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: Stuflames

Stuflames
4 months ago#41
Why are you avoiding answering my question?
\

?

I didn't realize I was. I kind of thought what I said implied or indicated my position on God, but to clarify ...

My position is I'm not going to make an assumption requiring knowledge and evidence I don't have.

My position is further that if there is a God, it is not the God of one religion that we have, not a God that one religion can claim to know. It's something else.

My position is further that assuming knowledge of the nature of such a being, should they exist, pretending to know their mind and motivations and plans, is arrogant.

I see and hear about interesting things happen when people believe and pray, but I don't know what that indicates. It does not indicate to me the necessarily existence of God, but it lends some credibility that there is a at least a chance there's something going on that can be affected by consciousness and belief, so based on the knowledge I do have I'm not ready to definitively say there is no God or spirit force or whatever either.

If that still doesn't answer your question then please rephrase so I can better understand what you're hoping to gain insight on.
PSN: GolemSix

User Info: SockThief

SockThief
4 months ago#42
Stuflames posted...
My position is I'm not going to make an assumption requiring knowledge and evidence I don't have.


So you don't take a position on God's existence? That's all you needed to say when i asked what your position is on God's existence. Not all that other stuff.

So you think people are arrogant for believing in God based on evidence that you don't have yourself, is that it? Because if they believe they have more evidence than you do, their belief can't be classified as arrogance, right?

My position is further that if there is a God, it is not the God of one religion that we have, not a God that one religion can claim to know. It's something else.


I think this is arrogance because you're saying that if you can't figure out whether there's a god, nobody else could have either. How is that not arrogant?
I steal your sock.

User Info: OrangeWizard

OrangeWizard
4 months ago#43
Faust_8 posted...

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 don't know what you mean by "as much controversy", but no, I don't think that the amount of evidence correlates to number of followers, since many people in the world have not seen this evidence.

A thing can be true, and have an abundance of evidence, but people still have to learn about this evidence before they can believe it.


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.


I don't see how a random person's insistence is relevant here, especially given the post you quoted.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCevfumG9WSyr165n84HfwRQ

User Info: OrangeWizard

OrangeWizard
4 months ago#44
Stuflames posted...

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).


As I said to dhalsim, this is not true except for a minority of cases. The Big 3 religions, Christianity, Judiasm, Islam, are in a league of their own, compared to the rest. Throw a dart at all the religions in the world, and you'll most likely hit something that you've never even heard of, like this: http://santeriachurch.org/our-denomination/

What evidence do they have? I have no idea, as I can't find it on their website. You'll probably have to hunt down a practitioner or go to one of their few churches to find somebody who knows.

Of course, absense of evidence is not evidence of absense, but you're the one claiming that every religion of the world has the same amount of evidence. Neither you nor I know the first thing about this religion, but you insist that it is equal to all others, and that all other are equal to it, with regard to the body of evidence. This is a silly claim.

It's like claiming that astrology is as equally valid as astronomy, and backing that up by ignoring what makes them different. That's what you're doing here. You're ignorant of the differences between religions and assuming that there is none.


So why would a religious person exposed to that knowledge remain confident in their own piece


Because they disagree with what you're presenting as a fact: That all religions are equally valid.


you're saying everyone who isn't is wrong, without the 'evidence' to support they are wrong.

I would also disagree with you here.

The evidence that brings the religious to the conclusion that they are correct, is the same evidence that causes them to reject all other religions as false.


Christianity didn't always have more worshipers than tons of other religions.

And its explosive growth can be taken as another piece of evidence.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCevfumG9WSyr165n84HfwRQ

User Info: OrangeWizard

OrangeWizard
4 months ago#45
darkmaian23 posted...

If someone believes in a religion, their belief is no more or less real than the belief you have in your own religion.


How strongly one believes in something is irrelevant to the amount and quality of evidence one has, which is what I thought we were talking about.


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.



Are you saying that "If one doesn't find it convincing, it isn't 'real evidence'?" People deny "real evidence" all the time, like the Flat Earth Society. Who's to say that the earth is round, given that these people exist, and say otherwise? Actually, that might be a fitting rebuttal to TC's sentiment.


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.


What is your point? "I couldn't find it, therefore, it doesn't exist"?
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCevfumG9WSyr165n84HfwRQ

User Info: dhalsimrocks

dhalsimrocks
4 months ago#46
OrangeWizard posted...

And its explosive growth can be taken as another piece of evidence.

Can it? Surely you can think of other factors that can lead to the growth of a religion besides its truth.
May all your disgraces be private

User Info: OrangeWizard

OrangeWizard
4 months ago#47
dhalsimrocks posted...

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.


So, I'll ask the same question I asked Ich: do you think that it's "more valid" to believe that I have 1kg in gold bullion in my possession , than 10kg? How about 10 vs 100? How about 100 vs 1000? Does, at any point, any combination of numbers become "equally valid", or is it always a linear distribution between amount of gold and validity?

It's fine if you want to say that "none of them pass my standards", but to follow that up with "so they're all equal" is misleading, at best, insulting at worst.


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.


