Belief or disbelief: What are your reasons?

[redwards]

i don't get the impression that hindus worship krishna above any other "god", and if they do, then that's where christ comes in. he's the final word on it...

There's no way you're going to work through each major (god forbid minor) religion and declare them all to be compatible. Christians keep the sabbath holy and idol worship is forbidden, Hindus worship cows (and lots of idols), Muslims have jihad, Jainists think that killing is an unimaginable horror.

You simply cannot reconcile all of these religions.

that's not the impression i get. i get the impression that they're all claiming a version of the same truth, each in their own way. and i also don't think they have it all right...not 100%...no one does. no one knows all there is to know and no religion represents all there is to know, but if you put them altogether you can get a pretty good idea of some things, which is all we need to know.

for now.

Again, they are blatantly contradictory. Creation or Cosmic Cycle? Afterlife or Rebirth? Religious struggle or nonviolence? Beef or Pig?

Human beings are extraordinarily good at ignoring obvious contradictions, and that seems to be what you've done here.

 

[S.A.M.]

Actually I agree with Lori

I've studied Hinduism, Islam, some Judaism, some Chinese, Korean and Japanese shamanism, some Egyptian and Sumerian religions and they pretty much all fall along the same lines.

Or as the Rig Ved says:

ekam sad viprā bahudhā vadantya
"Truth is One, but sages call it by many names."

 

[redwards]

Actually I agree with Lori

I've studied Hinduism, Islam, some Judaism, some Chinese, Korean and Japanese shamanism, some Egyptian and Sumerian religions and they pretty much all fall along the same lines.

They fall along the same lines with regards to what? What you can and can't eat? No. The afterlife? No. The sabbath? No. Creation? No. Violence? No. Monotheism? No. Polytheism? No. Benevolent God(s)? No.

How many obvious problems do I need to list before you stop trying to polish this turd of an idea?

 

[S.A.M.]

They fall along the same lines with regards to what? What you can and can't eat? No. The afterlife? No. The sabbath? No. Creation? No. Violence? No. Monotheism? No. Polytheism? No. Benevolent God(s)? No.

How many obvious problems do I need to list before you stop trying to polish this turd of an idea?

All of them are based in a higher being, all of them believe that this higher being accounts for the laws that govern the universe, all of them believe that human beings are accountable for their actions and emphasise on doing good and avoiding evil.

There are more similarities, most of which aim at communal rather than individual goals, social responsibility and community cohesion.

 

[redwards]

All of them are based in a higher being,

Buddhism. Most sects do not consider the Buddha a deity. Also, Jainism. All people can become semi-deities, in a way.

all of them believe that this higher being accounts for the laws that govern the universe

Again, Buddhism. Even the path to enlightenment was discovered by Gautama Buddha, not created. Also, again, Jainism. Shinto - questionable.

, all of them believe that human beings are accountable for their actions and emphasise on doing good and avoiding evil.

Calvinists (among others) believe in predestination, making you inherently unaccountable for your actions. And, of course, the ideas as to what constitutes good and evil vary dramatically.

There are more similarities, most of which aim at communal rather than individual goals, social responsibility and community cohesion.

Again Buddhism, enlightenment is an individual goal. And, obviously, many religions do not consider this 'community' to extend to followers of other religions.

And, obviously, you're leaving off a very, very, very, very long list of other aspects of various religions, as they quite clearly do not support your argument.

 

[S.A.M.]

Buddhism. Most sects do not consider the Buddha a deity. Also, Jainism. All people can become semi-deities, in a way.

Which Buddha? Which Tirthankara?

There are old schools in Buddhism which feel that an internal reality which is noninternal makes no ontological sense. Same for Jainism, which believes in a divine soul, just does not define what divinity is.

\
Again, Buddhism. Even the path to enlightenment was discovered by Gautama Buddha, not created. Also, again, Jainism. Shinto - questionable.

Buddha discovered an existing reality (see above). Buddhism does not deny the existence of supernatural beings. Jains believe that every soul is divine. Shinto has the kami

According to Kojiki and Nihongi, [Izanagi is] one of the two kami (together with his consort Izanami) principally responsible for the formation of the world.

