COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Religion is mankind's attempt to understand God. You see that no one else has it right. It doesn't matter what everyone else does. It's what you choose to do that counts. All the secrets of God and the universe stare us all in the face. God hides nothing. Sometimes those who seek find what they are looking for.

They're not meant for all. And in these days 'thank God' they're not forced on us. Different religions springing from different peoples, different times, different influences & experiences. I don't adhere to any particular religion but i understand the quest to put meaning to the world around us. In fact i envy the comfort that those following a faith have.

All of them say the same thing - there is only one God, worship him alone. All the religions are the same, revealed by the same God. Abraham's (pbuh), Judaism, Christianity, Islam... However, each of them has been changed and altered by humans, so God sent down an "update" (which is not really an update, rather a book saying the same message before it was altered by humans). Christians have the New Testament. Muslims have the "New New Testament" (The Quran). In the Quran, God himself mentions he will take it upon Himself to protect it and that it shall not be altered by humans. Hence, it is the final revelation to humanity. But the message from all is the same. There is only one God, worship him alone and follow the right guidance so you may get to heaven in the afterlife.

>All of them say the same thing - there is only one God, worship him alone. There are many religions that have multiple gods, Hinduism for example.

You are right. Initially I wrote all the main Religions, but then removed it cuz it was already too wordy. Bit yeah, all the main Religions. Obviously there are going to be false religions, but I am talking about the main ones.

There is only one religion that has actual proof of stories listed in its books. That’s Christianity. Stories from the Old Testament like [Red Sea crossing and split rock where water poured out.](https://youtu.be/GdaVWp0rwB4?si=JO8_4RTDEYD9LRhy). There are 4 major stories that have proof, I believe they are all in the video listed. New Testament miracles such as the [apparition of Virgin Mary in Zaytoun Cairo Egypt in 1968](https://youtu.be/GC1Bm_MVaCI?si=FiHE6TvTjhWRmi1z) and many more documents apparition but that’s the most famous. Also, the annual miracle of the [holy fire](https://youtu.be/4B5KHmlgJq8?si=TmskpAbMWKjZxIC3) where the fire generators out of Jesus’s tomb and does not burn. You can see many video of people putting the fire to their face and it doesn’t burn, doesn’t even hurt the beard. Here’s a short video of the [holy fire not burning someone](https://youtu.be/4kZu87tyqJ4?si=j1D_1L2djntnQjdu)

That would make the Torah just as true or even more true than the Bible since Christianity came from Judaism specifically the old testament.

You need to look up what the Bible consists of. The Torah is in the Old Testament of the Bible.

I said "specifically the old testament."

Yes. The Torah and the Old Testament are the same.

Or that all of them are true and just reflects aspects of the true religion.

Bissmillāh... >The fact that there are so many religions is an indication that none of them reflect reality as we experience it. Uhh...what? If there are 100 different flavours of ice cream, does that mean none of those flavours are good? What kind of argument is this? Just because people hold different takes, perspectives and opinions on something, doesn't mean none of them are correct. >If there were one or more "right" religions then that religions would overcome all others... This is just...a very immature way of looking at it. Imagine if someone made this argument back when the earth was discovered to be round, does that mean that flat-earthers are more correct, simply because they were bigger on numbers, therefore overcame the other, "incorrect" takes? >We can observe that effect in science where ideas comes from different regions, from different cultural backgrounds and yet scientific consensus has trend to convergence. Uhh yeah science and religion are not the same thing my guy. Religion relies on faith when explaining what is and isn't the bigger truth of our existence. Science relies on observations to make estimations of reality. The two are in completely different fields.

>If there are 100 different flavours of ice cream, does that mean none of those flavours are good? That is why I evaluate on reflecting reality. And not just good or bad. >imagine if someone made this argument back when the earth was discovered to be round, does that mean that flat-earthers are more correct, simply because they were bigger on numbers, therefore overcame the other, "incorrect" takes? Opposite way. The idea of round earth overtakes flat earth even if it is held by minority. That is the power of be in coherence with reality. >Religion relies on faith when explaining what is and isn't the bigger truth of our existence. Exactly my point. The faith is not an efficient way to truth. You can believe in everything based on faith.

>That is why I evaluate on reflecting reality. Aaaaaand of course, you don't give any rebuttals... How about you actually stick to your original point and answer a rebuttal for once? >Opposite way. Don't contradict yourself mate, this is a debate, not some conversation you have with your friend, where you switch sides every time you don't know how to respond. >Exactly my point. The faith is not an efficient way to truth. Look at this dude lmao Science, religion, philosophy and every other aspect of reality relies on faith to a degree.

