why do you believe your religion is true?
Why do you believe your religion is true?
I don't. Thus I am an atheist
>truest form of Christianity not even represented
Why is atheism true then?
it's up to the religious person to provide evidence if he is making the claim, atheism is basically just recognising that the theist cannot provide evidence.
The question is why are any of the organised religions true?
It holds up.
Giving yourself a label that doesn't say what you are at all is stupid and useless.
I've thought about becoming a Christian but it seems like the major churches in my area are all the size of a supermarket, have their own coffee/book shops, and all the pastors are pretty well off. It just puts me off and makes me feel like they aren't putting all the money they get to good use.
Then you are probably talking about a Protestant church and need to go elsewhere.
If it makes you feel better catholic priests don't make shit
So should I go to a local catholic church? Should I read the bible before I attend? One thing I did like about the protestant church I went to was how the pastor was pretty charismatic instead of only reading verses from the bible which is how I remember church being when I was younger.
how do you know though? why are your traditions and beliefs more true then a muslims or a Buddhists ?
Because of its coherence and ability to explain reality.
>Giving yourself a label that doesn't say what you are at all is stupid and useless.
Don't be partisan, terms like this are useful in a broad amount of settings from philosophy to physics and medicine.
Think of things like:
Because that user believes the evidence of them and that no amount of contrary evidence is possible or desired. IE the same reason as any person does for religious or irreligious belief.
It would do me no good, practically speaking, not to believe my religion is true.
Ugh here we go:
>The pagan religions like the Greeks and Romans were worshiping anthropomorphic nature
>Never clearer than when reading the Orphic hymns
>The whole purpose of Orphic and Hesiod's Theogony is to break down what nature is and what came before it
>Thus they worshiped nature metaphorically through their deities
>but the primordials and titans in their mythos represent abstracts and things that would have come before the beginning
>that's why they describe the beginning as "chaos" and filled with darkness
>The Bible actually does this too in the very beginning of Genesis
>It reflects the opening to Enuma Elish, even mentioning the deep/primordial waters
>two of those concepts, darkness and "waters"(almost certainly a metaphor for something else here) are also referenced in the Egyptian Ogdoad
>The purpose of discovering God that came before the beginning begins with these steps but going further than Hesiod, Orpheus, or the Romans did. The "tektons" written about by Josephus who devised the Dead Sea Scrolls also included thought puzzles. The old school jewish thought before the pharisees entered the picture was more in line with uncovering those earliest truths
>So they asked a question in the form of a riddle: What can be before the beginning? What can exist without form?
>The answer: An idea. Consciousness. It exists, but occupies no place. We support our own through brain processes, but at the same time, and idea can be ephemeral or timeless, deep but not existing in dimensions. This is why God is thought of as being conscious.
>So Christianity is the several millennia long extension of traditions dating back to and probably before ancient Akkadian civilizations. The Greeks adopted it because it went further and deeper than the religion they were using before to understand things. Not to mention the multitude of other concepts it presented particularly in the NT.
Tell me when you have an argument.
Well my immediate thoughts would be "yes" as I would find that to be the correct understanding of Christianity but all non-protestant Christian denominations (read: Apostolic denominations) have their clergy maintain a devotion towards the church over worldly goods so look into it. Their service structure will be miles away from your Protestant structure though so it will be something to adjust to.
>how do you know though?
Well there is no one test for discerning the validity of a church, it's worldview, it's historical claims, its authority, and the like.
I know because it stands to the evidence, unlike Muslims and to a degree the forms of Buddhism.
The term can be useful but it is not helpful whatsoever as a term to label yourself with generally.
Stop being presumptuous, it's stupid.
What is a Jew that did not succumb to any worldly temptations offered by his oppressors and persecutors so that he would renounce his religion and abandon the faith of his fathers?
A Jew is a sacred being who procured an eternal fire from the heavens and with it illuminated the earth and those who live on it. He is the spring and the source from which the rest of the nations drew their religions and beliefs.
