This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

I don't understand how people think their religion is the correct religion.

  • Topic Archived
You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
  1. Boards
  2. Religion
  3. I don't understand how people think their religion is the correct religion.

User Info: Faust_8

Faust_8
2 months ago#31
OrangeWizard posted...

I don't think this is true. You're making the assumption here that all religions are equally valid, and have equal evidence.

When you take a look at something like the bible, which is composed by ~40 authors spanning ~1500 years, and has survived to become the most translated, most circulated book in the world, and then say that the religion of this book is equally valid to those that worship, I don't know, Los Santos Malandros, are on equal footing?


If it was evident that there was "more evidence" for Christianity being true I really don't think there would be as much controversy about it, or as many non-Christians, don't you think?

I'm pretty darn sure that a devout follower of some other religion will insist that HIS religion is the most valid, with the best evidence.
"A book is proof that humans are capable of working magic." --Carl Sagan

User Info: Stuflames

Stuflames
2 months ago#32
Why do you think that the religious people are any different than the non-religious when it comes to reasoning or being confident?

You seem to be thinking that religious people are different, like they are some mysterious alien being that nobody can relate to. The first step in understanding the religious, is to get rid of this assumption.

How do they come to their conclusions? The same way all other humans do.
How do they come to be so confident? The same way all other humans do.


The problem here is that other people are equally as confident in something contradictory, with similar evidences (power of prayer, miracles, visions, guidance, feelings, histories, teachers, manuscripts, history). So why would a religious person exposed to that knowledge remain confident in their own piece, that they have something others don't?

And again both people can't be right (at least for the religions and sects relevant to the conversation, of which there are many). One is wrong. So by being a believer in one thing, you're saying everyone who isn't is wrong, without the 'evidence' to support they are wrong. You just have interpreted evidence of your choice that you are 'right', which is only half of the equation.


I haven't read anything except the OP. If you don't want to talk about what you said in the OP, that's your decision, but my question after reading it is what your position is on the existence of God.


-My position is that there would be more consistency across cultures, across separated regions, across the globe, the same experiences and religions rising across time and history, if one of the religions was true.

That would be the first step (which isn't the case). Then I would still be skeptical that whatever causing that was a God rather than another force.

Then I would still further question whether I could actually know the motivations, functions, and be able to trust that I can know that God from the knowledge we have been allowed to gain in this life.

-My observation is that prayer and belief can, at times, inconsistently, have very interesting consequences.

I think I get what the TC is asking and I do think it's a good point, but could be approached differently. I'm going to take a shot at it.


Thank you. I liked your take on what I was saying.

For lots of folks, that isn't exactly right. Certainly not in that strictly binary way.


For a lot of folks, though, that is pretty much exactly right, though, and I don't understand that (which is related to the topic title).

Further, I don't understand the confidence that people have that they've found the correct interpretation of that kernel, enough that they'll actively worship and pray and believe in their version at the direct opposition to other versions. It's still 'I'm the right one'. If they didn't think they are right then they wouldn't actively worship within the boundaries and traditions of that single religion. So while they may think others have a piece of it, they still think others are (more) wrong.

"More true" is a meaningless phrase. I think you mean "more likely to be true", and that would be correct. However, one religion being more popular than another is an example of a piece of evidence that would be found in one, but absent from the other, so it would still be true that not all religions have equal evidence.


Christianity didn't always have more worshipers than tons of other religions. Was it any less true then than now? No. It's either true or it isn't, it's the nature of the universe or it isn't. It's a fact that's either true or false.

That isn't evidence of a truth of the universe.

....
PSN: GolemSix

User Info: darkmaian23

darkmaian23
2 months ago#33
OrangeWizard posted...


I don't think this is true. You're making the assumption here that all religions are equally valid, and have equal evidence.

When you take a look at something like the bible, which is composed by ~40 authors spanning ~1500 years, and has survived to become the most translated, most circulated book in the world, and then say that the religion of this book is equally valid to those that worship, I don't know, Los Santos Malandros, are on equal footing?