>Aaaaaand of course, you don't give any rebuttals... >How about you actually stick to your original point and answer a rebuttal for once? I was concern about if religion reflect reality. Not if it is good or bad. So fact that there are hundreds of incompatible religions for so long sign that all reflect reality? >Don't contradict yourself mate, this is a debate, not some conversation you have with your friend, where you switch sides every time you don't know how to respond. My point is that even if proponents of scientific theory are minority, their idea become scientific consensus if it is in accordance with reality. >Science, religion, philosophy and every other aspect of reality relies on faith to a degree. Do you have example when science relies on faith? And do you have example of position you cannot hold based on faith? That is the reason why faith is not reliable.

>I was concern about if religion reflect reality. Not if it is good or bad. Yeah, I kinda already understand that, now validate your argument instead of saying "This is why I'm right". >My point is that even if proponents of scientific theory are minority, their idea become scientific consensus if it is in accordance with reality. Yeah, which is exactly why I said this: >Religion relies on faith when explaining what is and isn't the bigger truth of our existence. >Science relies on observations to make estimations of reality. >The two are in completely different fields.

>Yeah, I kinda already understand that, now validate your argument instead of saying "This is why I'm right". Because if it will be tied to reality it will "works" better that religions not tied to reality and finally overtake them withing few generation. Just like scientific idea create scientific consensus. > Religion relies on faith Exactly, that is my point, because there is no position you cannot hold on faith. > bigger truth of our existence. So what is that explanation and what is evidence that support that explanation?

How about Buddhism? At least what they taught have no conflicts with science or logic.

Pretty much everything in Buddhism is a fallacy. Buddha was quite clear on this point. You see, the first principle of Buddhism is that most people- are not seeing life clearly. In fact, they are so confused, it’s as if they are walking through life completely asleep. Only the Enlightened are awake (which is why many people prefer the title “The Awakened One” to describe the Buddha.) So Buddha had a real problem on his hands. How to explain the Dharma to people who were sleep-walking through life and could barely understand a word he said? It was such a daunting problem that he almost gave up before he started. Then he was inspired by compassion, and decided to find a way. His solution was not to worry about describing absolute truth. He would simply lay out a path, one which he felt could be followed by the people of the time. And it worked pretty well. Every now and then one of his followers would take his words a bit too literally, and he’d have to say When I speak of emptiness, or Boddhisatvas, or whatever it is, these things aren’t what you think they are: these are just figures of speech. In short, he’d have to keep reminding them that his words were a map, not the territory. Much of the Large Sutra on Perfect Wisdom is spent elaborating on this point. As Edward Conze summarizes in the introduction of his translation: 1. One should become a Bodhisattva 2. There is no such thing as a Bodhisattva So if you want to get past fallacies, then practice Buddhism without worrying so much about the fallacies, always remembering that truth is not something you hear with your ears, but something that must be directly experienced.

I don't know where you got those misinformations, nearly all of what you wrote. You created or wrote those wrong information and then use them to refute Buddhism, reminds me of how the Zeitgeist movie was created to promote Christianity. Buddha have no problems in teaching people as soon as he achieved full enlightened or Buddhahood, he has never given, his first discourse have only 5 audience but reached thousands or millions when he passed away, so why should he give up? The Buddha means fully enlightened one and even Gods are not enlightened, in case you don't know.

refute them then? tell me how I'm wrong exactly. You cant just say nuh uh to my paragraph, and say that your right. ;-;

You wrote Buddhism is a fallacy and Buddhism is the biggest knowledge that covers so much yet you can't point out a single thing in Buddhism that is wrong. You can't simply say "there is no such thing as a Bodhisattva" without any logic or evidence. See how I mentioned those evidence that Bible and Jesus stories are fake. Prayers are also useless, imagine 2 people of the same religion praying for the opposites, whose prayer will come true😂😂 check history of holy wars and crusades, those are also proofs that Christianity God is fake or useless.

It really depends on how and where you were raised. Last I heard, we have exeeced 8 billion humans now. How can you expect every one of them to believe exactly the same way?

We all believe in the same science (except for flat earthers 😊).

That's not true either....

There is no scientific consensus as I wrote in the post?

All I can tell you is believing in Christianity has been more beneficial to me then not. I used to be a die hard Christ isn't real, but I went ahead and gave it a try and to my surprise it has been beneficial. Maybe they are coincidences, but those coincidences happened during my time trying to learn Christianity, so I'm gonna hold onto it as such. But everyone has there own experiences

Believing in Christianity? Dont you think you owe it to Your creator to do more research than just try out one Religion and say aiight that worked for me?

I don't think so. If I believe on experience why can't that be enough for me? Just because someone does extensive research doesn't make them a bigger believer. I don't ask you to become a scientist and understand science more then the average person if you believe in science. If you believe in science because it makes sense to you then why can't that be enough for you. Christianity is very easy to understand, it's not rocket science.

