Thousands of Religious Sects - Which one is right?

[nds1]

Here is the new thread introduction:

There are billions of people on this earth. There are probably an infinite number of different belief systems.
There can only be one correct belief system. There can only be one truth.

Which belief system is the true one, or has the most percentage of truth? Atheism? Christianity? Islam? Hinduism? Buddhism? Take your pick.

All of the current belief systems out there today are a certain, specific percentage true. The percentage of truth or correctness of each belief system is measured by how close that belief system matches up with the one true belief system.

For example, here is a possible chart:

Belief System A = 78.23% True
Belief System B = 64.35% True
Belief System C = 62.23% True
Belief System D = 56.32% True
etc.
etc.
Belief System Z = 00.01% True

So in our world today:

Christianity - Sect A = ?% True
Christianity - Sect B = ?% True
Christianity - Sect C = ?% True

or:

Atheism - Sect A = ?% True
Atheism - Sect B = ?% True
Atheism - Sect C = ?% True

 

[draqon]

Here is the new thread introduction:

There are billions of people on this earth. There are probably an infinite number of different belief systems.
There can only be one correct belief system. There can only be one truth.

Which belief system is the true one, or has the most percentage of truth? Atheism? Christianity? Islam? Hinduism? Buddhism? Take your pick.

All of the current belief systems out there today are a certain, specific percentage true. The percentage of truth or correctness of each belief system is measured by how close that belief system matches up with the one true belief system.

For example, here is a possible chart:

Belief System A = 78.23% True
Belief System B = 64.35% True
Belief System C = 62.23% True
Belief System D = 56.32% True
etc.
etc.
Belief System Z = 00.01% True

So in our world today:

Christianity - Sect A = ?% True
Christianity - Sect B = ?% True
Christianity - Sect C = ?% True

or:

Atheism - Sect A = ?% True
Atheism - Sect B = ?% True
Atheism - Sect C = ?% True

everything is truth and false at the same time.

 

[SnakeLord]

everything is truth and false at the same time.

Thank you for that wonderful pearl of hogwash. You thought you could contradict yourself in one sentence and get away with it? Pfft.

Christianity - Sect A = ?% True
Christianity - Sect B = ?% True
Christianity - Sect C = ?% True]

Amount of christian sects, (I'm not sure of absolute figures but from what I have heard it is many).

Amount of religions.. (many)

That will give you your basic odds.. 1 million religions, 1 million to 1 of being correct. You then have to take into account the possibility that every religion made thus far is created by man and then assume that if a god exists it could be anything the human mind can comprehend or anything the human mind cannot comprehend. The resulting odds are a gazillionbillionmillionsquillion to 1 that you have got the right god, religion blahdeblah.

Atheism - Sect A = ?% True
Atheism - Sect B = ?% True
Atheism - Sect C = ?% True

Atheism can not technically ever be wrong. Ok there are differing degrees but the only thing that connects atheism is a lack of belief in gods - and more generally those gods that people's little brains come up with. I, and no atheist, can really state it an impossibility that there is a god of some kind. For all we know there could be an omnipotent banana in charge of the cosmos... Atheism itself just lacks a belief but will happily believe the day someone shows something to support the claim.

 

[lightgigantic]

A good night's sleep usually gets rid of most headaches, so just sleep on it if your thinking of choosing a god and the temptation will be gone by morning.

That's a worthy comparison... a headache pill vs a god. I see how that could work :bugeye:

witty responses, but unfortunately they don't touch on the logical fallacies worked into the general principles

No sect is right; no religion is right; belief in any religion is incredulous.

without offering reasons for opinions one runs the risk of posting responses that can be copy/pasted with the greatest of ease, eg

Some sects are right; some religions are right; disbelief in any religion is incredulous.

So I guess the only solution is to just tolerate your religion and quit whining.

I'm not the one whining about it

Even if that religion is wrong, right LG?

thats my point, to say that religion is wrong requires a lot more than just pointing ou there are a variety of approaches, just like it requires a lot more to determine that headache cures don't work simply because there are a lot of brands on the market

Tell that to Martin Luther. There's a guy who wasn't about to tolerate bullshit.

I don't understand the context of this reference

Here's the difference between headaches and religion:

In order to have a headache, we don't do anything since it isn't in our control (as far as the physiological prcoess involved).

In order to have a religon on the other hand, we must choose one.

therefore I gave the eg of choosing a headache tablet, not choosing a headache

 

[lightgigantic]

Here is the new thread introduction:

There are billions of people on this earth. There are probably an infinite number of different belief systems.
There can only be one correct belief system. There can only be one truth.

