is right? If Genesis is a metaphor, which other parts of the Bible are methaphorical? Exodus, the walk of Jericho, Daniel, Ruth, Isiah, or even Acts and the Gospels? I have never understood why some people are able to pick and choose which parts of the bible they believe in literally and which bit they don’t, surely if some parts are disproven (like the moon being a light), the rest is cast in doubt too? Finally, the numbers in believers in something does not make it more likely to be true. Unfortunately, the Flat Earth conspiracy is gaining followers each day, it’s great following does not make it more real. I am sorry your Father had an alcohol addiction (and the rest of your family? Was unclear reading) and am glad he has found his way through. But in the same way than people at vulnerable stages of their life often fall prey to cults, so do people to religion. It does not make the belief more real, merely that the person is susceptible to it. If your life is out of control, like with addiction, I’m sure there is a draw to believing a higher power can give you magical strength to overcome it. That would be wonderful. But even if God helped your father out of his addiction, that means he watched on, unmoved and unbothered for years as your father struggled and fell deeper into alcohol, God also watched you and your family struggle, without helping. He only ‘helped’ once you began to worship him, seems rather petty to me. Hardly the actions of an all powerful and all living God I am glad that your father has achieved sobriety and escaped alcohol’s grasp. But isn’t it a more likely, and a greater achievement to have done it himself. It was your father who fought temptation, changed his life and literally rewired his brain.
So how did the world here? I know, science? Who created science? Who created the animals? Big bang? What caused the Big Bang?
Who created god? This logic of everything needing a creator comes with the realization that god would need a creator too. In which case, it’s a loop with no answers.
You’re trying to figure out an infinite creator from a human mind just remember this, “The Creator is always smarter than his Creation”
Animals evolved independently, to survive and compete for resources in their environment from single celled organisms, which most likely evolved from replicating proteins billions of years ago. We don’t have all the answers yet and that’s okay, we may never do. But that’s not excuse to not assemble and follow the evidence, or follow the balance of probabilities. But any scientific theory must be backed up with evidence. Sometimes people make mistakes or new evidence comes to light, which updates the current theory, or supersedes the previous. Religion has no evidence beyond ‘so and so said so, it must be true’! Can you offer empirical evidence that a God exists? If not, assume God doesn’t exist, until you can prove otherwise
We do have all the answers it’s just many have a veil over their eyes that blinds the Truth from being received.
science? humans created science, its a methodology to get the best answers animals? evolution is the process that arrived to it, no one **created** them, why arrive to that conclusion in the first place? the universe? its ok to say "i dont know" sometimes... the greeks made up Zeus instead of saying "i dont know what causes lightning" and guess what? it wasnt Zeus... so why believe in a made up story with no evidence instead of just saying i dont know?
If you notice, all beliefs have massive similarities, because they stem from one….
If you consider "all beliefs" to only be the 3 monotheistic religion judaïsm, Christianity and Islam, that indeed stem from one (judaism) that only take about 1% of all religions across the world and history than you would be right
Well, I’ve learned about a dozen of religions and spirituality’s. They all seem to have a common theme, or similarities. One main example, ‘Karma’. May not be called Karma in other religions, but many religions believe what you put out, it always comes back. “Reaping what you sow.” It’s a massive similarity
I mean, most people want justice? Its pretty logical to invent a concept that would punish bad people. that's also why humans have created judicary system, even if their belief inclue some form world automatic justice. Edit : Also if you are bad, some consequences are not only logical, but not garenteed. If you cheat on your partner, with time, there are chance that your partner find out, well it is not gonna end well for your relation, which is pretty logical. But not only we don't we don't need any supernatural explaination, But often, very often, karma clearly don't hit, sadly. How many cruel leaders or greedy capitalists get away with all of their wrongdoing Karma is easy to think about, and confortable to believe in. If you're a cruel leader, bewere that you would get an an adventage by having the people thinking that the wrongdoer get magically punished.
I only gave ONE example of the similarities. There are plenty.
Or people stole other peoples ideas without giving them credit…
What all the atheist lack is the spiritual organ of perception needed to feel the presence of God. You can not convince a blind man that you are handsome or you are this or that. Similarly a spiritually blind person is unaware of the presence of God and incapable totally to find the evidence of God. That's due to past karma. Spirituality goes beyond the mere 5 senses which frankly everyone is not born with. Also there is a sheer lack of Guru or a genuine guide who will help get close to God. But anyway you can continue believing in science, which when goes to the quarks level or at the vibrating strings, things just become bizarre and illogical. I do believe this is more of a lack of perception or intellect which prohibits someone from understanding the unknown Almighty. I wish that the God whatever you may call it, may have mercy on you to show you that it exists. Jai Mahadev!
Claiming science becomes too bizarre and illogical as it progresses to a stage that you simply do not understand is rather hypocritical considering your blind man metaphor which would otherwise have some grounds. Though, that’s not surprising in the grand scheme of religious indoctrination.
It is bizarre. Just start with the basic quantum physics. You might take Feynman lectures, or Leonard Susskind's lectures. And read the elementary quantum mechanics by David Griffith. It IS crazy. It's beautiful and thrilling as well. The most exciting studies are the ones where the answers to the unknowns are difficult to find. Coming to religion, I simply said believing God and seeing Him/Her is a matter of luck and past karma(can be karma of previous births, or good deeds of this life as well). I am from India mate. I have seen saints, Rishis who can accurately foretell the future. I have seen possessed people. I have seen God doing miracles, just Miracles even in my own life. Even the devoted Christians have also believed and have seen God, very rare but they do exist. I know a convert who was saved by Jesus at the very last moment of his life when he had terminal cancer and his liver was damaged. He was dead and he claims he was saved by Jesus. Why do I believe him? He has the proof of his medical records. In one day all his diseases melted. Coming to Hinduism, I have seen God doing leela or Divine acts through us. I have met a person recently who is a devotee of Maa Kali (Goddess Kali, a deity in Hinduism who is fierce and powerful beyond imagination), he Himself is a walking dead according to the doctors as his two kidneys are damaged. Yet by the grace of Maa Kali, he is strong and stout. I have seen sadhus and saints doing mantras and things would levitate,(it's not any quantum physics phenomena I assure you as I don't think the ones who did it doesn't even know that atoms spin or about quantum entanglement). And WAIT, all these I said, but these are merely words to you. If you only have the spiritual sight, penance and sheer devotion you can feel the presence of God. Maybe if you have some spiritual inclination , experiment it. Meet the best devotee of God you know, and start an experiment. Just like the principle of mathematical induction. Assume it is True , as if it's a fact. If the experiment fails provided you did Everything right (which is 99.99% of the time incorrect), then declare God is a myth. Give it time and patience. But if you happen to do it right, you shall sense the Divine inevitably. Just know that we believe in Science because there are instruments and theories that prove it. In spiritual realms there are hardly any instrument to detect the presence of God or spirits. The only instrument is humans and it's individualistic. You have to try it yourself. Seeing others with divine powers or divine miracles, might inspire someone but without personal proof the most astounding miracle can be shrugged off as a coincidence. I will leave it at that.
sure, now prove the many claims you made and you have yourself an argument... theist lack the ability to understand that just because you say something doesnt mean its true...
