Offshoot discussion of "what religion are you" thread

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by HOBBIT
...It was hard for me to get out of that - I usually find myself saying God a lot.

I do also... more like, when surprised: "OMG!" It's programmed in.

When you tell little kids about religion they often just accept it - no question. Don't be all "oh this kid asked this question." Sometimes kids will ask questions about the stories or something that doesn't make sense to them (it should be the whole religion),but that is only a few people, not most.

I was one of those kids, growing up. But it was more like... "*rolls eyes* oh... crap... not her again. *sigh*"

Kids are also much more enthusiastic in relgious services. I know that I was. I also really liked Hebrew school at first.

Then I got older. A lot of it stopped making any sense....I saw the truth, that I had basically been lied to from birth.

This is true. I was in Catholic School up until high school. I was in everything. I was in the choir, I was in the youth groups, everything. I was a lot older than you when I finally opened my eyes. I tried to keep them shut for a very long time. I honestly tried very hard to believe. It was a struggle for me for the longest time.

Don't blame those that lied to you from birth, they themselves believe the same lies. They have not broken the programming, like you and I have.

BTW: the equivalent to Bar- and Bat-Mitzvah is Confirmation. Communion is where, after the Priest says a few words over little wafers and wine, you eat the body and drink the blood of Jesus Christ in the form of the little wafer and a sip of the wine. Supposedly, the words said by the Priest bring the body of Jesus Christ into the wafers and the blood. *shrugs* whatever.

Personally, I dread the Christian holidays because I'm still expected to go to mass with my family. The presure of buying gifts for everyone, and getting gifts I don't need. But last Easter, I told my sister I was NOT going to Easter mass... I thought she was going to pass out.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Arien the Maia
I beleive..and well the Catholic church teaches that if someone is never introduced to Christianity but lives their life justly...perhaps in accordance with their own religion then that person will be judged differently seeing as how they were never introduced to Jesus...contrary to what many Protestants beleive (no offence to any of my Protestant friends ) the Catholic church does teach that Jews can be saved wiouth believing that Christ is the Messiah...don't ask me how, I only recently found this out but I believe it's because God will never break His covenant with His chosed people

you see this comes across to me as some sort of complicated tax manual or something complete with loop holes for jews and all sorts of things. Seems to me something as big as a religion shouldn’t be so nitpicky on the details. That’s a human trait. Not a divine trait. The divine doesn’t sweat the details.

“If you have been practicing another religion but you have been unaware of the blessing of Christianity until now and your deductions total less then $10,000 please go to Table G-7, section F15 subsection Luke 4:17 and determine your sin quotient for the upcoming fiscal year and say three hail marys and....�

[Arien the Maia]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
you see this comes across to me as some sort of complicated tax manual or something complete with loop holes for jews and all sorts of things. Seems to me something as big as a religion shouldn’t be so nitpicky on the details. That’s a human trait. Not a divine trait. The divine doesn’t sweat the details.

“If you have been practicing another religion but you have been unaware of the blessing of Christianity until now and your deductions total less then $10,000 please go to Table G-7, section F15 subsection Luke 4:17 and determine your sin quotient for the upcoming fiscal year and say three hail marys and....�

but I think details are important. For instance, one can't be allowed to enter heaven if that person has any sin on his soul because sin is contrary to what God is and what heaven is...a place without sin. that's where the whole doctrine of purgatory comes into play....and the whole degrees of sin thing...I know I'm getting on a completely different subject but it's just an example...most Protestants don't believe in the different degrees of sin...it can become very complicated because again, we are dealing with the Divine and the Infinite here

[Rían]

Originally posted by Ruinel
These are your opinions, and not fact. NO offense intended.

The point I was making is that all religions claim to hold the REAL TRUTH. If they are all different, then that claim is false. Therefore, all religions are false and not true.

But Ruinel, (and also NO offense intended ) - it's obvious that MORE than one cannot hold the real truth - but what prevents ONE and ONLY ONE from holding the real truth?

IOW, the claim that ALL religions hold the real truth is false, as you said, since they contradict each other, but your "therefore" is not logically correct, because there is a possibility you left out - it is logically possible, given your first statement, that ONE (and only one) holds the real truth. I'm NOT talking opinion here, I'm talking logical deduction.