A Jew is a pioneer of culture. From time immemorial, ignorance was impossible in the Holy Land, even more so than nowadays in civilized Europe. Moreover, at the time when the life and death of a human being was worth nothing, Rabbi Akiva spoke against the death penalty which is now considered to be an acceptable punishment in the most civilized countries.
A Jew is a pioneer of freedom. Back in primitive times, when the nation was divided into two classes, masters and slaves, Moses’ teaching forbid holding a person as a slave for more than six years.
A Jew is a symbol of civil and religious tolerance. ‘So show your love for the alien, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt”. These words were uttered during distant, barbarian times when it was commonly acceptable among the nations to enslave each other.
In terms of tolerance, the Jewish religion is far from recruiting adherents. Quite the opposite, the Talmud prescribes that if a non-Jew wants to convert to the Jewish faith, then it has to be explained to him how difficult it is to be a Jew and that the righteous of other religions also inherit the heavenly kingdom. A Jew is a symbol of eternity.
The nation which neither slaughter nor torture could exterminate, which neither fire nor sword of civilizations were able to erase from the face of the earth, the nation which first proclaimed the word of the Lord, the nation which preserved the prophecy for so long and passed it on to the rest of humanity, such a nation cannot vanish.
A Jew is eternal; he is an embodiment of eternity.
>The Muzzies went the way of the judaism once the Rabbis came out on top, taking up the mantle of the wayward Pharisees, in that they were less reflective on God and the cosmology as a whole. The Buddhists never adopted an intricate cosmology, and adopted idols from local regions that ended up dictated what their cosmological forms would take. Each branch of Buddhism handles this very differently, and none are concerned with permanently saving the soul(only granting levity to it) or the multiverse itself, or your place in it aside from granting you that reincarnation *probably* happens in varying stages(but not like the Hindu reincarnation).
>Going back to the abstract consciousness part: That's why Gnostics started talking about emanations and Sophia. They were trying to figure out how all the differing forms of consciousness would interplay before creation, which they presumed lead to creation of matter and energy.
>Also they mention that God's light is "invisible", for you retards that couldn't figure out how light was created before the stars. His divine presence is physical but not observable to the naked eye. The multiverse is like a pit, with God shining down from his celestial plane and penetrating into the pit. We occupy the space between the pit and God's realm, Heaven, which is God himself.
>On that note, Genesis said Man was made in the image of God. However the NT says that God is a spirit.Therefore your spirit is in the image of God. Also, Luke 17:21 says this:
>"Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you."
>What is a Jew that did not succumb to any worldly temptations offered by his oppressors and persecutors
This is all you need to know about jews: They define themselves purely by their enemies and always seem to neglect how they managed to make themselves so many enemies in the first place.
if they made enemies, they're all dead by now. They should've known their place.
God is an unfalsifiable concept. It could exist but we have no way of knowing. My gut is that their is nothing out their but ones gut is bad judgement tool usually.
You're right. Jews don't have any enemies anymore. Everyone's pretty cool with them really. There's no reason for friction as per history either, those were rougher times for everyone.
>why do you believe your religion is true?
Because I met God.
>It could exist but we have no way of knowing
You mean proving empirically. We have ways of estimating without sensory inputs. It's pure rationalism. But the fathers of my church don't like that kind of scholasticism creeping in because it's a double edged sword that could just as easily lead to degeneration as in the west- but that's a whole other topic.
>God is an unfalsifiable concept.
But this isn't true. Basically every concept of God has a detailing of God's relation to reality, which is falsifiable.
Judaism is a religion of peace. Christianity was a religion of wars and prejudice, much like Islam is today. The savagery and brutality of the christians and muslims through history, against the peaceful nature of the jew is proof enough of who is on the right.
>easily lead to degeneration
>The term can be useful but it is not helpful whatsoever as a term to label yourself with generally.