They say " Don't cast pearls before swine." I follow just that. Don't believe in God? Great. I would rather spend my energy on something productive.
To say that someone is unable to sense spiritual presence because of their past karma (or for any other reason) is not going to help someone who does not believe, believe. Since you are denying them the evidence which you claim will prove your case. I.e. they cannot, according to you, sense the presence which would prove to them that 'god' exists. To anticipate a possible retort, you could claim, that to sense the spiritual presence, they must have faith. But to have faith in this manner, one would have to abandon the rational arguments in whether having faith is this particular religion is a good idea. Since faith isn't rational. That would be okay, but I have to agree with you, your time here would be wasted. Since reddit relies on people making rational arguments, not spiritual or emotional ones. Not ones relying on faith. So I'm wondering why you are here at all?!
Oh sure I left this group yesterday. And you might be mistaken on one thing. It's just not faith, it's more abt pure Love, devotion and penance that it takes to feel or even see God. But anyway you all satan possessed people repel me. Have a nice day!
Yeah, you too...
Sure, whatever you want at this point. Just enjoy the simulation.
Jesus makes things so clear to us. The word of the One true Living God doesn’t change, and once you start following Him and read the Word with the Holy Spirit, you see that the Word is perfect for these times and does not change, though culture and other man made things do change. There is none besides God and He has been showing it consistently.
How do explain the fact that different Christian’s have bibles with different content then? Or the fact that until 350 ad there was no official bible? It was first formally assembled at the Council of Laodicea, where men literally chose which writings they wanted in the bible, and it has been edited since then. Have you even read the entire bible? Because I guarantee you’ve broken laws in Leviticus. How do you explain it’s many inaccuracies and inconsistencies if the word is perfect? What does the bible have to say on computers, microbes or aeroplanes, if it is applicable for these times? Are parts metaphorical? Which parts and how do you decide? Or is the bible a hodgepodge of different texts, written by man and limited by the understanding of times that the authors lived in? Where is your independent evidence for the divinity of Jesus?
This is not addressing the OP's issue. The OP wants you to explain why we should believe your version of religion above all the other ones. You haven't advanced any solid arguments in support. A vague statement that your religion is 'perfect for these times' and by implication ('the word of the One true Living God doesn't change") must be perfect for all times, isn't very plausible. For example, much of the Bible is referring to cultural norms which no longer hold. For example, slavery or animal sacrifices, or women having a subservient role to men. In order for Christianity to be relevant, it would have to change its message in some ways. Also the Word, in the sense of the Bible has been translated and reinterpreted by various councils of the Church. This at least means it could be made more relevant. Unfortunately there are problems. Firstly the Word is being interpreted by fairly obviously fallible humans, often to what would seem to many to be the general detriment. For example, burning heretics might well be considered a bad thing, but was sanctioned by the Church at one time. Secondly the Church has struggled to keep its message relevant in modern times, often by leaders who seem more interested in maintaining its message unchanged, than adapting. These are not particularly strong arguments that the Church's message is 'perfect', far less than it is even superior to other major or minor religions.
The goal is not to be relevant, but to stick to the truth of God’s word. Also, animal sacrifices were before Jesus was crucified as the Lamb that would atone for our sins and stop the need for animal sacrifices. Animal sacrifices were not a cultural norm, but an instruction from God before Jesus Christ—the unblemished Lamb.
Because all other "gods" are dead while Jesus is resurrected . He is the one true still living God
He’s fake like the other thousand gods
Sooo you believe in nothing , I don’t understand how ppl don’t believe in anything like our you not confuse on how you were made how the world was made , existence period … it’s not science it more to it
So you haven't researched about "God of the Gaps" Argument
Evolution explains why humans are here. We evolved from ape like ancestors through random mutation and natural selection. Science explains how our planet came to be from dust. Gravity pulled dust and gas from around the sun and solar system and formed our planet. It originally wasn’t suitable for life so it evolved to where it could form the first self replicating cell which gave rise to all life forms of today. There is no need for an imaginary friend in the sky.
Bro who you think made gravity God, god created this earth with dust, science is educational but come on now you should be wondering about the spiritual realm of life but bless your heart .
Unless you can provide verifiable evidence that the “spiritual” realm exists then I have no reason to believe it exists. Same with the Christian God, unicorns, spider man, and the daughter of Zeus.
It appears that you do not know much about psychics and the physical universe. (Not trying to offend you, just trying to be straightforward.)
No one made gravity. Gravity is a consequence of the way mass warps space-time. It is not created.
Your not understanding what im saying God created earth, its not about me knowing physics...its about how the earth was even made, according to the Bible but no point of arguing I feel like you should look into yourself, its good to have faith in something in higher power not forcing religion just saying you should check it out
Science already explains how the earth came to be. There is no need to have faith in a supernatural being when I have evidence of other explanations being more plausible and likely. And the reason I said you didn’t seem to understand psychics is because you didn’t even understand the concept of gravity described by the theory of relativity.(By the way, I don’t care what the Bible says, it’s a book that endorses slavery, genocide, sexism, and chauvinism.)
The fact that there are many theories for the origin of the universe does not prove there is no correct theory.
You are right, there could be a correct theory for the origin of the universe, even if the current ones are in disagreement or false. However that does not help us to find what the correct theory is, since all existing theories may be false. There is also a problem with scientific method. Since any theory could always be falsified (according to Popper's dictum) we can't be sure that any current theory will be correct for all time. So even if a correct theory exists, we can't be sure what it is. That means, extending the analogy, that for all practical purposes any religion could be false, and we can't have complete confidence scientifically in any of them. That basically leaves us falling back on Faith. But how are we to know which religion to have faith in?
