On What are your Religious Beliefs Based?

wil said:
In my opinion, there is only one real answer, and that one is one we don't have a complete handle on.... the liklihood of any current belief system or scientific thoughts being 100% right isn't high. And the odds of any one of us picking the right religion/denomination/sect/science is many multiples less.

So yeah....they are all as true as the next...and have some sort of value to those in a system...
Click to expand...
Then you cannot deny the FACT that it is POSSIBLE that my view is correct can you? So why are you constantly rehashing that so and so believe their view is based on the same thing. I have agreed that they think so. I felt my roads between 2 cities example was clearly stating my opinion of the truth. Is it not enough to say I believe my view is right, and all others are varying degrees of wrongness and rightness. THAT IS MY VIEW.

you say they are all the same, yet I cannot fathom how you say Islam/Judaism/Christians (some) say there is certainly 1 God and it is equally true when Pagans say there are multiple gods/deities/etc. 1 cannot equal 10 nor 5 nor 3 nor 500, therefore they cannot both be true, Either 1 is right or neither is right, those are the only options. This can be done for any combination of religions/worldviews. We aren't the same in our beliefs, therefor we discuss to ascertain the differences so that we can be respectful and considerate and knowledgeable. Do I look down at a Pagan even though I don't think they are on a correct path at all? No. I do pray Allah leads them to the right path. I don't pray to Allah to please be the right path, as in my view it is already established.

Statistically speaking (since you seem to like them) there is a 1 : (a lot) chance my view is fully correct, which is equal chance for any view. There is also a 1 : (a lot) chance noone knows yet the full truth. There is also an equal chance that there is no truth. But there is No chance that there is not a truth (given Atheism takes the 1 : (a lot) chance there is no God). Also there is no chance that All views are true as you stated.
 
Sure in my opinioin...Monotheism is currently more likely wrong than right. Odds are (since we have no evidence or proof of anything...) just evenly split we've got Zero Gods 1/3, One G!d 1/3, Multiple Gods 1/3...

Can I accept that those who believe in faeiries and tree nymphs could be right? Why not, it is surely as acceptable as Joseph Smith finding tablets under a tree that only he can translate or a man hundreds of years ago that was told by the one G!d theory G!d an entire book to an illiterate man who told others to write it for him... when it gets down to it, all our religions are equally preposterous, in my opinion.
 
wil said:
Sure in my opinion... Can I accept that those who believe in Monotheism ... Zero Gods ... Multiple Gods 1/3 ... faeiries and tree nymphs ... Joseph Smith ... Why not?
Click to expand...
I would discount this on the basis of a lack of any critical insight or discernment. So if someone came along and said the Deity was from Alpha Centauri, or lived in a shed at the bottom of their garden, you'd accept that too, as equal alongside such other 'preposterous' ideas like to Buddhism, Hinduism, The Dao and the Abrahamics?
 
Again...I would accept that as their belief, and their dance, incantations, and traditions as what they believed worked for them....

I mean when it comes to preposterous I surely don't want anyone discounting my beliefs because of things like placing the sun in the sky, separating the waters, rainbows, instant canyonification, short earth, virgin births, resurrection, raising the dead, feeding thousands with a few fish and loaves, healing lepers....

Can't hardly point fingers at what they believe as preposterous....we've got our own questionable house of cards easily tumbled by many.
 
Thomas, the point is that to someone who, like me, does not believe in any form of sentient deity, yes the great religions are as absurd as accepting that there are fairies and unicorns. The issue with your critical insight, for me, is that in order to accept the great religious writings, there must first be a presumption that they are the words of Gods, or were Divinely inspired by Gods. And that is a purely arbitrary decision that each of us get to make. Once the decision is made to the positive, one can then build up a coherent theology based on these writings. Once the decision is made to the negative, the coherent theology becomes but a house of cards based on the writings of primitive human societies.
 
Nah DA....there is a middle path... one who doesn't believe they are the words of G!d but the words of men who were doing their best to interpret what they believe to be G!d's thought, intent... the history, the mystery, their stories, and contemplation of them holds value to those of us who are in neither camp.
 