ALL religions MAY be false, but it's NOT logically true that ALL MUST be false - it is logically possible that ONE (and ONLY one) is true.

Another way to put it - it's logically possible that ALL are false, but it is not logically NECESSARY that all are false. But it IS logically necessary that more than one cannot be true.

What do you think of GrayMouser's marble analogy? Do you think he's lost his marbles or does he have a valid point?



See if this analogy will explain it -

To use marbles again - say there's 5 marbles, 4 people representing different religions, and 1 person representing the truth. The marble colors are red, green, yellow, blue, and unknown. The "truth" person takes out the "unknown" marble and holds it in his hand. Each of the 4 "religion" people is handed one of the remaining marbles - red, green, yellow, and blue. This meets the requirements of your statement - all religions are different (hold different marbles). Now say that each sincerely believes that their marble matches the "truth" marble. This is exactly your scenario.

Now the "truth" marble may either match one of the others, or it may NOT match one of the others. Valid possibilities for the truth marble include red, green, yellow, and blue, in addition to purple, pink, etc. ALL of these colors are valid possibilities.

It is TRUE that (1) ALL of the religion people have different marbles. But you CANNOT logically say the reverse - that (2) NONE of the people has the same color marble as the truth marble, because (3) one of the color possibilities of the truth marble is .... blue! Do you see my (and GrayMouser's) point?

Now we cannot know for sure the "color" of the true state of being of the universe. But we CAN know that if all religions have a different opinion, then (1) ALL of them CANNOT be right (like you said). But we can also logically deduce that EITHER: (2a) NONE of them are right, OR (2b) ONE and only one is right. I see no way to logically disprove this. Do you? One of those two choices, 2a or 2b, MUST be right. The only place opinion comes in here is which one is right. But they are BOTH logically possible.

Your opinion is that (2a) is right, and my opinion is that (2b) is right and Christianity is the right "color". It CANNOT be logically proved that either possibility is wrong. In addition, it CAN be logically proved that one MUST be right. Do you agree?

So if 2a is true, then all the marbles are different colors, including the one that reflects the true state of the universe. If 2b is true, then the marble that reflects the true state of the universe matches one of the marbles that one of the religions hold. Either one may be true; one CANNOT logically eliminate either possibility.

(sorry if this is a bit thick for those who have not taken formal logic classes, but really, you don't need to have taken a class to see that these particular deductions must be true.)

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
But Ruinel, (and also NO offense intended ) - it's obvious that MORE than one cannot hold the real truth - but what prevents ONE and ONLY ONE from holding the real truth?

IOW, the claim that ALL religions hold the real truth is false, as you said, since they contradict each other, but your "therefore" is not logically correct, because there is a possibility you left out - it is logically possible, given your first statement, that ONE (and only one) holds the real truth. I'm NOT talking opinion here, I'm talking logical deduction.

ALL religions MAY be false, but it's NOT logically true that ALL MUST be false - it is logically possible that ONE (and ONLY one) is true.

The possibility of a meteor striking me on my head is also there. But the probability that it will actually happen is quite remote and small. So, small that I can say that it will never happen to me. The probability that all religions are false is higher than the possibility that Christianity is the TRUE RELIGION.

Then, by your own logic, you could be following the false religion.
But, you hold onto the thought and possibility that you are following the True Religion, reaping your reward when you die. That veils you from the possibility or probablility that you are wasting yourself on a false religion. Even when contradictions to what you have been taught about your religion stare you in the face.

The opinion that YOUR religion is the TRUE RELIGION is opinion and only opinion. It can not be proven to be the TRUE RELIGION by any logical means.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Ruinel
The possibility of a meteor striking me on my head is also there. But the probability that it will actually happen is quite remote and small. So, small that I can say that it will never happen to me.

I hope it won't!

The probability that all religions are false is higher than the possibility that Christianity is the TRUE RELIGION.

No offense here, Ruinel, but you have nothing concrete on which to base this probability figure, do you? It's your opinion. And I have no problem with that. The ONLY thing I objected to was the logically invalid conclusion that ALL religions MUST be false if they are all different. And I think you agree with me now, do you? -because now you're using the word "probability".