What makes you think that user was using that as a general description of him/herself and not just not a contextually appropriate description?
Why do you keep posting like that? Is it for the yous? I don't understand. I just don't understand.
I have a pic for both of (you).
I don't believe god exists but you kinda have to roll with it because superstition about going a pit of fire for eternity after death is the only thing keeping many people from raping, killing, and stealing.
Go to a Orthodox father and ask him. Don't be lazy. Write a letter or send an email. They'll have not only my answers but so much more. Just trust me on this, you're doing you a favor by doing that.
They're all true, including atheism
>What makes you think that user was using that as a general description of him/herself and not just not a contextually appropriate description?
Because it makes no sense contextually. user was asked why he believes his religion is true. He responded he doesn't, which is why he is atheist. But atheism is a statement on theism, not on religions, and atheistic religions exist and are logically possible.
>Stop being presumptuous
Well lets see then if your situation matches up
What evidence would you need to have in order to be convinced that Catholic Christianity is not the truth and what steps have and are you making towards seeking that evidence out?
What texts and practices have you researched not only in Islam and Buddhism but the other religions?
I'm not trying to be an ass. I actually want to here your rational argument for not only why may exist, but that he must exist.
Well most religions are easier to falsify, but depending upon how you want to define God it isn't impossible for it to exist.
Well first off let's define truth.
I'm going to posit this along with a series of other definitions and let me know if you find anything wrong with it.
Truth is a representation of reality that has a high rate of correspondance with it.
The higher the rate, the more something can be said to be "true"
One could argue that this is an aphorism but I'll tac on to it another set of concepts and their definitions which should make this all more or less practicable.
Reality is everything that is possible.
No exceptions. Even if that possibility is highly unlikely so long as it is not negatively deduced utilizing the universal basal assumptions (there is things there is time , cause and effect etc.) Even if its innominate, circumstancially intangible or unconfirmable or is still a "real" possibility.
In otherwords truth is an accurate explanation of all that is and all that could (not) be.
Need I continue or are we in need of establishing the relevance of these to the subject at hand?
>What evidence would you need to have in order to be convinced that Catholic Christianity
Not him, but you're going to have to start unraveling progress made in all theistic thought actually preceding Christianity in order to start picking it apart. First of all, you're going to have to knock out the Aristotelian proofs and five ways. Then you're going to have to find a way to argue that there could be no uncreated creator. Then you're going to have to figure out why there are so many contemporaries to Christian thought and cosmological mechanics going back to Akkadia and ancient Egypt. I'm not trying to make this hard, but basically the only way you're going to gain traction is to outright propose a wildly conflicting theory and back it with superior evidence, which is hard considering Christianity has several millennia worth of thought put into it. It's only 2k years old but it's building on ancient foundations.
>I'm not trying to be an ass. I actually want to here your rational argument for not only why may exist, but that he must exist.
Start with these posts:
If you want me to link you a sauce just ask, but the basics are here. For me at least. You won't hear priests recommend heresies or pagan books, but they even in many ways validate Christianity as above.
Does time or causality exist without the universe. Because it always seemed to me that either the universe (not juat post big bang) is eternal or causality has limits.
If you could link a full argument that would certainly be easier.
>Because it makes no sense contextually.
It does as part of the threads broad topic of justified religious belief.
I don't know how much easier I could make it. If you start responding to any single point that's the only way we're going to make progress here. It seems like you want me to feed you a "give-me" claim that you can practice debunking but honestly there's thousands of pages of sauce I can link you and just referenced in those three posts. You're just going to have to start consuming books or ask me for particulars if you want to get something out of this. It's a big question, so of course it has big answers to it.
>What evidence would you need to have in order to be convinced that Catholic Christianity is not the truth and what steps have and are you making towards seeking that evidence out?