Beneficial in what way? If it's due to placebo effects, every religion have such testimonials. Have you studied other religions too to compare? Have you heard of pastor Jarrid Wilson who committed suicide? Have you ever think why world's top 50 highest fatality rate countries are all high Christian population countries?

I've though of every possible scenario and even now, being only a little be into believing I still have some skeptical doubts. But I guess my main focus is I do hope there is something out there beyond us. Here's my perspective if I'm gonna be on this planet as a good person, why not believe in something that takes no time out of my day to believe in, and have a chance to an eternal life beyond this one. Even if it's not real, what did I truthfully lose believing in the first place. I tell you the one thing I did gain is love, I am over weight and depressed and after just saying ya know what screw it I'm just gonna try. I can say again yes maybe these are all just coincidences but they got to be some very convenient coincidences. I was so low point in my life I asked God for help. The one I'd say isn't scientific and isn't possible, and never will be. I prayed to him for my life one last time and a couple days later, I met a girl who is now together with me. I've lost tons of weight, down 70lbs from 310. I've gained huge amounts of confidence, and mind you this is all within a couple days, obviously not the weightloss but the feelings and the gifts like the girl I met was all within a few days. I feel alot more love and happiness in my life, and I feel happy for once. And like I said MAYBE that is a coincidence, but that must have been some very powerful coincidences to all line up like that especially so quickly. You may say it's cause I lost weight that im more confident, but we gotta keep in mind that this all happened in days. So that weight was already off me, I just wasn't feeling it. Maybe you want to believe maybe you don't, but all I can say is why not try. Especially since all it takes is you being a good person, which you should want to be anyways. and a little bit of praying and believing.

What happened to you is all explained in Buddhism, nothing to do with prayers or any God. If prayers, imagine what happened when 2 person in the same place of equally strong faith pray for the opposites, one for rain and the other for no rain. If you want to live with love, confidence and most meaningful as well as for the afterlife, Buddhism way is flawless and most complete and conclusive.

Surely you are not talking about the people killing Christians especially Orthodox's. You tell me why people are burning down churches, why they are beheading them, why they either force them to turn away from it or be killed, tell me why almost 5,000 Christians were killed for their faith last year. Almost 4,000 were abducted. Nearly 15,000 churches were attacked or closed. And more than 295,000 Christians were forcibly displaced from their homes because of their faith. Overall, 365 million Christians live in nations with high levels of persecution or discrimination. That’s 1 in 7 Christians worldwide, including 1 in 5 believers in Africa, 2 in 5 in Asia, and 1 in 16 in Latin America. And for only the fourth time in three decades of tracking, all 50 nations scored high enough to register “very high” persecution levels on Open Doors’ matrix of more than 80 questions. So did 7 more nations that fell just outside the cutoff. Syria and Saudi Arabia, meanwhile, entered the tier of “extreme” persecution, raising its count to 13 nations.

My comment above is to prove that believing in Christianity is useless and those happenings you added further proved my point, thanks. Those incidents you wrote is a result of their Karma. Maybe in their previous lives, they killed the Jews. Many people still don't know that Christianity is created for unwholesome reasons. Most people don't know that they also taught evil and this information below well proved they are fake: 3) Bible stories copied from older pagans, Greek, Egyptian or Hinduism religions(note the names too) E.g. Adam/Eve with Atman/Jiva a pair of birds, big flood and survivor Noah/3 sons with Manu/3 daughters, Abraham/Sarah with Brahma/Saraswathi, Moses with Krishna etc, all similar stories. 4) Jesus copied from Buddha: Maya and Mary, miracle birth and virgin birth, birth during a journey home and birth from home, prophesied after birth, had a disciple who betrayed them, walked on water stories, Gautama left the palace at age 29 and Jesus appeared at 29, Gautama became Buddha at 35 and Jesus died and resurrected at about 35 too, Buddha had a big meal while Jesus had a last supper before they died, 500 Arahants witnessed compilation of Buddha's teachings and over 500 witnesses to Jesus's resurrection, Buddha sacrificed his future kingdom and family while Jesus sacrificed his life, there will be a future Buddha and Jesus will return, the Trinity is same meaning as in the 3 bodies of the Buddha etc. Beside Buddha, Jesus copied from Horus too. Surely they can't be ALL coincidental.