Calvinists (among others) believe in predestination, making you inherently unaccountable for your actions. And, of course, the ideas as to what constitutes good and evil vary dramatically.

Calvinism is an approach to Christianity.

Again Buddhism, enlightenment is an individual goal. And, obviously, many religions do not consider this 'community' to extend to followers of other religions.

Except that non-monks are responsible for the caretaking of the monks. And the Eightfold path which makes good behaviour necessary for a good Buddhist

The Noble Eightfold Path is the way to the cessation of suffering, the fourth part of the Four Noble Truths. In the early sources (the four main Nikayas) it is not generally taught to laymen, and it is little known in the Far East.[29]This is divided into three sections: Śīla (which concerns wholesome physical actions), Samadhi (which concerns the meditative concentration of the mind) and Prajñā (which concerns spiritual insight into the true nature of all things).

And, obviously, you're leaving off a very, very, very, very long list of other aspects of various religions, as they quite clearly do not support your argument.

I separate theists and atheists as those who believe there is a reason for the physical laws which are nonnegotiable and the moral and social laws that are and those who believe that no explanation is necessary or perhaps possible.

In that I find that all societies have either arrived independently at a form of religion which they altered as society changed or else, there have been atheistic societies but have been self destructive (like the Carvakas who vanished silently in India).

 

[spidergoat]

There is no God but Allah.

 

[redwards]

Which Buddha? Which Tirthankara?

There are old schools in Buddhism which feel that an internal reality which is noninternal makes no ontological sense. Same for Jainism, which believes in a divine soul, just does not define what divinity is.





Buddha discovered an existing reality (see above). Buddhism does not deny the existence of supernatural beings. Jains believe that every soul is divine. Shinto has the kami

Your argument was that all believed in a higher power which created natural laws. Clearly, that isn't the case here.

Calvinism is an approach to Christianity.

Obviously, and they successfully demonstrate that even sects of the same religion disagree (wouldn't be much point in having different sects if they didn't).

Except that non-monks are responsible for the caretaking of the monks. And the Eightfold path which makes good behaviour necessary for a good Buddhist

Far less communal than, say, Judaism.

I separate theists and atheists as those who believe there is a reason for the physical laws which are nonnegotiable and the moral and social laws that are and those who believe that no explanation is necessary or perhaps possible.

I separate theists and atheists as those who believe they already know the reason for physical and moral laws, and those who are willing to admit that they don't know everything (and, perhaps, that claiming to have knowledge with no evidence to support it is foolish).

In that I find that all societies have either arrived independently at a form of religion which they altered as society changed or else, there have been atheistic societies but have been self destructive (like the Carvakas who vanished silently in India).

Most modern countries allow freedom of religion, so it can no longer be claimed that the society is necessarily of a particular religion. Many societies contain a diverse mix of religion, and 'none' is often high on the list, and occasionally first on the list.

 

[S.A.M.]

Your argument was that all believed in a higher power which created natural laws. Clearly, that isn't the case here.

Not from where I stand. The way I see it, some of them assert lack of knowledge but acknowledge that is an unknown supernatural.

Obviously, and they successfully demonstrate that even sects of the same religion disagree (wouldn't be much point in having different sects if they didn't).

Which came along later.

Far less communal than, say, Judaism.

Not really, look at Tibetan society and Sri Lankan society, or even Shinto Japanese society.

I separate theists and atheists as those who believe they already know the reason for physical and moral laws, and those who are willing to admit that they don't know everything (and, perhaps, that claiming to have knowledge with no evidence to support it is foolish).

Thats your prerogative. :shrug:

Most modern countries allow freedom of religion, so it can no longer be claimed that the society is necessarily of a particular religion. Many societies contain a diverse mix of religion, and 'none' is often high on the list, and occasionally first on the list.

Same "modern" countries that steal resources and occupy other countries? Lack of religion appears to create an unsupportably materialistic society. Its hardly a century old. I doubt it will last more than another century, at the most, possibly until we run out of oil. The Carvakas hung around for as long.

 

[S.A.M.]

There is no God but Allah.

There is no god but God.

ilah being a god and Allah being God, with no gender, article or form.