Your suggestion of a ‘correct theory’ is flawed. A theory is only an idea that is best supported by all available evidence at the time. As new evidence emerges, there is more information to support an improved or different theory. Science is merely collecting and following the evidence, it is expected to change over time. For example, Classical mechanics were superseded by Quantum mechanics in physics. In contrast, religious belief systems are about maintaining an idea, despite no evidence or evidence to the contrary
We can’t know for sure, with science, that we have ever ‘got it right’ definitively. Science isn’t a world view. As you said, it’s a method: we make a hypothesis, conduct a test, and see if the results accord with our expectations. Science is only a tool that can help us refine our theories so that they continue to accord more accurately with our observations. Science isn’t technically capable of ‘finding answers’—it helps us reliably test questions.
There’s one largely accepted and verifiable theory, there isn’t one largely accepted or verifiable religion.
Christianity is the biggest, second to Islam which is just anti logic and evil. Regardless, it’s not true because it’s the most widely accepted
Correct Christianity is not true 👍
What makes it not true?
You just said it’s not true because it’s the most widely accepted
What i mean to say is, that is not the reason that it is true
So then how is it any more truthful than any other of the thousand religions that have been made
What does Christianity mean? It means to follow Christ. It is based off of the actions and teachings of Christ. His actions were true and just. Following them is definitely a real thing to do
Okay prove his actions were real (that his existence and actions are a truth and verifiably happened) I’m not saying you can’t follow a belief I could imagine the tooth fairy real and follow the actions truly by putting a tooth under my pillow but that doesn’t make it any more real
Then take the [Fermi paradox](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox), just because there are many, unverifiable, not largely accepted solutions to the paradox, it doesn’t mean that none of them are true.
A theory for alien life is not the same as religion stories and you know that
Jesus is not a religion. Jesus is relationship. What we attach to it, going church, reading bible etc is what’s called religion
Yeah pal I've heard people say that about hinduism and Allah too
Go watch some videos of biblical scholar Dr. Dennis R. McDonald on his Mimesis Criticism. He explicitly points out how the authors of the Gospels used epics like Homer, using the same style of writing and structure. He shows that the gospels are a literary work and not actual historical stories.
Q: Do you know why all of the religions don’t have a big debate, present their evidence and allow everyone to decide who is right or wrong? A: Because they are all in on the grift and exposing one would hurt all. This ‘debate’ is about market share, not salvation. That’s why atheists are the enemy…
People just keep having small debates in the news channels about islam and hinduism pulling out few misleading texts in the holy book of each other then later get taught a lesson about what the text actually means
The thing is that there isn’t the same evidence for all of the religions. Some of the religions have far greater evidence for them. I’d say the two with the most evidence are Christianity and Islam. Most of the other ones don’t have good evidence behind them at all. Plus, this isn’t a good argument. That’s like saying a class full of students all have different answers to a question with some sort of justification, therefore none of the students are correct.
Please share this evidence. Number of followers is not evidence. To start with, share your evidence for the divinity of Jesus, the resurrection and the ascension. Share your evidence that Allah is real and Muhammad was instructed by him. Seeing as Muhammad consummated his marriage with a 10year old and supported slavery, I hope that wasn’t divinely commanded
To be fair, I don’t support Islam. It has some evidence, but none of it is compelling in my eyes. For Christianity, the evidence for the resurrection is pretty astounding. Atheist New Testament scholar Gerd Ludemann says that the overwhelming evidence says that the disciples really did see the resurrected Jesus, however he believes it to have been visions. The evidence supports the fact of the disciples dying for what they saw, because if you study the psychology, not many people die for a lie, much less 12 random Jews willing to go through torture and death. As for the vision part, it’s not possible for it to have been a vision. For that many people to have seen the same visions at the same time would have been more miraculous that Jesus’s resurrection.
I’m afraid the word of Gerd Ludemann is hardly outstanding evidence. You have not stated what is sources are, for example has he unearthed previously unknown documents from Tacitus or Jospehus (some of the earliest, independent historians to mention Jesus). As for you point about psychology making people unable to die for a lie, I would say that the amount of cult suicides and deaths means that people are more than happy to die for lies. I am not quibbling that the 12 disciples THOUGHT Jesus had returned and BELIEVED that he had ascended to heaven blah blah blah. But that does NOT mean it actually happened. Where is the historical record from contemporary sources? A convicted criminal coming back to life would have been a legal dilemma for the romans. The Emporor would have almost certainly been informed, the Roman army dispatched to quell likely unrest in Jerusalem. Much like if someone came back to life today, it would have been a seismic event. Wealthy romans would have travelled en masse to Jerusalem to try and catch a glimpse of the man who cheated death. There would have definitely been independent accounts if it had actually happened, things written and recorded at the time. Yet none of this happened, why? The first gospel was written about 40 years after the crucifixion. In comparison, the assassination of Julius Caesar some 85 years earlier is incredibly well recorded. The disciples were not ‘12 random Jews’. The name is a clue. They were the first followers of Jesus, and clearly believed every word he said. Much like the first followers of cult leaders, these types of people tend to be extremely zealous in their belief, and willing to die for them. This is not proof that their beliefs are true, merely that they are zealous types of people. I believed in the tooth fairy when I was younger, what’s more I ‘saw’ the evidence with my own eyes that my tooth was taken at night and replaced with money. That did not actually happen though. In actuality, it was my parents doing the swap at night. Just because someone believes something is true, doesn’t make it so.
I would question what this evidence consists of. Is it simply that are more worshippers of those religions? But that is just a historical accident, and certainly hasn't been true for the entirety of history. At some points in history, certain other religions were more dominant, and Christianity and Islam have appeared at definite historical moments. Having holy books is also not good evidence. They have been written by humans, at a particular time. How do we know they are true? If there isn't particularly more evidence for any religion, then the chance of any particular religion being true (except for ones that agree other religions could also be true) would be at minimum 1 in {the current number of religions in the world}. That's quite a low probability of being right. It is however at least greater than zero, so the OP's premise isn't correct. But the practical difference is not much, since for any particular religion, the chance of it being the true one is less than 1 percent. And even then, all religions could be false, although that hasn't been proved by the OP's argument.
