Does this make a religion void?

B

Betrayer0fHope

MY COHERENCE! IT'S GOING AWAYY
Registered Senior Member
When a religion has exactly zero followers(whether it be to the letter or just a loose following, you choose), would that be sufficient proof that the religion was wrong? There are very very very few followers of the ancient Egyptian religion(I don't know what it's called), does this mean it's not true?
 
No, having zero followers does not make a religion void; however, it does make the religion in question painfully unpopular. Besides, if your premise was true, then one could derive a counterattack along the lines of, "is the religion with the highest number of believers the most valid faith to follow?" The truth is not defined by popularity.


Kadark
 
It simply makes the religion extinct. One of the many extinct religions (those of ancient Mesopotamia, Egypt, Mesoamerica, Peru, Polynesia, etc.) may have been the right one, leaving all others since as "false religions."

The chances are just as likely that an extinct religion was the one "true" religion as it is that an extant religion is the one "true" religion.
 
SkinWalker said:
It simply makes the religion extinct. One of the many extinct religions (those of ancient Mesopotamia, Egypt, Mesoamerica, Peru, Polynesia, etc.) may have been the right one, leaving all others since as "false religions."

The chances are just as likely that an extinct religion was the one "true" religion as it is that an extant religion is the one "true" religion.
Click to expand...
depends whether one is arguing a type of atheism that doesn't accommodate henological discussion (like say an antithesis of dominant christian thought from the twelfth century ..... kind of uncanny how skinwalker and st. Augustine have similar views .... :scratchin: )
 
There are more than zero followers of the Egyptian pantheon of Gods. Burroughs did a whole book about it.
 
Betrayer0fHope said:
When a religion has exactly zero followers(whether it be to the letter or just a loose following, you choose), would that be sufficient proof that the religion was wrong? There are very very very few followers of the ancient Egyptian religion(I don't know what it's called), does this mean it's not true?
Click to expand...

If you think that religions in all their specific details are each either the right set of rituals and stories, etc., then it could have been wrong. But if you think of religions as a variety of vehicles towards similar goals, then that vehicle is no longer being used, but it was not wrong for those who used it well.
 
before 1514 nobody believed that the Earth revolved around the sun. Does that make the belief that the Sun revolved around the earth true up until someone believed otherwise?
 
amark317 said:
before 1514 nobody believed that the Earth revolved around the sun. Does that make the belief that the Sun revolved around the earth true up until someone believed otherwise?
Click to expand...
*************
M*W: In reality, no, but that's what people believed at the time; therefore, it was the generally considered to be true that the world was flat.
 
Typically if a lot of people believe something it does become more believable.
Supposed theres a UFO sighting from 1 person, not very believable...
Suppose there is one from 10, 100? 100000? The more the people believe in it, the more it is believable.

I don't think its that different for religion.
 
amark317 said:
before 1514 nobody believed that the Earth revolved around the sun. Does that make the belief that the Sun revolved around the earth true up until someone believed otherwise?
Click to expand...

No, it does not. The sun does not want us to believe it, it is inanimate. Most Gods described in religious texts want us to believe them, so when nobody does and never will again, is it safe to assume that God doesn't exist?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top