Which belief system is the true one, or has the most percentage of truth? Atheism? Christianity? Islam? Hinduism? Buddhism? Take your pick.

All of the current belief systems out there today are a certain, specific percentage true. The percentage of truth or correctness of each belief system is measured by how close that belief system matches up with the one true belief system.

For example, here is a possible chart:

Belief System A = 78.23% True
Belief System B = 64.35% True
Belief System C = 62.23% True
Belief System D = 56.32% True
etc.
etc.
Belief System Z = 00.01% True

So in our world today:

Christianity - Sect A = ?% True
Christianity - Sect B = ?% True
Christianity - Sect C = ?% True

or:

Atheism - Sect A = ?% True
Atheism - Sect B = ?% True
Atheism - Sect C = ?% True

Here is the new thread introduction:

There are billions of people on this earth. There are probably an infinite number of different names for water.
There can only be one correct belief system. There can only be one true water.

Which naming system is the true one, or has the most percentage of truth? Is it pani? Jal? Aqua? Wasser? вода? 水? Take your pick.

 

[nds1]

Here is the new thread introduction:

There are billions of people on this earth. There are probably an infinite number of different names for water.
There can only be one correct belief system. There can only be one true water.

Which naming system is the true one, or has the most percentage of truth? Is it pani? Jal? Aqua? Wasser? вода? 水? Take your pick.

Your water analogy makes no sense and is irrelevent. Religions and names for water cannot be compared.

Your analogy implies that I said that Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, etc. are all the exact same religion, and all have the exact same beliefs and rules with the exact same bibles, etc.

Obviously, this is not the case.

Religions all have different rules, different Gods, different views on the afterlife, different sacraments, and different overall views.

Water on the other hand is the same no matter what you call it.

Your analogy would work if my introduction was this:

There are billions of people on this earth. There are probably an infinite number of different names for religion.
There can only be one correct belief system. There can only be one true religion.

Which naming system is the true one, or has the most percentage of truth? Is it el religiono? Relijino? relijion? relajsk? Take your pick.


Here's your mistake LG:

All water is the same no matter what you call it.

All religions ARE NOT the same. Some believe Jesus is the Son of God. Others don't. Some believe in one God. Others don't. Some believe we shouldn't eat red meat and should fast. Others don't.

To you LG, all religions have exactly the same beliefs and rules. LOL. That's a good one.

 

[SkinWalker]

Very seldom if ever are the different names for water (they are finite, not infinite) referring to different substances that have different basic characteristics.

The different beliefs, specifically, the different religions and gods, have often very contradictory and differing characteristics. Clearly the analogy is flawed and, thus, can be dismissed by the rationally minded. I'm sure the irrational are still willing to defend it, however.

 

[nds1]

I don't understand the context of this reference

Martin Luther grew up Catholic. Then he realized how fucked up and corrupt it was at the time. The Catholic Church was running a business and taking people's money through BS things like indulgences. All the morons and zombies back then who didn't know better just kept paying up and thinking they had a one way ticket to heaven.

Martin Luther went against the big religion of the day. The branch of Christianity which he started may not be the 100% true religion, but at least Luther knew that the Roman Catholic Church sure as hell wasn't 100% correct, and far from it.

 

[lightgigantic]

Very seldom if ever are the different names for water (they are finite, not infinite) referring to different substances that have different basic characteristics.

originally I tagged something in earlier about the absurdity of having an "infinite" series of beliefs, for the same reasons .... but I omitted it because I thought there was no point discussing it since it would just diverge the topic and it was obviously figurative

The different beliefs, specifically, the different religions and gods, have often very contradictory and differing characteristics. Clearly the analogy is flawed and, thus, can be dismissed by the rationally minded. I'm sure the irrational are still willing to defend it, however.

Actually it is apparent to many persons who study interfaith dialougues that it is only the details that change - like for instance some people have water in clay pots, some people have water in galvanized iron water tanks, some people in wells, some in rivers, some in ponds, some in taps and some in plastic bottles

 

[lightgigantic]

Martin Luther grew up Catholic. Then he realized how fucked up and corrupt it was at the time. The Catholic Church was running a business and taking people's money through BS things like indulgences. All the morons and zombies back then who didn't know better just kept paying up and thinking they had a one way ticket to heaven.

Martin Luther went against the big religion of the day. The branch of Christianity which he started may not be the 100% true religion, but at least Luther knew that the Roman Catholic Church sure as hell wasn't 100% correct, and far from it.

so it seems his issue was more institutional than theological

Your water analogy makes no sense and is irrelevent. Religions and names for water cannot be compared.