If someone believes in a religion, their belief is no more or less real than the belief you have in your own religion. You might consider your beliefs as a Jehovah's Witness (if you're a different brand of Christian, I apologize for getting it wrong) are more reasonable than say a Buddhist's beliefs based on evidence, but the Buddhist is obviously going to disagree. Maybe he'll think the evidence that convinces you is really compelling, or maybe he'll be one of those types that thinks you can both be right, but obviously he won't be overly impressed with what you consider to be evidence you're right and he's wrong, or else you'd both have the same religion.

And then there is the problem of what people find convincing in the first place. I need mountains of evidence with sound logical reasoning to believe something improbable. A relative of mine believes in God and the afterlife because he gets special feelings when he is in a church. Another thinks God and Heaven must be real because otherwise life would be too cruel and horrible. Still another only believes in things that follow directly from a set of preconceived notions he has about the world; any other starting points or differing paths of logic on any subject, including religion, are angrily discarded. None of those people care about the things you mentioned, and most don't want to hear anything about histories or authors. I know some people do, but it's just not universal.

I went through a period where I had a ton of free time on my hands and I spent it all reading Christian and secular material on a variety of topics, from textual criticism of the Bible to history to evolution. Out of all the issues I studied, evolution was the hardest to understand and accept (it wasn't taught in school in my town). In the end, as someone who just wanted to get to the bottom of the issue, I couldn't find a single good argument in favor of Christianity, God, or miracles. To answer the TC's question, when I was a Christian as a kid/young adult, it was because my family was and because I trusted everyone around me to have good answers to the questions I had on tough topics that I just couldn't understand.

I remain open to being convinced of the validity of any religion.

User Info: Stuflames

Stuflames
2 months ago#34
For my piece this is time consuming for me and I don't know that there's a lot else I can say without getting stuck in circular arguments or... just spending time doing what I might not want to be doing at a given time out of a sense of obligation.

I may or may not be back to discuss this further, but I at least wanted to respond to some of the things people were saying, since they took time to read and respond to me, before I potentially let the topic rest.

Sorry if I missed anything someone thought was important or if I was unclear in what I was saying, but I was at the post limit.
PSN: GolemSix

User Info: dhalsimrocks

dhalsimrocks
2 months ago#35
OrangeWizard posted...
dhalsimrocks posted...

When we add that the evidence provided by most religious believers to support their claims is very similar (personal experience, prayer, the existence of morals, invisible entities, holy books and texts, arbitrary aspects of holy books claimed to make them special and better than others, prophets and conduits to god[s]), then we can conclude that many people believe false religions based on the same sorts of evidence provided by the other religions. Even if one of them happens to be true, this sort of evidence is now compromised and must be called into question.


I don't think this is true. You're making the assumption here that all religions are equally valid, and have equal evidence.

No, that's not what I'm assuming. I'm starting with the hypothesis that none of them are true and that it is the burden of proof of the believers in those religions to provide the significantly good evidence to overcome the very low prior probability that any one of them is true.

When you take a look at something like the bible, which is composed by ~40 authors spanning ~1500 years, and has survived to become the most translated, most circulated book in the world, and then say that the religion of this book is equally valid to those that worship, I don't know, Los Santos Malandros, are on equal footing?

This is what I meant by "arbitrary aspects of holy books claimed to make them special and better than others". Aside from the appeal to popularity in there, the time span of composition and number of authors is arbitrary.

A Muslim could just as easily turn that back around and say, "Well the Quran was written by only one person under the dictation of the very angel Gabriel himself, that makes mine better. In fact, he was illiterate, so the Quran itself is a miracle. Additionally, it is written in a style so beautiful it is impossible to imitate and is amazingly easy to memorize."

Mormons will tout similar stats, such as Joseph Smith also being illiterate or at the very least having a very low education and thus not capable of forging something like the Book of Mormon, and the fact that it was translated from golden plates that people actually witnessed and even signed a document saying so.