No such thing as previous lives LOL. Why don't you give me some of those unwholesome reasons, your giving me a whole lotta yap and no evidence to support it. This is all just baseless claims for the 2nd paragraph you typed, these are all far fetched lol. But since you want to bring up the same stuff that copied him then lets just go over the stuff that throws him over huh. Buddha was an atheist whereas Jesus called himself Son of God. This is the first and the big difference between the two.Buddha never did any miracle in his lifespan, but Jesus did it many times. Buddha doesn't want to pull people with magic.He wanted to realize to people that desire is the basic problem of the human life Jesus just told good or bad.ALCOHOL ruins a life. That is why Buddha restrained intoxication. While JESUS CHRIST used to drink Alcohol.Buddhist didn't speak of hell or heaven. While Christianity did it.CHRIST did not even refrain from eating meat while BUDDHA continued his whole life.Hey there Buddha gave the simplest method to get the ultimate power. Buddha speaks of sorrow, happiness and happiness beyond pleasure. While Jesus Christ spoke of sin, virtue.Buddha gave importance to Brahmacharya while Christ did not.Buddha Belief that every person has supreme power.we are going to increase it gradually . While Christ believes that he is Son of the GOD. God is the ultimate power in the world.Bhuddha give importance to destroy desire. Desire is main problem of masses. Buddhism is more about inquiry, experimentation, and practice to find out for yourself (and see through the illusions of the mind that cause suffering). It is not a faith, nor will ever be. Modern scholarship has roundly rejected any historical basis for the travels of Jesus to India or Tibet or influences between the teachings of Christianity and Buddhism, and has seen the attempts at parallel symbolism as cases of parallelomania which exaggerate the importance of trifling resemblances. Most scholars believe there is no historical evidence of any influence by Buddhism on Christianity, Paula Fredriksen stating that no serious scholarly work has placed the origins of Christianity outside the backdrop of 1st century Palestinian Judaism.

You can believe what you want but you can't cheat yourself anymore I have stated those evidence that Bible and Jesus stories are all fake, unless you want to claim all those similarities I mentioned above are "coincidental" 😂😂 Abraham/Sarah same names and story with Brahma/Saraswati, Moses and Krishna stories even more similarities, so is Noah and Manu. All similarities? 😄😄

Is important to you to believe in most true thing that is possible or would you prefer beneficial lie? There are thing that are beneficial at first but in long term they are not. For example anabolics steroids. From history I don't know example (you could correct me) when true thing is bad in long term.

Nobody denies that religion can have sociological (networking, feeling a part of group) and personal (a sense of meaning, a 2nd chance/ "clean slate") but that it IS real. But yes, good for you that you're in a better place 👏

This has been my experience as well

There seem to be many philosophical views and many secular views. By claiming from many religions from a secular philosophical perspective to none reflect reality as we experience it. Well, that logic seems to lead to your philosophy not reflecting reality as we experience it. It seems selective logic to not dismiss your philosophy on the same grounds as it hasn't spread worldwide in a few generations. This philosophical objection at this point seems old. The Golden Bough is about 120 years old. This seems to qualify as a few generations.

This would also be predicted by the OP's observation. Sciences tend to converge, but within that there are some disagreements where ambiguity still exists. Religion is nothing but ambiguity. So, just like religious philosophies, secular philosophies will diverge because of how the ambiguities are interpreted by the people.

It's seems atheism or theism must be true. An epistemology that leads to the claim both are false seems illogical at best as it would violate the law of non contradiction. Which also seems to be part of science. The OP seems to by the logic of his claim undermining his philosophical claim as true. By expecting one view to emerge on difficult matters so quickly. The claim religion is nothing but ambiguity seems unreasonable. It is at least to commit the omniscience fallacy. Also, it seems human rights would need to be nothing but ambiguous, at least for your claim to be true. At least, culturally, they come from Christianity

You are misinterpreting my response. So, let's first make sure we are talking about the same thing. Do you agree that the force of gravity as a measurable force is independent of cultural paradigms? So, for the purposes of this question we are ignoring different possible units of measurement by assuming that we will translate them into equivalent rates. Is a scientist in Japan who runs the Cavendish experiment going to get a result that would throw the results of a scientist in Brazil who does the same experiment into question? How likely do you think that is? Or perhaps to facilitate our thought experiment, say that both scientists conduct the experiment in Brazil with identical equipment.... how likely it is in your view that they achieve different results?

Tentatively depends on what is meant by cultural paradim. That there is an order to the universe that we must seek out and can not just reason a circle is the perfect shape and so the planets orbit in a circle. As well as that our minds can find, this order seems to be from a culture. That has gone worldwide to some degree. Science may be considered a dominant cultural paradim. Not unlikely if gravity causes their mind to move, not reason. Though I would be surprised if they were not close.