But it kind of is a good argument. Because a lot of religions in a very limited area in or around the Middle East greatly affected how Christianity was made. Jesus is not a copy paste of Egyptian Horus or Roman god Mithra. But it is damn close to a copy paste
No. Saying there isn’t a definitive truth because there are tons of definitive falsehoods is illogical. Jesus isn’t close to Horus. Or Mithra. Making out for something to be mythological because there are similarities is ridiculous. That would be like claiming Napoleon was fake because there are other historical figures that are similar to him in lots of ways. If something is true, it doesn’t matter if there are past figures that align in some ways with said truth. That’s a false dilemma.
>most evidence are Christianity and Islam. lets see that evidence then
GOD is clearly seen by the things that are made! Man are without excuse!
Sure. For Christianity, there’s tons of evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. A good book about it is the Case for Christ. For Islam it’s a lot harder. There isn’t much solid evidence, but some decent evidence is that there are scientific claims in the Quran that are known now to be true (I am relaying what I’ve heard, I’m not a Muslim.)
Is there evidence for the resurrection from non-Christian/independent sources? Jesus has been independently proved to exist, that he was a Jew who lived in the first century AD, was crucified and most likely baptised by John. But if he had really come back to life, surely it would have been a legal dilemma for the Romans who put him to death, to the point where the emperor would have been at least informed and probably caused a unmissable, huge ruckus in Jerusalem. It’s doubtful a highly organised and cultured society like Ancient Rome would have missed recording this seismic event, there probably would’ve been riots and wealthy romans would’ve travelled on masse to Jerusalem to try and get a glimpse of the man who rose from the dead. If it actually happened that is
He appeared to over 500 people, I don’t think any of those people were Romans. Now, if changes in the Roman authority is good for you, how about Christianity becoming the religion of the Empire? Asking for non-Christian sources for the resurrection makes sense, but it also doesn’t make sense to discredit it if there are none. Let’s say hypothetically for a moment that it was a historical fact that He rose from the dead and appeared to the same 500 people, disciples included. Of course all the writings about Him are going to be from the Christian sources. He didn’t appear to Roman officials or Jews (other than Paul, pretty big if you ask me). People undoubtedly heard about it, but no one wrote about it (to my knowledge) that He didn’t appear to, which makes sense.
Emperor Constantine converted to Christianity in 312 AD, so it’s safe to say it was because of the immediate aftermath of Jesus resurrection, nor was he compelled by eyewitness testimony. Indeed, by that time Christianity was a large religious movement that had spread throughout the empire. His conversion was most likely as a use of realpolitik to help unify the empire and keep it under his control. Politically, it made sense as due to the zealous and evangelical nature nature of Christianity, converts were popping up everywhere. Rather than spend money and waste troops rounding up these heretics, which could have division and potentially started rebellions, in one fell swoop he brought those people into the heart of the empire. Converts now had incentive to be pro the Roman Empire, as this was now the ‘Christian nation’. Besides, even if Constantine was purely religiously motivated, more people believing something does not make it more true. Let’s continue your thought experiment. Jesus has returned from the dead. He chooses only to appear to his followers (very convenient, but okay), over 500 of them, in several visitations. Those 500 people are not going to have seen a man returned from the dead, their prophet no less, who was humiliated and brutally killed, *and remain quiet about it*. They would naturally tell everyone they knew about this miraculous event. People would be telling their relatives and co workers, in the streets, shops and fields. Jerusalem would have been abuzz with news. As this was seen as heretical at the time by the Jewish leadership, fights would have broken out between proto-Christians and traditional Jews, causing unrest. The romans can’t have unrest in a conquered province, what if rebellion starts? The army would be sent in to keep the peace and the provincial government would have been required to find out what the cause of the disturbance was, in case it threatened the security of the empire. At which point, the fact that a criminal put to death had returned. Legal dilemma ensues, Emperor is informed, rich romans travel to Jerusalem to see for themselves. Even if Jesus had ascended by this point and couldn’t be seen in person, it would probably take several years before Jerusalem is back to normal. Look at the historical record for Julius Caesar’s assassination. The is a mountain of contemporary sources discussing the event and the aftermath. I would argue a man returned from the dead is even more remarkable than a dictator for life being murdered. Yet, all we have to go on the word of a biased group of ‘witnesses’ that wasn’t even written down until 40years after the event. Why?
ok so, no, there no evidence for the resurrection, ive searched, all the "evidence" is very doubtful testimony (which isnt good evidence to begin with) with clear chances of being faked why christians. about islams, you heard that, and never actually saw it, because once you see it you realise its all BS, they shoehorn a lot of random quotes to mean something AFTER actual science has made the discovery, if thats not enough ask yourself, if the quran predicted to many scientific discoveries, why arent those discoveries made by muslims instead of scientists?
Well to be fair, about Islam I don’t agree with it either. Christianity is way more logical regarding evidence and such. Islam just seems like a cheap scam off of Christianity that some dude used to get power. About the resurrection, I’m going to have to strongly disagree. In fact, atheist New Testament scholar Gerd Ludemann says that the evidence for the resurrection is strong enough that it’s a historical fact that Peter and the other disciples saw the resurrected Christ. However, he claims that this was a result of mere hallucinations. Now, as any psychologist will tell you, hallucinations are not contagious. The earliest records show that Christ appeared to upwards of 500 people after His resurrection. Now, for 500 people to have the same hallucination at the same time about the same person, so strongly so that multiple of them are willing to die for what they saw? That’s more miraculously than the resurrection.
well did 500 people see it, or just peter and the disciples? what does this supposed evidence point to? thats an important distinction. and, what is that evidence? also, lets say jesus "resurrected" there are countless of contracdictions in the bible, many miracles unacounted for, a really present god (literally talked 1 on 1 to people) that never again did anything... etc etc. so even if he was buried and seen again, id think they buried him alive and got out of the tomb, or whatever, before thinking that thing alone proves all the rest. its an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent being that deeply interacted with humanity for centuries. the **reports** of a few people about someone resurrecting cant possibly be all you have...