The worldview would need to be not consistent with reality or the doctrine would need to be false. I converted from being a Naturalist some years ago via research on the Classical Theist worldview which seemed to hold up. Studying theistic worldviews led me to towards this and eventually led me towards the Catholic Church. What steps I have done to seek evidence of Catholicism not being true are the same work I've done to see if it was true in the first place.
>What texts and practices have you researched not only in Islam and Buddhism but the other religions?
What in the world, are you expecting some comprehensive answer? I'm a hobbyist of anthropology and have read all manner of things over the years.
I think this guy is just trying to keep his thread alive. We've given him more than enough to chew on.
Again, no it doesn't, and for the same reason I already mentioned: Being without theism does not mean with without religion. Responding to a topic about being religious or not by stating you're an atheist says nothing unless you're using it as a positive label for something other the ways it is defined.
Why does everything need to have begining? In the time before the universe why do the rules of our universe apply. And if you amswer that everything needs to be created then what created god. Either he is something that came from nothing or he always existed. If you say God can do either of these things them why can't the universe.
>The worldview would need to be not consistent with reality or the doctrine would need to be false.
And what evidence would demonstrate that for you?
>What in the world, are you expecting some comprehensive answer?
Just simply what you are currently reading on the matter and the primary Buddhist, Islamic and atheist or naturalist texts you relied on in making your decision.
Seems like you were trying to quote me in so I will respond:
>And what evidence would demonstrate that for you?
...anything that would show that worldview or doctrine to be false.
>Just simply what you are currently reading on the matter and the primary Buddhist, Islamic and atheist or naturalist texts you relied on in making your decision.
I'm not reading anything currently on the matter, this was some time ago as I already said. I'm reading The Introduction to the Devout Life for Lent and reading The Middle East by Bernard Lewis in my spare time. It's been far too long and over too much material to address my primary texts on the each topic.
Chances are none of our religions are true, we're insignificant compared to the rest of the universe. Nothing more than a tiny grain of sand that's just a mere blip on the universal timeline.
That's just pessimistic and without reason. Especially thinking that size relates to worth and importance.
>Does time or causality exist without the universe
This question is like asking can an apple not be an apple.
The answer is it can but not truthfully no.
Time and causality "are" the universe as far as it oertains to us simply because of the overwhelming inability of all who percieve it to "turn it off" for lack of a better word.
> it always seemed to me that either the universe (not juat post big bang) is eternal or causality has limits.
Let us then take those two probabilities and classify them as nominate. I.e. concievable things that may either be possible or impossible pending our actual ability to test such a thing.
I wouldn't say pessimistic but the fact is our entire existence has only been based on this single planet. We've still just barely dipped our toes in learning about the universe around us and the nature of it's existence. Also we've only had one perspective on everything, our own. We can't compare notes or exchange information with other alien civilizations because we don't know any. We don't know nearly enough yet to make any judgement calls on the nature of our existence and until then, it's all just on faith and that's it.
>...anything that would show that worldview or doctrine to be false.
Such as? Because this kind of gets to the point of whether you believe that there is contrary evidence possible.
>I'm not reading anything currently on the matter,
Which gets to the point of whether such evidence is desired.
>It's been far too long and over too much material to address my primary texts on the each topic.
Well to narrow it down what texts did you read on the Buddhist notion of dependent origination/arising?
A very common trend seems to be people reading a good deal of quality works of their religion of choice and only a few or trashy competing views. For instance the Orthodox who reads the Philokalia, Dostoevsky and Rose but whose only experience with Catholicism Lewis, with atheism is Dawkins and Buddhism Alan Watts or some meme book.
I dont think there will ever be a nice non subjective proof given the limitations of human reasoning and central role of faith an emotion to it.
Something you might find interesting en.wikipedia.org
Because my deity appeared to me in person and told me she was real.
Abrahamic religions with their absurd "faith" can fuck right off.
>worshiping your ex
Did you have a chat with him while you were at it?