Then, by your own logic, you could be following the false religion.

You're absolutely correct!

But, you hold onto the thought and possibility that you are following the True Religion, reaping your reward when you die. That veils you from the possibility or probablility that you are wasting yourself on a false religion. Even when contradictions to what you have been taught about your religion stare you in the face.

I hold onto that thought for many valid reasons. I do not hold onto that thought blindly. I assume you do not hold onto your opinions blindly; will you assume the same for me? Does your holding onto your opinion veil you from the possibility that you're wasting yourself on atheism? And what contradictions are you talking about?

The opinion that YOUR religion is the TRUE RELIGION is opinion and only opinion. It can not be proven to be the TRUE RELIGION by any logical means.

You're absolutely correct - it's opinion, just like your opinion is that there is no God. Neither one can be logically proven. If something is outside the realm of formal logical proof, then one must use other means to come to a conclusion. We've both thought about things, and we have arrived at different conclusions.

My only point was that your conclusion that all religions are false, since all religions are different, is a logically invalid conclusion. I think we also both agree that it's wrong to hold an opinion on an important matter without thinking it through. I have thought my opinion through extensively, and I believe that you have, too. However, neither of us can think about everything, and that's why discussion is good.

[Ruinel]

It is all perspective.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
You're absolutely correct - it's opinion, just like your opinion is that there is no God. Neither one can be logically proven. If something is outside the realm of formal logical proof, then one must use other means to come to a conclusion.

Actually I would say that confirming god through mathematical proof is not necessarily impossible. maybe we will one day? maybe we arent able to but you dont know maybe we will. whereas atheism i dont think can be proven. you cant prove a negative. and ive never really been sure how anyone can be 100% sure that there is no divine force or creating force. i dont see how that can be determined mathematically.

[Katt_knome_hobbit]

I found the greatest quote. It is my new Mantra.

Feelings, whether of compassion or irritation, should be welcomed, recognized, and treated on an absolutely equal basis; because both are ourselves. The tangerine I am eating is me. The mustard greens I am planting are me. I plant with all my heart and mind. I clean this teapot with the kind of attention I would have were I giving the baby Buddha or Jesus a bath. Nothing should be treated more carefully than anything else. In mindfulness, compassion, irritation, mustard green plant, and teapot are all sacred.

-Thich Nhat Hanh, "Miracle of Mindfulness"
From "365 Buddha: Daily Meditations,"

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
Actually I would say that confirming god through mathematical proof is not necessarily impossible. maybe we will one day? maybe we arent able to but you dont know maybe we will. whereas atheism i dont think can be proven. you cant prove a negative. and ive never really been sure how anyone can be 100% sure that there is no divine force or creating force. i dont see how that can be determined mathematically.

Well, mathematics is definitely not my strong suit, but AFAIK it's strictly analytic; like logic, it can't give you any information about what actually exists.

The only attempt to make a logical argument for God's existence that I know of is St. Anselm's Ontological Proof, and that's been pretty well refuted.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
Well, mathematics is definitely not my strong suit, but AFAIK it's strictly analytic; like logic, it can't give you any information about what actually exists.

The only attempt to make a logical argument for God's existence that I know of is St. Anselm's Ontological Proof, and that's been pretty well refuted.

not saying that there is actualy mathematical proof of god but that its certainly possible. where as proving mathematically that there is NO god i dont think is possible. how can you prove a negative? but if there IS a god we should be able to find him in the numbers shouldnt we? someone once said god IS math.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Ruinel
These are your opinions, and not fact. NO offense intended.

The point I was making is that all religions claim to hold the REAL TRUTH. If they are all different, then that claim is false. Therefore, all religions are false and not true.

Allow me to make an analogy, to show you why this particular argument is flawed. In this analogy, money is religion, quarters are some religions and the dime is another. Here's what you're saying:


If I mix four quarters and a dime and claim that all of them are dimes, then that claim is false. Therefore, none of them can be dimes.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Allow me to make an analogy, to show you why this particular argument is flawed. In this analogy, money is religion, quarters are some religions and the dime is another. Here's what you're saying:


If I mix four quarters and a dime and claim that all of them are dimes, then that claim is false. Therefore, none of them can be dimes.