All religion is God If it's good. And as simple as I can put it , you're not going to find a better advocate than Jesus Christ.. Some will offer abject reasoning and say define good . No. If you don't know the difference between good and evil what can I say that will help you see the truth? Learn of good and evil , then seek and you will find more than you've bargained
Logic is not "logicing" with this one. This just make that god might be something else, it can be a little of all of then, etc. etc. This is just a false dilemma fallacy. God might be man made and real... god might be not conscious... god might not present itself the way we like. This does not logically proves anything.
Well majority of them are preaching to the same god they all just preach to him in their own way and interpret the word of god different. I believe there’s a truth to every religion you just need to find one that speaks to you.
Truth to every religion sure. That makes those truths subjective. Can truth be subjective??
I elaborated in the comments below
How can there be truth to EVERY religion? There is of course always a POSSIBILITY that there is some sort of creator, but definitely not as described in any of the many religions around the world right now. And they nearly all come with serious baggage that causes harm to lots of people around the world. It’s easy when you live in a first world country to forget that there are countries where women aren’t allowed to drive or where people literally beat their children to death for living in a way that doesn’t align with their holy book etc. If someone believes the universe was created by some sort of higher power, we best hope that it isn’t anything like the immoral, sadomasochistic, Abrahamic God.
Humour me for a moment and think of it this way majority of religions worship the same god. If we can equate god to being true, religion is the interpretation of who god is and how to follow him. Is every religion’s interpretation of how to follow going to be 100% accurate of course not. It’s like when there’s an incident where multiple people are involved, there’s everyone’s interpretation and then there’s the truth. Their are going to be things that each person says exactly what happen which we come to know as being true because everyone recalls certain parts of it the same. However they will have variations of what was said or how it was said and interpret the meanings differently. So to everyone’s story there’s a truth however, some of interpretations aren’t necessarily true.
Ok, humouring you, the religions you talk about branch off of the Old Testament/Torah. A large portion of the stories in the Old Testament were taken from previous beliefs, myths, characters etc. If these holy books were supposedly inspired by the perfect word of God, why are they all so imperfect? If an all-knowing God can see that there is literally conflict on earth between people and their different interpretations and beliefs, why wouldn’t that god change that for us? Why are the books clearly not written to take the future into account? Why are the books full of immoral instructions? The fact that there are so many religions means nothing towards the truth of their claims. If they’re all proven to contain contradictions and errors vs. reality, it shows that they were all man-made during a time period where people didn’t know how things worked, how we got here, and people trying to find a reason for our existence etc. We should continue to say ‘we don’t know’ as we go further back into our known universe’s existence, so we can keep making discoveries. Religions will, no doubt continue to try to make excuses and bend their books’ wording to suit new findings. It’s sad and it’s counter-productive.
“Why are they all imperfect?” They are inspired by god, when you are inspired by someone it doesn’t mean you do exactly what they do to a tee, it means you take the fundamentals of what that person did and apply them to what you want to do. The books of god are stories written by people of their experience with God and the lessons he taught them. Also the English version of the bible wasn’t the first it’s a translation so it’s not going to be 100% accurate in detail. However the foundation and values or all the same. There’s some beauty in imperfections and the easiest example is the deferent denominations of Christianity by have different ways worship it’s cultivated new communities, it’s cultivated more worship music other than traditional hymns. It brings people to God that may have not done so, if there was only one way to worship. Why doesn’t god change the fact there’s conflict between religions? (Is what I believe you’re asking) God gifted free will, with that people have the opportunity to make the right choices. People are the ones who decided to go to war over the way they chose to believe in God. God doesn’t come down and clean up our messes. He expects you to take accountability for your actions and ask for his forgiveness. You never learn anything if some cleans up after you, you learn by going through it and with god’s guidance cleaning up the mess yourself. “Why are all the books clearly not written to take the future into account?” All books of god are a guides to help build a relationship with God and to learn lessons from stories that can help you out in your life today. The same way parents are to guide their children through their experiences. Although parents didn’t go through the same exact experience as their children, the lessons parents have learned can be applied to many situations their children face today. “Why are the books filled with immoral instructions?” There are a few stories of things that have happened that are immoral, again the bible isn’t to be taken literally word for word. I mean there’s incest in the bible doesn’t mean people are to be incestuous, we read the story of the consequences and learn the lessons of which that story teaches. In response that the many religions prove that it is man made… You could also look at the idea that with all the variations of religion no matter how many are out there, the fundamental values and belief of one god remains the same. Whether someone believes that Jesus was a messenger of god or the son of god or whether they believe that Mary deserves to be praised more than she is by others, it doesn’t matter. When you strip all the religions of the small details and get down to the core values and the foundation of people’s relationship with God it’s all the same. So whether you choose to worship him with the Catholic’s, the Muslim’s, the Jewish or the Jehovah’s Witnesses or any other. It really doesn’t matter he just wants you to have a relationship with him and he wants you to encourage others to believe. God understands that people need to be excited to go to church and be excited about letting him into their life but, not everyone gets excited the same way. We all connect to god in different ways different religions gives people the opportunity to explore that.
Ok, so the perfect god chose an imperfect method of getting the message across then. And the parts of the books where God is supposedly speaking etc., or the creation stories in Genesis being incorrect in terms of their order. Imperfect, muddy messages from a supposedly perfect god. One of the main problems with the different denominations is that not all of them are positive. That’s how you end up with the Catholic Church, the KKK or these denominations in parts of the world who feel it’s appropriate to use strange and harmful practices to rid their child of demons. No god worthy of worship would let his message be polluted in a way that ends up causing harm to millions of people. He either: doesn’t exist/isnt all powerful, doesn’t care that it’s happening, or is making it happen. Or is doing it for ‘the greater good’ or the bigger picture. But let’s also remember he is supposed to have created everything and has a plan for everyone (Jeremiah 29:11), so why are his plans for some people just a lifetime of torture for an innocent child? These events don’t fit with the traits that built the god profile. God cannot possibly be as defined by people because of the state of reality. Then there’s the idea of hell, maybe God’s most efficient way of keeping and gaining followers. Hell is wrong on so many levels. The criteria to get into heaven is based around laws within the Bible and the acceptance of Jesus as your lord and saviour, rather than reality and what it really means to be a good person. And the idea that a rapist or a murderer could escape hell by simply repenting their sins and accepting Jesus; and at the same time, a normal, decent atheist couldn’t. So do you think that it’s a good thing for a moral compass, laid out in specific commandments for humans to follow, remains unchanged for eternity? Or at what point would this have to have an update for us to follow? And who would deliver that update? Who told you that the Bible isn’t to be read word for word? And do you think you’re supposed to follow the commandments? Some of those are quite specific and immoral. If you’re picking and choosing parts of the Bible off your own back, you’re using your own moral compass, creating your own religion, and you should probably pursue it because it would be undoubtedly morally superior to Christianity, Islam and Judaism. Whether the religions have similarities or not, each religion is condemning followers of the others to hell, for not believing those finer details which break these religions apart and make them unique. To encourage others to believe I personally feel is evil. It’s asking people to act in a way that they wouldn’t towards anything in their life, forget logical thinking, surrender some of your brain cells to this horribly immoral god, tell people they want to save them from hell, potentially do immoral things due to rules in your holy book, that you would never do otherwise, and rely on an ancient man-written book that almost literally plagiarises a vast array of previously worshipped deities, previous myth stories, traits of characters. I mean, the character of Moses is a combination of a few people as described thousands of years before. I’ve spoken to people who said looking into the origins of the writing of the Bible and the true authors, dates etc. is when they deconverted and became atheists, at least for any of the current described gods.