Your analogy implies that I said that Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, etc. are all the exact same religion, and all have the exact same beliefs and rules with the exact same bibles, etc.

actually it implies that the details differ, but the essence is the same, much like water can be 'packaged' differently by different names - maybe it would have been better to stick to what I posted for skinwalker, about water coming in clay pots, wellls, bottles etc

Obviously, this is not the case.

Religions all have different rules, different Gods, different views on the afterlife, different sacraments, and different overall views.

water also comes in different packages, like for instance sometimes in comes in clay pots, other times plastic bottles or rivers, wells, ponds etc - but the poitn is that it all serves the same purpose - quenching thirst -

similarly religion has basically two applications - the do not's - (aimed at eliminating or regulating activities that exacerbate conditional life) and - the do's - (aimed at helping the conditioned living entity progress into the field of transcendence)

Water on the other hand is the same no matter what you call it.

similarly there is only one absolute nature - in otherwords there is only one god, just like there i sobviously only one sun, even though it may be shining directly above the head of a million people according to their individual claims at midday

Your analogy would work if my introduction was this:

There are billions of people on this earth. There are probably an infinite number of different names for religion.
There can only be one correct belief system. There can only be one true religion.

Which naming system is the true one, or has the most percentage of truth? Is it el religiono? Relijino? relijion? relajsk? Take your pick.

but if you examine what you have given, hinduism, christianity, you have given different names for religious practice, so its not so distant - obviosuly there can only be one god (if several processes lay claim to an absolute factor, then the logical conclusion is that they are referring to teh same thing)

Here's your mistake LG:

All water is the same no matter what you call it.

All religions ARE NOT the same. Some believe Jesus is the Son of God. Others don't.

some have experience of water coming in clay pots. Some have experience of water coming in plastic bottles

Some believe in one God. Others don't.

some have experience with a water manufacturing company releasing one type of packaged water on the market. Some have experience with several water manufacturing companies releasing several brands on the market

Some believe we shouldn't eat red meat and should fast. Others don't.

some believe you should drink reverse osmosis filtered water - some are happy enough to drink whatever comes out of the hand pump

To you LG, all religions have exactly the same beliefs and rules. LOL. That's a good one.

Its not uncommon for an athiest (and even the odd theist on occasion too) to label secondary religious principles as primary, and vice versa

 

[SkinWalker]

Actually it is apparent to many persons who study interfaith dialougues that it is only the details that change - like for instance some people have water in clay pots, some people have water in galvanized iron water tanks, some people in wells, some in rivers, some in ponds, some in taps and some in plastic bottles

Actually, I think your full of it. Perhaps you could cite references to these "persons" and their scholarly works. Is your analogy about water or is it about vessels?

You aren't being very clear. As usual. But, then, the postmodernist "theologian" prefers obscurity and obfuscation since clarity and reason give away the game. Your analogy still fails. Miserably.

 

[lightgigantic]

Actually, I think your full of it. Perhaps you could cite references to these "persons" and their scholarly works.

you mean you have never encountered such works?

Is your analogy about water or is it about vessels?

its about how one who is not familiar with the essence tends to get bewildered by the details - like rather than focusing on what water is, focusing on the vessel - similarly, rather than focusing on what the role of god is, one is focusing on the vessel it is delivered in

You aren't being very clear. As usual. But, then, the postmodernist "theologian" prefers obscurity and obfuscation since clarity and reason give away the game. Your analogy still fails. Miserably.

and once again you are using nastiness as a substitute for philosophical thinking

 

[SkinWalker]

Perhaps, but you are clearly using nonsense for the same.

 

[lightgigantic]

Perhaps, but you are clearly using nonsense for the same.

More nastiness and an absence of anything remotely close to philosophy (or "post modernism" as you call it)

 

[draqon]

allright so Rastafarianism is right, because I said so, allright? Yeah.

 

[nds1]

LG, hear me out.

True or False:

Jesus, the man presented in the Bible, was either the Son of God or was just a man. He couldn't have been both.

True or False.

 

[lightgigantic]

allright so Rastafarianism is right, because I said so, allright? Yeah.

certainly a step up from being a staunch atheist

 

[lightgigantic]

LG, hear me out.

True or False:

Jesus, the man presented in the Bible, was either the Son of God or was just a man. He couldn't have been both.

True or False.

i would say that he is a special or unique son of god, since all living entities are sons of god (given that the existence of god is the foundation that all other existences emmanate from)

 

[draqon]

certainly a step up from being a staunch atheist

thats cause I lied. Atheism is the only way to live.

 

[nds1]

Okay LG, here's another one:

True or False.

Mumammad's visions involving the great archangel Gabriel were genuine. Gabriel really did talk to him.

True or False.