Do you believe there is nothing in their beliefs that differ? Nothing you could observe, in their actions or church documents?
I suspect not. I suspect it’s the same tired, “I want you to prove to me that God exists, prove to me what God wants, and then show how one religion is different from another in terms of adhering to this irrefutable proof of God’s will” stacked deck. It’s a straw man. Do you believe that most religious people believe they can provide such a thing? And now that you’ve called them on it, they’ll see the light?
Or did you mean something completely different? “All religions are based on a false premise” is the given, as I understand it, of many if not all of the “all religions are the same” tribe. That assertion is unprovable, of course, but I understand how someone could come to conclude such a thing and become comfortable in considering it axiomatic. I again concede that it is unprovable (as far as I know, anyway) to prove the existence of God. My belief in such a being does not rely on the existence of such evidence, so I neither suggest it exists or offer any when it’s requested.
Agreed. That which is unprovable is not false, though, and the unprovable is an extremely large realm to be dismissed out of hand. But because I’m in the holiday spirit, I will accept your existence without proof.
I guess what I mean, instead of observable, or provable, is “not arbitrary”. Certainly the “actions or church documents” differ greatly among different denominations. But there isn’t anything non-arbitrary about it. Ultimately it comes down to one group believes something different than another group believes.
What is the difference between a blonde and a brunette? An observable difference in the pigmentation of the hair.
What is the difference between a denomination that believes in transubstantiation of communion and one that doesn’t? Nothing but belief.
What is the difference between a group that believes salvation can be found only through works, and one which believes in salvation only through faith? Nothing observable, nor anything that can be proven. Just belief.
Any difference between religions is ultimately just “I believe a different arbitrary thing than you”.
Indeed, Stratocaster. Consider the response to my observation that Buddhism does not demand belief in a creator God from whom divine commands flow. How does one deal with this sticky point? By asserting that Buddhism is not a religion – even though is traditionally regarded as one, and that many Buddhists consider it to be a religion. (Even if we grant that it did not originate as a religion, it is regarded by most as a religion now.)
Or the observation that Taoism does not teach that there is punishment for disobeying a deity. People around here routinely lambaste “religion” for teaching about hell and condemnation, but that’s only because they choose to stereotype religion.
Or the claim that religion demands belief without evidence. That’s certainly not true of Christianity, as evidenced by the NT writers, the work of Christian philosophers, and historians such as Gary Habermas, William Lane Craig, and Michael Licona. Now, one might cry out “They’re wrong! They drew the wrong conclusions!” but that’s ultimately irrelevant. Even if we grant that they are in error, the point remains: Christianity does not require proof, but neither does it inherently teach that one must believe without any evidnce whatsoever.
One person says “It’s not feasible to do a complete survey of the world’s religions.” Fine, but that’s not my problem, it’s yours. If you don’t think it’s possible to thoroughly study all the world’s religions, then perhaps you shouldn’t be so quick to pontificate about what they do or don’t teach.
It’s no wonder that the OP lamented all this “anti-religion groupthink.” The same people who dismiss advocates of religion as being ignorant or unthinking almost invariably proceed to lump all religion together, parroting claims about how all religions are basically the same. These claims are made without any effort to understand the differences between them or the rationales for these beliefs.
It’s not so much that I want you to prove god exists as I want to understand why you’d pin your very core being on something that YOU have no evidence of its being real.
Now, you can say that the basic teachings of your religion work for you in your everyday life, but those teachings aren’t “owned” by religion. Non-believers frequently try to live by the Ten Suggestions, too. I simply can’t understand why you would conclude an existence that you know you can’t prove, when you can live your life exactly the same way without it. Why is the unprovable good enough for you?
It’s a flawed and somewhat shallow argument. It’s a valid comment belief is belief regardless of its object, and believers in anything can behave in similar ways. When all religions get lumped together as dangerous mental illnesses, that’s a different point.
People here have drawn their own conclusions about religion, I’m sure of that. It’s entrenched in the sense that some people (only some) insist there is zero possible debate to be had on the matter. I get frustrated at people who bring up the God stuff out of nowhere or in totally irrelevant ways, but when a religious poster says ‘I believe God loves us’ and somebody else says ‘Cite?’ it doesn’t advance the discussion either.
That’s a rhetorical example, but if the whole religion thing was that cut-and-dried I don’t think the argument would still be raging.
And so? The fact that they believe differently does not make these beliefs arbitrary.
Therein lies the problem. In this thread, people are dismissing any difference in doctrinal belief as “arbitrary.” And why? Because “one group believes something different than other group believes.” Using that logic, ALL doctrinal differences are conveniently defined to be arbitrary, thereby precluding the possibility of anyone holding non-arbitrary beliefs.
And you wonder why we complain about the use of broad brushes in painting religion.
Of course they believe different things. But are those differences the result of any actual empirical process, or are they just arbitrary? Some people worship by getting down on their knees, some by dancing around in a circle, some by smoking ganja. Is there any reason to prefer one over the other?
Theology is fanwank. You take a fictional canon as a set of axioms, then play around with the possibilities. To an atheist, all theological debates sound like arguments between Star Wars and Star Trek fans:
“The Enterprise could totally own the Death Star!”
“No way, the Death Star has it totally outgunned!”
“But phasers are way more powerful than blasters.”
And so on. It’s fun, but pointless. Because since phasers and blasters are both imaginary there’s no way to tell which one really is more powerful.
I have no objective evidence. I do have subjective evidence–which I understand does not constitute irrefutable proof, and I also understand if that carries no weight for you.
You may not believe it, but the subjective evidence I accept for God’s existence has led me to lead a much richer, more satisfying life than I did when I didn’t give God a second thought.
Now take that a little farther. What makes someone pick a purely scientific explanation the universe over a religious one? It’s because they chose to. The reasons someone would pick one or the other are very different, but it’s all choices. Personal feelings vs physical evidence.
Different people think differently about things. It’s a major strength and a major weakness. It gives us diversity and the ability to over come many problems. If one person’s approche doesn’t work, then maybe another person’s will, and if that don’t maybe someone else can.
One habit I have is studying people who I think are successful at something I want to be successful at, and try to figure out how to mimic them. How they think and see the world in relation to my own views. From that I’ve learned there is no 100% successful universal approach to life. There’s many many good ones though and we’d be at a great loss to lose our diversity of opinions. Some with high EQ for example can really be a good friend and help you with your relationship problems. Someone who’s methodical and careful would prolly be a safer choice for the nuclear power plant then someone who does things by “gut”.
The weakness it gives us comes from forgetting good decent people can have different opinions without being defective or supporting “evil”.
I’m prolly done with this thread cause I think I’ve said all I have to say on this, I might be back for follow up posts on some things though. I just wanna thank ya’ll. This thread gave me a chance to flesh out ideas into words that had been forming for years.
Agreed, but it is an indication that they’re not idiots. I don’t care if someone else believes in God; it’s an interesting philosophical question, that’s all. I only care if they say I’m irrational, evil, or deceived by demons if I disagree with them. That’s the point of the OP.
Seeing how the subject’s come up–hell, atheists in this thread have laid down the gauntlet–here and here are rational arguments for the existence of God. They may not be scientific, but not everything worthwhile is. I defy anyone to give me a scientific definition of “good” or “beautiful,” either. Let’s tear down the Louvre and rebuild it as a wrestling arena! We can even reuse the canvas! Fuck this arbitrary, unscientific “beautiful art”–I want to see smackdown on the Mona Lisa!