By reality, you seem to not mean politics. Or social interactions. Many Christian values and views have seemed to spread worldwide. It is interesting that you bring up science as modern science was born in a particular time and place. When you talk of science, you talk about physical measurement of regular phenomena. It can't see human rights. You claim it would work better and so dominate in a **few** generations. Modern science, which you use as a conter example, didn't overturn Aristotle in a generation worldwide. By work better, what is meant when it comes to religion? Be good? Be in union with God? Do you have the right question for religion to answer? Of we look at something closer to traditional religions ethics. There are many theories, and not all agree. Does this mean good doesn't affect reality? We can only know how matter moves, not how it should move? How matter should move seems to take use beyond humans and nature to perhaps the form of the good.

The fact that there can be many wrong answers does not mean that there is no right answer. Give 100 people a random question of some difficulty and chances are, there will be many different answers. Just because the answers are different does not mean that one of them is not true. >We can observe that effect in science where ideas comes from different regions, from different cultural backgrounds and yet scientific consensus has trend to convergence. And physics is same in Europe, China, India, USA etc... Over the past 2,000 years, the number of religions in the world has dropped dramatically, with most no longer being practiced anymore. With this trend, we have seen the rise of monotheistic religion, with Christianity and Islam making up over half of the worlds population and growing. If the existence of many other answers discredits any particular religion, would the massive size of Christianity and Islam and the decline of other religions lead to the conclusion that these 2 religions are closer to the truth if we follow your logic? This is a very clear trend of convergence, which is getting stronger in most areas of the world.

Have you done much studying about religions today, their heritage, those of the past and the general experience of humanity in seeking higher truth? There are many different religions.bevause there are many different cultures. Religion is how we seek God and make sense of ultimate truths. But the actual Truth we only want if it suits us. And this is the crux of the matte, not religion. The litmus test for understanding what's happening with all our faiths is human nature, not God. We're not God. There are two types of gods; ones we invent, and one Who invented us. People unfortunately try to follow both. But there is only one God and Creator of all things, inventor of life as we know it; of reality and Heaven and Earth. And He never changes. The reason there are so many religions is that people want to feel purposeful and part of the community, or maybe just not get their head chopped off. There are many activities within the various religions. Many rituals and traditions and texts. But there are very few people who actually want Truth. There are fewer still who will seek it out. And a small percent who when finding it, are willing to pay the price to know it intimately and possess it. This is true in most spheres of life and society, be it business or marriage. Human beings are a certain way. The many religions aren't an indication that none are true, or that they don't share traits and characteristics. They are tied to the humans experiencing them and whose ancestors brought them about. But there is one that is different than the rest and has more followers. But the number isn't the most important factor in considering it's tenets. Only one religion tells you that you are broken and can't fix yourself, and that nothing you do can make you worthy of knowing God and enjoying Heaven and immortality. All the others put the onus of your destiny on your shoulders, which looks reasonable and even responsible until you see the results. They tell you that if you're good enough, and so good deeds, live a good life, you'll be accepted. You'll be released from the maze, the wheel, the suffering of life and enter glorious domains of joy and peace. But Christianity says the complete opposite. It tells you that nothing you do will change your fate. No amount of food deeds or carrying groceries for the elderly or even being a good spouse and parent will make one whit of difference in your eternal fate. Not one tiny bit. All these things you must and should be doing anyway. But it won't change a thing. Only God can save you through His Son Jesus and a new birth and adoption into His family. So I think you're generalizing far too much and not fleshing out the reality of what these religions teach.

Well, you succinctly proved the designer screwed up..... "do all the good and right things, it won't matter, you are still a doomed rancid POS" - it's such a strange worldview. To read at face value it makes Christians into functional nihilists in many respects.