 

[spidergoat]

You are one to talk, considering that the Islamic empire was established by force and justified by religion. It expelled and in some cases massacred other religious groups that inconveniently refused to surrender.

 

[redwards]

Not from where I stand. The way I see it, some of them assert lack of knowledge but acknowledge that is an unknown supernatural.

You're reinterpreting their religions to fit your notion of religion? How novel.

Which came along later.

...so?

Not really, look at Tibetan society and Sri Lankan society, or even Shinto Japanese society.

Okay...

Different religions encourage aspects of community differently. Most of them do encourage community. :shrug:

Same "modern" countries that steal resources and occupy other countries? Lack of religion appears to create an unsupportably materialistic society. Its hardly a century old. I doubt it will last more than another century, at the most, possibly until we run out of oil. The Carvakas hung around for as long.

I would call America among the most materialistic societies on the planet, and I don't see any lack of religion.

And if you think freedom of religion or absence of religion is on the wane, you've never looked at any manner of statistical analysis at all.

All of which is straying from the point, I've listed half a dozen points on which various religions fundamentally disagree, and I could list dozens more. It's still absurd to assert that different religions can be reconciled with one another.

 

[redwards]

You are one to talk, considering that the Islamic empire was established by force and justified by religion. It expelled and in some cases massacred other religious groups that inconveniently refused to surrender.

If only they saw it S.A.M.'s way.

 

[S.A.M.]

You are one to talk, considering that the Islamic empire was established by force and justified by religion. It expelled and in some cases massacred other religious groups that inconveniently refused to surrender.

It was not an "Islamic Empire" when it was established. It was an expansion for resources. For over a century, no one was concerned with the religion of the people. At the end of a hundred years after Mohammed, only 10% of the people were Muslims and most of them were concentrated in Arabia, although the "empire" extended from Yemen to Spain.

 

[shichimenshyo]

It was not an "Islamic Empire" when it was established. It was an expansion for resources. For over a century, no one was concerned with the religion of the people.

An expansion for resources eh? That sounds familiar :scratchin:

 

[spidergoat]

That is because your religion allows for the subjugation of other peoples and generously allows them to keep their own religions, as long as they keep the cash flowing. Any Mafioso would be envious of this accomplishment. It was still a materialistic expansion of a religious empire.

 

[(Q)]

It was an expansion for resources.

That's exactly what Hitler said.

 

[S.A.M.]

That is because your religion allows for the subjugation of other peoples and generously allows them to keep their own religions, as long as they keep the cash flowing. Any Mafioso would be envious of this accomplishment. It was still a materialistic expansion of a religious empire.

Maybe the Israelis are closet Muslims, eh?

 

[TheCareTaker]

OK!
Can someone Catch me up on what we r talking about if its about religion ill join in.

 

[S.A.M.]

OK!
Can someone Catch me up on what we r talking about if its about religion ill join in.

How about the thread starter?

In my travels, I've learned that is never just one reason for belief or disbelief in God. There are always 3 basic reasons for why people believe, and why people disbelieve. They are:

1. Intellectual

You read the arguments for belief and find them compelling, and you believe. If you think the arguments don't stack up, you don't believe. It's the intellectual, or reasoning proper.

2. Personal

One thing that I've found in people that I've personally met, or have chatted with on a message board, is that nobody believes or disbelieves in God purely for intellectual reasons. There are always personal reasons. An interesting tidbit: most people, at some point in their lives, will go through a very trying time where they are dealing with a terrible experience (tragedy, disappointment). Some people interpret that in meaning they that need God to help get them through that. Others who have the exact same experiences interpret that in meaning that they can't believe in a God who can lets stuff like that happen.

3. Social

This falls under the category of the sociology of knowledge, that says that the people that are in your community, or the community that you want to be part of, that their beliefs tend to be more plausible than the beliefs of the people in the communities that you don't like or don't want to be part of. You believe or don't believe because of the social support.

Those are the 3 reasons. Now, what you can't do, is reduce belief or non-belief to just one of those reasons. It's always all 3. It's wrong and almost exploitative to say that one's position is based only on reasoning and another's is based on cultural and personal reasons.

So, I pose this question to all here, both believers and non-believers: what are your 3 reasons?