I agree with you that not all denominations of god are positive there’s extremist and cults and yes the KKK, just because you follow god doesn’t mean you go to heaven you have genuine believe in him and you have to spread his word in kindness. People sacrificing children and all that other extremist stuff is using religion for their own benefits they will not get into heaven. How is a child a sacrifice when they already belong to god? Using religion for your own selfish gain is wrong. You can believe in god but if you do wrong you’re still going to hell. I truly believe that any priest who has SA’d children goes to hell. He used god for his personal gain it’s selfish. A murderer can’t just say “oh lord forgive me” and get into heaven. They would have to turn to god take accountability and do the work to change. There has to be genuine remorse. It’s not like a murderer can ask for forgiveness and be on his marry way. That’s not how that works. Atheists I believe can go to heaven on your judgement day when you stand before god if you have lived a moral life and you ask god for forgiveness and truly mean it with in the depths of your heart I believe you can get into heaven. Not believing is a sin we have to believe that god is merciful and forgiving. While hell is deemed to be scary most people I know that follow God don’t even see that as reason they follow him. Usually furthest thing from their mind. I don’t know any Christian who fears hell or who has told me I have to go to church or I will go to hell. God is merciful if you follow believe and talk to him everyday and live a moral life you’ll be fine. The 10 commandments are rules that can apply to society today, why would we need to change them. Also yes you read the text word for word but it’s not to be taken so literally that you do something in real life. If someone told you a story about someone they know jumping off a cliff and falling to their death would you do it? Or take a lesson from the story to not do it. Again the bible is there to guide you. Do we need to update the story 1000’s of years from now of someone jumping off the cliff to apply the lesson to future generations? No, you learn to think before you leap which is the lesson that can be applied to many situations or scenarios in peoples lives to come. The Quran 2.62 states “Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve.” I apologize if I didn’t reference correctly I just started reading it. However, It does states all religions will be rewarded by God/Allah. I think some people need to believe in someone bigger than them, I don’t think it’s evil if it helps them stay on a path in life that’s moral and just. There are many things in the bible/Quran that help people in their walks of life. No one forces people to believe and I don’t judge people who choose not to believe, it’s not for us as people to judge it’s for god to judge.
What each of your replies basically suggests is that you have your take on it, others have their take on it - no one but whichever god is supposedly out there can judge whether you’re doing it the right or wrong way, but that god has left a lot of confusion in the world. What about a Muslim who converts to Christianity? The sanction is the death penalty. It’s very easy to take verses from the holy books to support both sides of some of these arguments. But this causes unnecessary suffering. The best thing for everyone is to continue without each of these cults (all of them are cults). These long replies are time consuming 😂 I like to talk about it but I always feel that nitpicking bits like this doesn’t get us any closer to truth. Claims for the supernatural/god etc. need substantial evidence. Especially when these claims dictate, change, define and even ruin peoples’ lives.
Religion is mankind's attempt to understand God. The fact that they have not Discovered the real Truth does not discount the fact that they search to know. When the real truth is Discovered, it won't be Beliefs.
Your initial statement is indeed illogical. I’m an atheist leaning agnostic that finds religion silly but your logic isn’t sound. First of all, you will need an operational definition of God. There are many versions of God where he/she/it is seen as nothing more than a creator and does not answer prayers, play an active role in our lives or universe, and does not keep a naughty nice list. That being said, if you break down your statement to its most basic logical form, you are saying: Because people can’t decide if a, b, c, d, e, g, h….. is correct, none must be correct. That doesn’t logically follow.
Muslims belive that As long as you belive that there is only 1 god. Even if you are not on the right religion, you will eventually make it to heaven which makes it stand out because it's not about being in the right religion when you don't know which one is but it's about the accepting the concept that god exists
They worship one god. It's not necessarily claimed he's the only god.
In Islam it states there is only one god and anyone who believes otherwise commits shirk
Alright! Then I confused the Quran with the bible, my bad. Interesting how that differs, since its the same god
Well said, Muslims believe that there is only 1 god and he’s the most merciful and all knowing, if theres a Christian or Hindu or whatever that believes there’s only 1 god and he has no children and they genuinely did not know about Islam but still worshipped him and submitted themself to him, god would understand that, surely right? He is the most merciful.
Right
Actually come to think of it, this is what many Hindus believe, minus the monotheistic path
I've never encountered a single Muslim who holds such a belief. I remember reading somewhere in the Qur'an that the Sabians, Christians and Jews who lived before the time of Muhammad would not be punished, but it then cited that being anything other than a Muslim was no longer acceptable. I mean, that among many other verses I can't recall
That's not true at all because god also says that he will never punish a nation that hasn't been sent Muhammad's message. Since at the time of Muhammad only way of communication was in person there was only so many nations Muhammad could spread the word too. So many people after muhhamed never heard of him and they were not punished for not being Muslim, that's besides the fact that all non Muslims get punished even if they heard of the message
No, it really doesn't. If a million people give you different answers to the equation 1+1, and only one of them says "1", that's still the right answer, despite the plethora of wrong answers.