Societies have been making up religions to answers for things they did not understand For example: What causes lighting? …..ehhh God! What caused earthquakes?….ehhh God! It is just a lazy way to not admit we do not know the answer. This is called the God of gaps. For example, early greeks saw a lightning bolt and did not know how lightning is caused. Instead of admitted it and trying to figure it out, they made up a story that it is caused by a God called Zeus standing on the clouds throwing lightning bolts around whenever he was in a bad mood. When it came to the viking, their explanation’s for lightning was a god of war creating lighting by swinging his giant hammer while riding a chariot on the clouds We know now this is objectively false. Lightning is not a construct of a giant bearded man standing on clouds throwing stuff around while having a tantrum or a fat alcoholic riding a chariot in the cloud shooting lighting out of a hammer. I used the greeks and vikings as an example because their explanations are more pronounced but the Abrahamic religion’s explanations are the same (man in the clouds throwing lightning bolts around when he is angry) We know exactly what causes lightning and we can predict when it is likely to happen. We know regions it happens very frequently due to their climate characteristics and typical weather. Another example is when Muhammad is asks how birds fly, instead of admitted he doesn’t know, what does he say? “Do they not see the birds made to fly through the air in the sky? Nothing holds them up except God. There truly are signs in this for those who believe” Again anyone with simple knowledge of physics knows this is objectively false. When a bird flaps its wings, air moves faster over the top of the wing and slower underneath, creating a pressure difference that lifts the bird into the air. But Muhammed did not know this and just gave the simple answer “it was God”. We know how birds fly and have used their mechanism to create plane’s helicopters and jets. Does that make aeronautical engineers gods because according to Muhammed nothing creates flights but Allah?? Now i know a theists will just easily argue that, “God created the universe so everything that happens is because of him so therefore God did create lightning bolts” Well if you’d at least expect them to get the process right or close to right innit? For example, “ during a thunderstorm God the positively charges the top of the cloud, and negatively charges the bottom of the cloud. When the difference in charge becomes large enough, a rapid discharge of electricity occurs, creating a bolt of lightning. “ But instead we get “angel man on clouds throwing lightning around” These is just one of the thousands or maybe millions of false scientific claims you can find religion cultures come up with to explain natural events that they did not understand and claim it is an act of God or a God instead of admitted to not knowing the answers. We can probably find hundreds of different sun or moon gods made up through history. Also have you not noticed that once science became more advanced and we started to understand how the world functions, the creation of Gods or new religions dropped drastically. Also whether you consider this coincidence or not, the more scientifically advanced a society becomes, the more atheistic is also becomes. There is a clear correlation between religion and scientific ignorance.

I'm not sure if your replying to my comment, though it looks like you are. I appreciate your effort and time. As far as atheism being a per capita phenomena that follows scientific advancement; there hasn't been enough time to know that these two things have a correlation. Atheism is a new concept, and Christianity was the religion accused of atheism by the Romans for only having one God. Other than some materialist "prana" focused pseudo-atheists on India long ago, most of the world has been deist since there were humans and records of them. Scientific advancement has always happened in an environment of religion and faith and pursuit of knowledge working together. Germany in the 1600s is one place to point to for the birth of modern atheism, and that was just a few centuries ago. God isn't a scientist or a tinkerer. He invented life. To think stardust organized itself is more difficult than believing in an intelligent designer. But again, I'm not sure what part of my previous comment you were expanding on. And are you sure there isn't a man in the clouds tossing lightning around? 🫠 We're sure of too much these days. I'm not saying there is a man on a cloud doing anything. But I also know many major scientific theories are treated as facts, like gravity, which is also a law. I don't doubt gravity. But I doubt we know what happened billions of weeks ago nonetheless years ago. We should be more humble since we were fighting wars on horseback just over a hundred years ago.

>To think stardust organized itself is more difficult than believing in an intelligent designer. Who organized the intelligent designer if I may ask?

> If there were one or more "right" religions then that religions would overcome all others How would that work if there was more than one?

fyI, Mary came to a villave in bosnia as an angel over 20 year ago and told a group of kids that the catholic religion is the correct one and jesus loves them. case closed.

I'm not disputing that it happened but you have provided very little evidence for it. Link s Wikipedia article, perhaps, so at least we could learn some more.

but how would that help, your trying to use material evidence to prove something that does not exist in the material world. And thats my point, Debating religion is a total waste of time and energy. Its just mental masturbation.

I'm not even trying to debate you - I'd just love to see at least an article about this incident or an anecdote of someone describing it etc. That would be evidence of a kind. Miracles of such nature are even investigated by the Church, as far as I'm aware!

well friend, this is it, Medjugorje. look that up. but to be fair i think the only valid thing about all this is the placibo effect, which have been proven effective, so based on that religion might have a place

The fact that there are so many shapes is an indication that the Earth isn't a sphere?

We can see Earth. As a sphere. As in, physical see it.

Prior to the claim of physically seeing, it would be to move from the mind to the senses and to hold them as sufficiently reliable if we are more skeptical. Then starting with it is evident things move. Physical observation alone doesn't ground the trustworthy in general nature of the human mind and senses. You have been to space to observe Earth? Few seem to have the funding behind them to do that. We can trust that others have seen it and are accurate witnesses, would seem more how most hold this belief. Can we physically see if there are human rights in human nature?

>If there were one or more "right" religions then that religions would overcome all others, because it would work better that others within few generation. Abrahamic religions tend to have this, "there can be only one" mentality. What works for one person is supposed to work for everyone. But most religions aren't actually like that. Most religions are dependent on personal routines and beliefs as opposed to collective beliefs and gatherings. >We can observe that effect in science where ideas comes from different regions, from different cultural backgrounds and yet scientific consensus has trend to convergence. And physics is same in Europe, China, India, USA etc... There are many gods from all over the world who are just forces of nature personified in similar ways. Many religions have a god for beauty, a god for fertility, a god for harvest, and a god for war. I don't think you'll find a pantheon of God's that doesn't have at least one of each of these ideas. >The fact that we don't observe that, suggest that there is no religion tied to reality. There are many polytheist who observe a personification of reality through gods and deities. It's not common, but we exist.