>GET ME MY WHIPPING BEADS
What's a pig doing there
Is this correct though? From what information I can find, most junior catholic priests in the United States make at least $25,000 a year. This isn't a bad wage, and considering the church probably provides for allowances like housing and such, their income is rather excellent. It's more money than most people I'm related to live on.
Why would you think that nature somehow works inherently different in some other system compared to ours or that it would provide something as to the "nature of our existence" not discernible here? All knowledge we have currently on such a matter would show it to be untrue, akin to how things work the same in my room as they do in your own. Jumping from knowledge of the distant universe and speaking with other civilizations on things to being unable to grasp the nature of our existence doesn't make much sense.
Disproving divine conservation for instance, the nature of God, the historical claims, the authority of the church, anything. I'm not going to spell out the entire worldview and entire Catholic doctrine for you.
>Which gets to the point of whether such evidence is desired.
Nonsense. I confronted the topic with interest, as I said, some time ago and gathered my results. Why would I be covering a topic still that I have already covered?
>Well to narrow it down what texts did you read on the Buddhist notion of dependent origination/arising?
Again, I can't be comprehensive. I do remembering reading The Foundations of Buddhism by Gethin for grasping that Buddhist claim that things lack independent substantial reality though and its effects. Also Platform Sutra of the Sixth Patriarch but I know that is specifically Mahayana.
I have a hard time seeing this as an issue.
There to be an insult to Luther, I'd imagine.
first part was for
Because I understand/believe the arguments of my religion over others? Is this one of those
>Well you see how people have different theological opinions
>That means there are no theological opinions because there is no actual truth here
Because they arent very logical.
>Athiesm is the status quo
>You have to provide evidence that God doesn't exist
>Denies the evidence ad infinitum even though people keep telling him what is and how to observe it
>Is too egocentric to understand how he is no different from any other zealot because secularism is just another form religion that places value in the pursuit of material
>I have a hard time seeing this as an issue.
Thats the trouble with being a human
Why is that Hindu dog-whistling white nationalists with his white power hand gesture? Is he suggesting that Hinduism is the only surviving Indo-European religion? Very interesting.
Which evidence are you refering to?
I am accustom to seeing this argument specifically and it's always annoying:
>You believe one views' arguments and views? How can you say your view is correct if you don't know everyone else's views?
Miracles, following the advice of a deity and experiencing beneficial results, the existence of phenomonon beyond regular perception, logical arguments towards theism.
>Did you have a chat with him while you were at it?
God doesn't have a mouth - just prophets and puppets.
>I don't understand. I just don't understand.
What don't you understand? I'm God's Son. This planet is full of terrorists who proudly challenged the Pharaoh, the King of Babylon, multiple Kings of Israel, and the Emperor of Rome because "a talking burning bush said so!"
I'm in some sort of solipsistic hell or surrounded by the sentient criminally insane.
"A talking burning bush told me to kill the President."
"A talking burning bush told me to crucify the King."
You're most definitely schizophrenic. Seek help.
You have no evidence that these things actually happened that isn't heresay
>>following the advice of a deity and experiencing beneficial results
What advice are you referring to? The texts of whatever religious book you profess belief in have no evidence supporting divine authorship other then glorified hearsay.
>>the existence of phenomonon beyond regular perception
Our current understanding of physical reality being incomplete and still limited in certain ways is not proof for the existence of a deity.
>>logical arguments towards theism
There are none that trump the simple lack of verifiable and useful evidence for theism.
>Disproving divine conservation for instance, the nature of God, the historical claims, the authority of the church, anything.
So that would include things like the events of Exordus?
>Why would I be covering a topic still that I have already covered?
Just seems remarkably arrogant believed one has figured out all religious and philosophical truth to the extent no more exploration is necessary in the space of a few years.
>Again, I can't be comprehensive.