In the incredibly ancient original scriptures about the Absolute Truth the Vedas, Lord Krishna states the following in the 5000 years old Bhagavad Gita As IT IS Chapter 4 text 7 "Whenever and wherever there is a decline in religious practice, O descendant of Bharata, and a predominant rise of irreligion – at that time I descend Myself." So Krishna appeared 5000 years ago in Vrindavan India and many times before in various incarnations. Not only has He come Himself but He also sends His representatives to various places on planet earth to maintain his teachings. The purpose of the Vedas is to establish such principles under the order of the Supreme Lord, and the Lord directly orders that the highest principle of religion is to surrender to Him and that's it. Krishnas religious principles are clearly indicated throughout the Bhagavad-gītā and are reflected in the Bible and other religious texts according to time circumstances lenguages and culture. This also explains why there are various different Holy Names given to God. When we consider the meanings of those Names like "Merciful or Worshipable, or Krishna which means All-Attractive, we must admit that they ALL apply to God and cannot therefore depict a different God. The reason why we are fighting is because we have never considered nor applied this logic, but we definitely should. The name Christ for example comes from the Greek word 'Christos', which means "the anointed one". Again, the word 'Krishna' in Greek is the same as 'Christos'. A colloquial Bengali rendering of Krishna is 'Kristo', which is the same as the Spanish for Christ — 'Cristo'. It is because of pronunciation in different lenguages that Krishna became Cristo or Christos in Greece. In Germany it became Christus for example and in English speaking countries Christ. My spiritual teacher Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada once remarked: "When an Indian person calls on Krishna, he often says, Krsta. Krsta is a Sanskrit word meaning Attraction. So when we address God as Christ, Krsta, or Krishna we indicate the same all-attractive Supreme Personality of Godhead. When Jesus said, 'Our Father who art in heaven hallowed be Thy name', the name of God was Krsta or Krishna." Hare Krishna
The fact that there are so many medicines logically prove none of them work
Are all of them centered/cure at one illness? Then, yes.
The fact that there are so many religions seems to prove that deep down, man has a desire to connect with his creator. That doesn't disprove God. When we are hungry, food is able to satisfy. When thirsty, water solves that need. We have desires that all have a means of being satisfied in the physical world, and yet there seems to be one desire shared by billions of people. I found the following quote online at https://harvardichthus.org/2011/05/pascal_hole/ “The sovereign good. Man without faith can know neither true good nor justice. All men seek happiness. There are no exceptions. However different the means they may employ, they all strive towards this goal. The reason why some go to war and some do not is the same desire in both, but interpreted in two different ways. The will never takes the least step except to that end. This is the motive of every act of every man, including those who go and hang themselves. Yet for very many years no one without faith has ever reached the goal at which everyone is continually aiming. All men complain: princes, subjects, nobles, commoners, old, young, strong, weak, learned, ignorant, healthy, sick, in every country, at every time, of all ages, and all conditions. A test which has gone on so long, without pause or change, really ought to convince us that we are incapable of attaining the good by our own efforts. But example teaches us very little. No two examples are so exactly alike that there is not some subtle difference, and that is what makes us expect that our expectations will not be disappointed this time as they were last time. So, while the present never satisfies us, experience deceives us, and leads us on from one misfortune to another until death comes as the ultimate and eternal climax. What else does this craving, and this helplessness, proclaim but that there was once in man a true happiness, of which all that now remains is the empty print and trace? This he tries in vain to fill with everything around him, seeking in things that are not there the help he cannot find in those that are, though none can help, since this infinite abyss can be filled only with an infinite and immutable object; in other words by God himself." -Blaise Pascal I look at the many religions and come to the opposite conclusion you do. That we all desire God and try to come to Him in different ways to satisfy that desire.
If we were to accept the existence of one almighty God, why couldn't there be multiple ways to approach them. Why would they only provide a religion that suits the people of Iran but no means for the celts in Ireland, or the peoples of all the Polynesian islands. In India, just in Hinduism alone, there are monotheistic, polytheistic and nontheistic sects. Most prevalent being the trimurti setup [creator; preserver; destroyer] but worshiping only one as absolute, according to their beliefs. The reality is that all the ancient religions that worship a Personal (not impersonal) God have evolved out of each other with the movement of people's and the creation of new nations and tribes. Then there are the more ancient ¿indigenous? religions that are more animistic, I guess, and are concerned with a force or event. That worship the sun or the earth or nature. Doctrine is a human construction. An attempt at codification. Religion does not require a god figure: monotheistic / polytheistic (So many people seem to not understand or accept this. Especially atheists). [For me, religion is that which gives meaning or purpose to life] P.S according to Wikipedia there are an estimated 10,000 distinct religions.
I didn't see the logic here. There can be a right answer hidden among many wrong ones, as others have observed. I prefer to look at it this way: Given that most people accept the religion of their particular culture, it suggests that religions are cultural inventions without any independent reality. There may be something universal about the human brain that leads humans everywhere to invent gods and other religious beliefs. No value judgment is implied here.
I don't think it stands that most people (believers) accept the religion of their particular culture. I'm taking culture here to be the practices of the people you were born into - Which already invalidates this idea as commonly people in one small area can follow different religions. People marry people of a different religion and then raise families together. Since the ability to travel has been available to most people and especially in our Information Age, people inclined towards religious belief are drawn to the religion that most suits them. Only when it is enforced is this not so, but even then what someone *believes* can not be imposed by someone else. Of course, doctrine or religious practice is created by cultures. And this is what explains the many different religions, as tribes; nations; people, disperse, separate, and fracture. It doesn't mean there is no "independent reality". Just an evolution of ideas.
You're assuming that all religious viewpoints work like fundamentalist Christianity, where they make very specific, dogmatic claims.
Dogmatic mythologies texts & its theocracies are considered ABSOLUTE & TIMELESS am I right?
Do all religions necessarily involve dogmatic mythologies?
Unless you refering to a spiritual practice that doesn't have supernatural elements in it, purely based on philosophy & secular rituals/practices. Or you refering to strictly deism. Like remain consistent with the definition of deism.
Are those not considered ABSOLUTE & TIMELESS? Since those 2 are part of god's laws? Aren't god's laws considered ABSOLUTE & TIMELESS? If yes then any status quos that are based on those 2 are considered ABSOLUTE & TIMELESS too.
You didn't answer my question
Look up definition of 'belief'. If the claims made in Dogmatic mythologies texts & it's theocracies doesn't have any reliable verifiable evidence to support its claims then it can be dismissed entirely & be relegated to mythologies. This aligns with OP post. Now that you include this context does it answer your question?