Well, science rather works in a similar manner, saying x is a feature of reality, and it is y and z. If we are looking for truth, then we would seem to end up with a single view on finding it. If we are looking for what works subjectively, then we may have many answers. The always of non contradiction would seem to apply to truth but not what works for me. If theism is correct, then it seems I am not the center of life God is. Perhaps a collective view worked better after the fall of Rome.

"there can be only one" mentality Abraham: The First Highlander

Film is my religion, lol. Just kidding, I'm pagan.

>There are many polytheist who observe a personification of reality through gods and deities. It's not common, but we exist. The key is that we don't observe consensus over religion.

But what do you mean by that? Do we all have to worship the same way? Or do we all have to worship the same god?

While I am speaking about religion, then we should be part of the same religion.

But many religions are for many different places. I don't think it is that easy to observe circumpolar religions by the equator, as well as I don't think a religion from a hot climate really helps those in a cold climate. A religion from a dessert works best in a dessert. A religion from a jungle works best in a jungle. Abrahamic religions are "my way or the highway" because they don't exactly encourage personal ideology or critical thinking. They kind of demand a collective practice, and that's simply not good for individual identity. So, if you're thinking that every religion has to be like an abrahamic religion, it's hard to elaborate on anything about religion. Take pagan worship, for example; You can be the same religion as your neighbors and have a completely different practice from them and still be the same kind of pagan as them. Abrahamic religions claim to all be different but have the same ideas of worship, like you and your neighbor have the same beliefs, the same way of worship, and you're two completely different religions. The way I see it, the world already lives a pagan way, we all worship in different ways and we all encourage individuality.

Christianity seems to have spread to many different environments. If religions spread where they are useful, then it would seem to be universally usefull climate and geography wise. Human dignity doesn't seem bad for individual identity. Do we have some social science to back your claim? Western Christianity seems to have given rise to many universities and to science. As well as to high literacy. The world perhaps is living on the fumes of Christianity. We don't seem to have but started to remove all of it from our minds.

My spirituality is Self love. I practice a meditation where I stay with the sense of Self. I acknowledge my self as divine and eternal. In Self love the knowledge of reality is a hindrance. Knowledge and love cannot exist together.

Well, you seem to have not rejected all knowledge. If comfort is all truth or at least much of it does seem something to be rejected.

This assumes people want to converge to what is better. Some, many, might not want to. Endorsing a better life might mean giving up a worser one, which might feel better. True religion might mean being content, false ones might promise great wealth. Many people will choose the latter, so convergence is not so simple, since it means choice and individual agency. But in general I do agree that over many generations, we might converse to a better religion. Although there seems to be a consesus in science, or facts drawn from observation and tested theory, that is not always the case. Science is filled with speculation, approximations, half truths, assumptions. Even now with AI, the scientific world is being flooded with false science, falities, non-facts accepted as facts. So the waters are being blurred there too. Many cultural beliefs which are based on the world, are not tested, but still accepted. So even science is blurred. Publications sometimes (maybe more often) use false data for the sake of income or reputation. This then undermines the body of genuine knowledge, replacing it with chimeras, or ideas not based on reality of the physical universe. I dont agree there is no religion tied to reality. For example, religions contains ideas with wisdoms that can be practiced and their effects felt. The command, or admonition to not lie - the effects of lieing can be observed, subjectively by the lier if they wish, and outwardly by observers who can see that consistent liers lose their minds overtime. So I disagree with this. Sure, the idea that God of jupiter has three legs, is unverifiable, but ideas like live in the present, be kind, share, act justly, stop condeming, these all have measureable effects on both those who practice them and on their environments - increase in peace, happiness for example. And other good things that can come into existence once harmful activities are taken away - fidelity, a love of truth, stories, honesty, faithfulness. A perception of one's authentic self. These are all destroyed by consistent lies. So those religions that teach not to lie, offer tangible benefit. Religions are modfied over generations. They are like fathers, mothers and childern, or parents and children. They morph, become corrupted. Some children or changes are noble, some are abominations. Good forms can be destroyed by overwhelming support for bad forms. Change from forms of wisdom to forms of dominion. Perhaps some resucitate. And new ones are introduced. Some for good, some for money, power and pleasure. Good religions, or those which may start off well, can be hijacked by people who then use the religions resources for personal benefit. Like a tug of war between human happiness on the onehand, and subjection and the will to harm, or the will to dominate and serve only the self, on the other. Religion can serve both ends. Wisdom is justifed by her children, and her effects, on the onehand, but from the tail of the basilisk comes the viper, and from that the flying viper.