Devils' Advocate said:
Thomas, the point is that to someone who, like me, does not believe in any form of sentient deity, yes the great religions are as absurd as accepting that there are fairies and unicorns.
Click to expand...
Really? You don't discern any difference between, say, the philosophy of Daoism or Buddhism on the one hand, and the philosophy of faeries and unicorns on the other?

Devils' Advocate said:
The issue with your critical insight, for me, is that in order to accept the great religious writings, there must first be a presumption that they are the words of Gods, or were Divinely inspired by Gods.
Click to expand...
Actually I come at it differently. I look for the wisdom and insight. So I have a huge respect for Buddhism or the Dao, for example, I just don't accept it as the last word.

Devils' Advocate said:
Once the decision is made to the positive, one can then build up a coherent theology based on these writings. Once the decision is made to the negative, the coherent theology becomes but a house of cards based on the writings of primitive human societies.
Click to expand...
Oh, indeed, Aquinas said the same, right at the start of the Summa, but even the unbeliever cannot dismantle the coherence of the theology. The agnostic or atheist is obliged to accept that the theology is coherent even if the axioms are not believed.
 
wil said:
I mean when it comes to preposterous I surely don't want anyone discounting my beliefs because of things like placing the sun in the sky, separating the waters, rainbows, instant canyonification, short earth, virgin births, resurrection, raising the dead, feeding thousands with a few fish and loaves, healing lepers...
Click to expand...
It's only 'preposterous' according to the limitations of credibility.

I keep an open mind and examine each on its own merits, I'd never put that list together as you have.
 
Thomas said:
Really? You don't discern any difference between, say, the philosophy of Daoism or Buddhism on the one hand, and the philosophy of faeries and unicorns on the other?
Click to expand...

I think the difference for me would be to say that as philosophies I would give significant weight to Buddhism, Daoism, and even Catholicism over unicorns. Manmade philosophies to try and make sense of what is often a senseless and uncaring universe. But as religion, be it the Miracles of JC, or the epic battles spoken of in Indian theology - I see those as realistic as I could see unicorns. Does that make sense?
 
wil said:
You do realize that using the bible to prove the bible is illogical.
Click to expand...

No, I don't think so. A page of the Bible may be saying some thing literal and in another page saying the same thing through metaphorical terms. This is using a term to explain another.
 
A Cup Of Tea said:
You can write post after post. shib, but if what you write isn't convincing anyone of anything what is the point? Change of tactics perhaps?
Click to expand...

No, but enlightenment of the truth although human pride will prevent one from being enlightened by another. Every one likes to be on the teaching side of the room and not on the side of the students.
 
Shibolet said:
No, but enlightenment of the truth although human pride will prevent one from being enlightened by another. Every one likes to be on the teaching side of the room and not on the side of the students.
Click to expand...
And again, I don't know if you actually read what I wrote, because what you say has no relevance to what I'm implying.
 
Shibolet said:
No, but enlightenment of the truth although human pride will prevent one from being enlightened by another. Every one likes to be on the teaching side of the room and not on the side of the students.
Click to expand...

dang mirror eh? I hate it when I should actually be reading the words I've been writing...don't you?
 
wil said:
.. words of men who were doing their best to interpret what they believe to be G!d's thought, intent ..
Click to expand...
Or perhaps they were words of wise men to maintain a peaceful and prosperous society. I do not know if they really believed in Gods or not.
 
Aupmanyav said:
Or perhaps they were words of wise men to maintain a peaceful and prosperous society. I do not know if they really believed in Gods or not.
Click to expand...
agreed...the early basis for religion in my mind was three fold.... one to answer the unanswerable questions, two to create rules and regulations for a group of people (early govt), three peace of mind, promoting a self worth
 
Devils' Advocate said:
I think the difference for me would be to say that as philosophies I would give significant weight to Buddhism, Daoism, and even Catholicism over unicorns ... Does that make sense?
Click to expand...
Yes. Critical thinking ... I'm not asking anyone to believe.
 
A Cup Of Tea said:
And again, I don't know if you actually read what I wrote, because what you say has no relevance to what I'm implying.
Click to expand...

What's the difference? What one implies, most the time has no relevance to the theme under discussion. Therefore, season is open to irrelevant comments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top