No, I'm not.

[Lief Erikson]

Oh, very sorry, Ruinel. I just realized that RÃ*an had already answered your post on the possibility that religions are true. Ignore my post.

Originally posted by HOBBIT
I was just saying what I found irritating in general, you know ? Like in the past there have been really in your face irritating Christians on this board. Luckily they have since left.......

You know, I actually wrote a story once called "What is this Religion?" and posted it in the Entmoot Writing Forum. I think it might somewhat picture in it your own annoyance at some Christians, for their manner of expressing their faith. In the first example in particular, I think . The second example of a poor witness is the Christian that bothers me quite a lot, simply because he doesn't know what he's talking about enough.

[GrayMouser]

apropos of the earlier discussion of whether something can be wrong even if it is not (apparently) harmful:

The taboo test-

http://www.philosophersmag.com/bw/games/taboo.htm

Warning!! Some of the questions may be considered not appropriate for some mooters, especially younger ones.

There are some sections asking you to judge whether some particular sexual activities are morally right or wrong.

[Rían]

I started to go thru the test, but found it impossible to answer accurately after awhile - like in the example of the son promising his mother, on her deathbed, to visit her grave once a week, then he doesn't do it; is that wrong? Well, it's not that simple at all - what if he had to move to another country to get medical care for his wife? I think it was a wrong promise to make in the first place, if it was unconditional, because no one knows their future. And I think if he had to move to another country to save his wife's life, then that is the morally right choice to make, to the best of my understanding, even if it means breaking his promise about visiting the grave.

Also, that rather silly (IMO) question about is something wrong ONLY because God says it is - like if God says it's wrong to drink water, that makes drinking water wrong, with the implication that God can be capricious. IMO, it's a nonsensical question, sort of like saying "Is it wrong for RÃ*an to wave her hand and give someone a bad case of acne?" - it's impossible for me to do this, and it's impossible for God to capriciously declare something wrong that has absolutely nothing wrong in itself.

See, these types of things, IMO, don't look at the heart of the person involved (either people or God), which is the crux of the matter.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
apropos of the earlier discussion of whether something can be wrong even if it is not (apparently) harmful:

The taboo test-

http://www.philosophersmag.com/bw/games/taboo.htm

I got:

Results

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.43.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.20.

Your Universalising Factor is: 1.00.

Guess Im pretty out there morality wise cept I dont like people who eat cats.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Katt_knome_hobbit
I found the greatest quote. It is my new Mantra.

Feelings, whether of compassion or irritation, should be welcomed, recognized, and treated on an absolutely equal basis; because both are ourselves. The tangerine I am eating is me. The mustard greens I am planting are me. I plant with all my heart and mind. I clean this teapot with the kind of attention I would have were I giving the baby Buddha or Jesus a bath. Nothing should be treated more carefully than anything else. In mindfulness, compassion, irritation, mustard green plant, and teapot are all sacred.

-Thich Nhat Hanh, "Miracle of Mindfulness"
From "365 Buddha: Daily Meditations,"

I have trouble with this kind of statement, because doesn't that imply that if someone you love was passed out on a train track with a train coming, and a teapot was also on the tracks, that you would be in a real moral dilemma which to save (if you could save only one)? And I can't see that you would have any trouble choosing to save a person over a teapot. Would you?

I think it sounds nice, but has nothing to do with reality, where the rubber meets the road.

[Rían]

Just a quick update on a topic that people have wanted to discuss - what do you guys think about this:

People have raised the question of, roughly, how can God be all good and all-powerful if we see such terrible suffering in the world? I was just wondering how many of those that have raised this question are doing anything to relieve suffering anywhere. I think we should share what we are doing to relieve any of the suffering we see before we discuss this topic.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
The taboo test-

http://www.philosophersmag.com/bw/games/taboo.htm

eewww... a brother and sister... eewwww...
I really hate these tests... they make me seem like a freak.
I got:
Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.23.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.25.

RÃ*an, I think the question was worded that way (god and drinking water) so that the reader could be separated from laws/rules that are already handed down by the bible, or some other religious book. Obviously, there is no religious law against drinking water.