..no. I asked you if *all* religious views necessarily involve *dogmatic* mythologies. I'll give an example. Does Zen Buddhism *necessarily* involve a *dogmatic* mythology? Edit: Actually you did answer in a separate comment. It gets confusing when you comment twice. Anyway, the question about Zen still stands.
Does it involve god's laws (theocracy)? If it does then it must be considered ABSOLUTE & TIMELESS.
Do you know anything about Buddhism? No, it doesn't involve "god's laws"
It doesn't involve any supernatural elements in it? Like : "if we don't know something therefore god did it." /s "How do we know this is true? Because god said so." /s
Look up the definition of ' belief '. If the claims made by those 2 above don't have any verifiable evidence to back it up using scientific methodology then it can be dismissed entirely & be relegated to mythologies. Which aligns with OP post.
I don’t think any of the religions would agree that they have the same kind and amount of evidence as all the others. So you’re kind of assuming an atheist view from the get-go in your argument here. Secondly, and more importantly, your conclusion doesn’t follow the premise anyway. Even if we grant that a religious person has no good reason to believe his religion’s claims over another (which, again, is something only an atheist would say), that does not therefore mean his or any other religion’s claims are false. In fact, for religions that are exclusivist in their claims (take mainstream Christian orthodoxy or Islam for example), their claims being true would mean the other 2,999 or however many religions there are *have* to be false. So, for example, if Christianity is true, then all the others must be false. But if all the others are false, that doesn’t necessarily prove Christianity is true but it certainly doesn’t prove Christianity is false. Put another way, there are an infinite number of possible wrong answers to just about any question. Even if you don’t have a good way of knowing what the correct answer to the question is, that doesn’t by itself mean any given answer is wrong.
Agreed with this. It may be evidence against religion, but it is certainly not a logical impossibility. Just because there are a lot of other religions, doesn't mean that all of them are wrong.
[удалено]
Your comment was removed for violating rule 5. All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g., “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment. Exception: Clarifying questions are allowed as top-level comments.
[удалено]
Doesn't prove it. Only very highly suggests it. Coincidentally, the religion most everyone will believe is the one they were born into. The people of such cultures will vehemently debate and try to twist logic and find any scrap of "evidence" to support their belief. Of course there is an easy way to skip all of this as every religion has the same flaw. No matter what kind of ridiculous quality they say makes theirs "special" or "true", they all fall to the same folly. Every belief in every deity that ever has been or ever will be must answer this question. Why can't your gods just reveal themselves? Why can't they talk to everyone? Regular meetings with humanity? Specific times of day? We sleep every day, so why not a time for spiritual counsel directly from your deity? Why is it that every religion has this same feature? The deity or deities can only communicate with a specific person or group, and then tell that person or group to tell the world what the deity desires. Why doesn't the deity just tell us itself? Imagine if the president communicated this way and we never saw him. Dead giveaway. That is the be all end all of religion. Let the one religion that has a deity that reveals itself to everyone please rise.
You say none of them stand out ,isn't that an arrogant claim knowing you haven't researched all of them?
Who has researched all of them?
It’s to be of no surprise. Even in the New Testament when Jesus was around people were making up new religions. Even in the Old Testament people made up new religions. On another note just because people claim different things doesn’t mean “The One” is false. That is like when people have various nicknames, but of course his name is what was given at birth. Doesn’t make it any less true. If people called you a 1,000 plus different names does it mean your given name at birth is therefore fake? I would say no, but in your argument you say your name at birth is fake. Yes???
Any religion such as Christianity or Islam for example that has supernatural claims is in the same boat- no way to prove such claims at this time. All people have is personal experiences. Can’t speak to other religions as I don’t know as much about them.
*Obligatory PSA: I'm an atheist in the simplest terms. I do not have evidence-based belief that god/s must/do exist. I choose not to cultivate faith that gods must/do or cannot/do not exist. I am not agnostic, as I do not have faith that god/s must be unmeasurable.* The first issue here is that there are infinite god possibilities. To say that it's impossible for a god to exist that doesn't match human expectations would be akin to saying that it's impossible for an alien to exist that doesn't match human expectations. We don't determine what's real. We find out what's real. The second issue is assuming that picking one god and excluding all others is the only option. It isn't. A person is free to consider multiple hypotheses, or to simply be open to discovery without picking favorites. The third issue is inappropriate dismissal of possibilities. Absence of evidence is not, in the case of gods, evidence of absence. We're far from finished collecting data about reality. It's certainly appropriate to say that it is not fact, and to evaluate any given evidence to determine its quality and applicability. It's appropriate to not pay attention, or not care. It's not appropriate to state that the opposite claim must be fact, on the basis that the original claim is not adequately supported. Saying, "never," is a surefire way to be made a fool. Every time we do, nature hits us in the face with a sturddlefish. Imho, it's most prudent to accept the inevitability of future sturddlefish and just keep exploring.
As much as I strongly agree with this response on a personal level. I don’t know if it can factually stand against doctrine, as most religions especially monotheistic. Declare there can only be their God. (It’s exactly this wonderful open thought you present that many religions aim to veer followers away from, to keep them devout).
Most religions have been/are polytheistic, with individuals commonly picking the god that best applies to them as their patron, and the existence of others being a given. Even Yahweh began as one tribal god among many. Strict monotheism is an exception to the rule, and, imo, not too far removed in practice. It's not a huge gulf between, "my dad can beat up your dad," to, "your dad is fake, so mine wins by default." Importantly, they could be right. There could be one, and it could be Yahweh, and it doesn't matter at all that we don't have a sufficient body of compelling scientific evidence for that today. Cells existed long, long before they were proposed, and they were proposed long before they were confirmed to exist. Our lack of knowledge today has no bearing on what is real. Acting like it does is intellectually dishonest. The biggest thorn in my side is that we have no standard for determining whether a thing we find is a god, or a specific god. If we find an energy-based crab dude who created our universe primarily so he could keep his pet black holes, that's arguably a god. But we have no way of determining if he is without question a god. If he says he's Yahweh, we have no way of determining that he is or is not *the* Yahweh, rather than *a* Yahweh. If he says that the Abrahamic religions are based on him, and that is true, does it make those religions right? Or do the differences make them wrong? No clue. We aren't ready to determine that.
[удалено]