As I understand it "appeal to popularity", and other fallacies only apply when you're making statements of truth. Such as "Most people believe it, therefore, it's true". That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying it merely adds to the available body of evidence. It's analogous to circumstantial evidence, where it can lead to the inference of a truth. An eyewitness evidence of a stabbing would be considered "direct evidence", whereas a bloody knife found at the scene would be considered circumstantial.

You seem to think it's all or nothing, that everything must be "direct evidence", that unambiguously proves this or that religion without a shadow of a doubt.


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."



And I would say that yes, assuming that all the premises here are true, this would be considered a nice piece of evidence.

You seem to think it's all or nothing, that, according to the religious, one religion must have all of the evidence, and therefore, no religions must have any of the evidence.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCevfumG9WSyr165n84HfwRQ

User Info: OrangeWizard

OrangeWizard
4 months ago#48
dhalsimrocks posted...
OrangeWizard posted...

And its explosive growth can be taken as another piece of evidence.

Can it?

Yes. Anything can be taken as evidence of anything, to anyone, as long as we're defining "evidence" as "anything that causes one to believe in something".

Surely you can think of other factors that can lead to the growth of a religion besides its truth.

And there can be other reasons why a bloody knife would be found at the scene of a stabbing, but that doesn't mean it isn't considered evidence.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCevfumG9WSyr165n84HfwRQ

User Info: zipzo6

zipzo6
4 months ago#49
Magyar15 posted...
Stuflames posted...
I don't recall ever saying anything about what one "wishes" reality to be.


You didn't. But I guess that's where my mind goes.

So you're saying that you and others, looking logically at the world, see... physical (?) evidence that a specific doctrine is the true faith above other explanations, faiths, and doctrines, and the most likely true explanation of available evidence? And that other equally fervent believers (or aetheists or nonbelievers) aren't seeing the correct evidence or interpreting it correctly?

I, too, am struggling with your words. What you mean by being 'convinced by evidence' in this spiritual context.


There's also physical manuscripts of the writings that have been passed down. Enough evidence and historical criticism to convince me that they are relatively unchanged since their current form. And also enough evidence from the way things played out that the people who originally provided the info for these documents were convinced that they were speaking the truth


Right so if someone is convinced about something that must make what they have to say 100% objective fact.

I mean, you don't apply this logic anywhere else in life (politics, opinions on best food, movie, anything), so it's nonsense that you consider "convinced storytellers" as evidence. That's not evidence. Those are testimonies, if not just anecdotes at this point in the game of telephone that is the ancient history of any religion's origin.

There is indeed many types of evidence in court, but nice sleight of hand logic there, none of those things are ever going to be meta-physical. Evidence is always going to refer to something that is objectively observable by the 5 senses, either by sight, sound, or touch.

Just so you know, most every single religion has some kind of manuscript passed down through the ages, written and amended by figures who were convinced of their own documentation.

I'm going to make OP's point more blatantly because his attempt to tread the point lightly has only confused people.

There's nothing special about your religion compared to the other (countless) religions that exist. Nothing special that a completely neutral and objective observer could point out, given they were completely educated on every facet of the religions said observer were instructed to compare. There's nothing extraordinary at a level above the already extraordinary nature of basically all religions' teachings.

Knowing this, the only means for which you conclude that YOUR choice is the right one, given you are very unlikely to be educated in every single other religion on planet earth, can only veritably and reasonably be seen as ignorant. It's basically like saying there's no life out there in the universe other than earth. That entails you actually knowing everything about the universe to make such a conclusion.

You're saying that your "argument" is the convincing nature of the teachings, except you've not endured all the other religious teachings. You have no comparison. You only have your own upbringing. It's like saying In-n-out has the best burgers when you've never been to any other burger joint (5 guys is better tho). You have no basis of comparison. Even a masters degree, life-studied, phd theologist who spends most waking hours studying religion is not going to be educated in every single religion.

Given all of that, how do you know our religion is the correct one?

There actually is an objective answer to this and it's not based on opinion: you think you do, but you don't.

User Info: OrangeWizard

OrangeWizard
4 months ago#50
zipzo6 posted...

There's nothing special about your religion compared to the other (countless) religions that exist.


How many religions have a compilation of books written by 40 authors, spanning 1500 years, and exists today as the most translated, most circulated book in the world?

That's something special, isn't it?

Even a masters degree, life-studied, phd theologist who spends most waking hours studying religion is not going to be educated in every single religion.


Such a person would surely find any such extraordinary evidence quickly, wouldn't you say? It's a bit like the Fermi paradox: Where is it? If there's someone great religion out there that has all the answers, surpassing the Big 3 religions we all know about, why haven't all these educated people found it and written books on it? Such a book would be an instant best-seller.

Given that they haven't, are these random unknown religions even worthy of being considered? Certainly, the gods of these tiny religions don't seem at all interested in spreading "the truth", assuming that they're even powerful enough to do so. If the god doesn't want us to worship it, nothing is lost. If the god isn't capable of spreading the message, then we've surpassed it. Only a god that wants to spread the truth, and is powerful enough to do so will make an impact on the world.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCevfumG9WSyr165n84HfwRQ
  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