Hindu can make the claim to the oldest verifiable scripture in the Rig Vedas.

Each religion can tout the stats of their holy books as making them special and thus more likely true. But who says the true religion would even have a holy book? If there's a true one out there, why is it any less probable that it would be without a holy text at all, especially given all the problems with textual transmission? Maybe the true god(s) would intentionally try to avoid that issue by not using text.
May all your disgraces be private

User Info: YHWH_Saves

YHWH_Saves
2 months ago#36
Hustle Kong posted...
I think Ken is the best street fighter character.

Explains a lot, actually...
"Man will not live off of bread alone, but by every word proceeding through the mouth of God." "You are not able to serve God and wealth.".

User Info: Moorish_Idol

Moorish_Idol
2 months ago#37
Stuflames posted...
Sorry if I missed anything someone thought was important or if I was unclear in what I was saying, but I was at the post limit.

I know you said you don't want to post here much anymore but I'm still curious about my earlier post:

Moorish_Idol posted...
Stuflames posted...
Repent. Because you don't know what you claim to know. Your whole-hearted beliefs are no better than another's beliefs, based in no more truth. In history and in the now there are hearts stronger than yours, full of more conviction, more belief, but those hearts believe in something else.

Before I repent, could you explain if you believe these things to be true or know them to be true? If the latter, how?

You make a lot of knowledge claims here that are functionally identical to a lot of claims religious folk make. Yet you act immune to your own criticisms regarding knowledge claims.
Not everything has to be about something.
Camofrog, Caroline, Chadder, Diana, Ketchup, Lyman, Olivia, Ruby, Shari

User Info: Hustle Kong

Hustle Kong
2 months ago#38
YHWH_Saves posted...
Hustle Kong posted...
I think Ken is the best street fighter character.

Explains a lot, actually...


I choose to take this as a compliment.
Shooting Game never die.
It prays that the clover of luck be always in your mind.

User Info: Stuflames

Stuflames
2 months ago#39
You make a lot of knowledge claims here that are functionally identical to a lot of claims religious folk make. Yet you act immune to your own criticisms regarding knowledge claims.


I don't actually understand what you mean by this. Is this my knowledge claim:

Your whole-hearted beliefs are no better than another's beliefs, based in no more truth. In history and in the now there are hearts stronger than yours, full of more conviction, more belief, but those hearts believe in something else.


For the first part I was being a little dramatic. 'Based in no more truth' is a knowledge claim I shouldn't have made. You're absolutely right.

For the other part:

Saying in history that there are hearts stronger than 'yours' (whoever is in the audience) and more full of conviction that believe in something else is, to me, common sense.

If you want to claim that your heart is the more full of conviction and more strong in belief, beyond any believers of another religion throughout all of time, I guess I'm not in your heart so, you're right, that's also a knowledge claim that I can't have...

But come on... are you really saying that? Are you really arguing that point?

I think you'd be being disingenuous if you did.
PSN: GolemSix

User Info: SockThief

SockThief
2 months ago#40
Stuflames posted...
-My position is that there would be more consistency across cultures, across separated regions, across the globe, the same experiences and religions rising across time and history, if one of the religions was true.

That would be the first step (which isn't the case). Then I would still be skeptical that whatever causing that was a God rather than another force.

Then I would still further question whether I could actually know the motivations, functions, and be able to trust that I can know that God from the knowledge we have been allowed to gain in this life.

-My observation is that prayer and belief can, at times, inconsistently, have very interesting consequences.


Why are you avoiding answering my question?
I steal your sock.
  1. Boards
  2. Religion
  3. I don't understand how people think their religion is the correct religion.

Report Message

Terms of Use Violations:

Etiquette Issues:

Notes (optional; required for "Other"):
Add user to Ignore List after reporting

Topic Sticky

You are not allowed to request a sticky.

  • Topic Archived