So you can see what I mean about the imbalance then youve missed on on some of the key thinkers right there who actually had a lot to say on the divine conservation problem. People like Vasubandhu and Nagarjuna
I think its more
>You have complete certainty in one views' arguments and views? How can you say that if you barely know everyone else's views?
>You're most definitely schizophrenic.
No, I'm completely sane and your insults and aspersions don't change that.
I cite facts that indicate God is true - the facts are there and correctly interpreted. Your denial won't change them.
are you going to write a book?
>So that would include things like the events of Exordus?
Exodus? Depends on what your claim is about it in relation to doctrine. The Catholic Church literally has a book with all their doctrine. Look for yourself.
>Just seems remarkably arrogant believed one has figured out all religious and philosophical truth to the extent no more exploration is necessary in the space of a few years.
Well That isn't at all what I said. I am not reading anything on the topics of Buddhism, Islam, Atheism, or Naturalism as you originally asked here as those topics I have already covered.
>So you can see what I mean about the imbalance then youve missed on on some of the key thinkers right there who actually had a lot to say on the divine conservation problem. People like Vasubandhu and Nagarjuna
No, you're imagining an imbalance and choosing figures by your own categorization that are a proper balance. Nagarjuna is a legitimately important person to read on if you're going to confront Mahayana. Vasubandhu not so much. If they brought up a significant issue with Divine Conservation, please give evidence.
>I think its more
Why do you feel interested in reinterpreting arguments from debates you were never around nor anything about?
And your re-wording makes no notable changes to the logic of what I said.
Harry Potter-tier fiction, show me they really happened as "miracles" and not that the scientific explanation was merely unknown at the time
>following the advice of a deity and experiencing beneficial results
I follow the advice of explicitly fictional deities and I experience beneficial results too
>the existence of phenomonon beyond regular perception
A phenomenon can be percepted by instruments, if it can't even be percepted by instruments and has 0 impact it's completely irrelevant
What logical arguments? You people have never been able to propose a single logical argument. Circular "logic" that has 0 validation in reality is not logic.
that's a badass painting, desu
t. baptized LCMS
It looks like textbook psychosis and paranoia, more the latter than the former.
>are you going to write a book?
No - your planet has already been apprised and warned of God's existence and the consequences for misbehavior. Only in the digital age can I conglomerate God's prophets from disparate sources and show them converging on a nexus. I only have to tell you gravity exists, not keep you from jumping off a bridge if you think you can fly.
>Christianity gets two forms represented while the sectarian differences of the rest, many of which are even greater are ignored
Whose hand is that
There are Sufi muslims, Orthodox Christians and protestants where I live, and all claim to have miracles. Which religion am I supposed to chose? Even Orthodox clergy say that miracles are not an argument, because apparently demonic powers can also perform miracles indistinguishable from Christian ones ("demons can banish demons").
>logical arguments towards theism.
I really hope you don't mean those of Thomas Aquinas.
>Well there is no one test for discerning the validity of a church, it's worldview, it's historical claims, its authority, and the like.
>I know because it stands to the evidence, unlike Muslims and to a degree the forms of Buddhism.
How about all the evidence from critical study of the development of early Christianity, pretty much since the field's inception pointing to church tradition of apostolic succession being completely fabricated, and instead tracing their lineage to Paul, who was opposed by the original Jewish movement founded by Jesus?
None of them
01101000 01110100 01110100 01110000 01110011 00111010 00101111 00101111 01100101 01101110 00101110 01110111 01101001 01101011 01101001 01110000 01100101 01100100 01101001 01100001 00101110 01101111 01110010 01100111 00101111 01110111 01101001 01101011 01101001 00101111 01001111 01101101 01100101 01100111 01100001 01011111 01010000 01101111 01101001 01101110 01110100
Atheism isn't necessarily true. It just means I lack belief. I don't believe Mormonism is true and I don't believe Odin is real either.
Aquinas is literally irrefutable unless you go 100% "you cant no nuffin"