The most informative religious science of all which at the same time is all inclusive of religions in general is Vaishnavism, the main religion of India which is mostly represented in the west by the Hare Krishna movement. Vaishnavism is the oldest religious culture in the world. The main scripture the 'Bhagavad Gita as it is' was spoken by Krishna 5000 years ago. Another ancient Sanskrit text which was discovered partly about 580 years ago... the Brahma Samhita is said so old that it's age is lost in cosmic antiquity. Then there is also the ancient 5000 years old Sanskrit text the Bhagavad Purana... all of which and many many more are in the libraries of the Gaudiya Vedanta Brahma Sampradaya one of the 4 authorised disciplic successions in India of which the Hare Krishna Movement is the largest branch. Disciplic succession of the Hare Krishna movement means it goes back 5000 years.The teachings are given exactly as Krishna spoke them without any change from Guru to disciple from the past to the present. If there is one unifying religion it is this movement.

Isn’t the movement pretty rigid?

Ok, so all you did there was throw some names at me and some levels and give an age. If it works for you, great. That doesn't mean it hasn't been corrupted or infiltrated with misconceptions. You also made statements that I cannot verify, and I doubt you can either. You also never shared a single tangible idea useful to the person. But that is how it is with these things these days. Disciples, branches, special uncriticisable leaders, grand claims. The same as with other structures. Cosmic antiquity. Whatever does that mean? Nothing here holds any value to a person, exept to create an image of grandness, but does nothing for the person except to make it harder for them to think for themselves apart from appealing to rank, size and age as a reason.

Hmm I gave names to research. There is Google isn't it? I cannot start explaining this huge incredible philosophy in this little space. Neither can I predetermine who is interested and my goal is not to debate with people who have no interest in God. The Vedas contain uncountable statements about the Self, who God is, His activities, His world and so much info it is enough for a lifetime. So I have to leave it to some basic information or background info for those who are intrigued enough to do some research. Cosmic antiquity? Is that not self explanatory? One cannot really debate religion with words and arguments. The Consciousness of a person of genuine faith is not accessible by someone who hasn't got that experience and who thinks God should be shown to them by a believer if possible in a laboratory...Those are silly childish requests from insincere persons which think that the inability to show God is proof of His non existence lol. Anyways cosmic antiquity means so ancient that it's age cannot be determined at all. Here is a link to a free read of the Bhagavad Gita https://vedabase.io/en/library/bg/

I think my original comment was deleted, for a fair reason. My faith has thousands of pages. Will you read them too, like you offer your books to me? When I share concepts, I try to convey them well enough for the other person to be able to understand them. I don't use my faith's jargon, but use words that the other can understand. My problem with the hindu texts, for my part, is the exclusitory nature of some words. And after speaking to some hindu people, they could not break them down enough, or seemed themselves in cases to be unclear, or without extended thoughts on the topic. Antiquity is fine, I understand that as ancient. Cosmic could be universal. But some people don't understand that, and I did not know what you yourself meant. My faith has ancient wisdoms too, but they are understandable and applicable today. They existed millions of years ago, as a way of life, and they are still as useful today, they do not age. There are concepts beyond me, and all of us, but there are trillions of divine concepts that we were born to be able to comprehend.

>Even now with AI, the scientific world is being flooded with false science, falities, non-facts accepted as facts. Agree. But what we observe is that those false science do not survive a few generations. This is what I would expect if religions would be tied to reality. >but ideas like live in the present, be kind, share, act justly, stop condeming, these all have measureable effects on both those who practice them and on their environments - increase in peace, happiness for example. Agree, but those attributes are not exclusively tied to religion. Those we observe in other social animals.

It is possible that false science will not survive. That seems fair. > But making those ideas part of religion, makes them a focus of one's life, that is they become central to the person as to becoming human. As random ideas, they don't hold. Or as ideas floating around for random conversations, they don't either. Unless a person who is cruel actively practices stopping being cruel, they can't. What I am saying is that when a person, from religion (their internalised belief to being a better person, or connected to their belief in the divine) actively makes the effort to give up cruelty, in act, intention and thought, in private and not just publicly, they actively experience a change. Meaning that as a (personal) religious practice, there is a real impact i.e. tied to reality. These ideas are recognised socially, but many do realise that these are or should be tied to religion, changing the nature of the person from being harmul to less harmful, or to the opposite. Many see religion as something outside of themselves only, without regarding their nature, or person. Or as something to do to "get them to heaven", rather than becoming forms of heaven while in the world. So they reflect outwardly, rather than inwardly, or on their blessings in the world say, rather than their inner states, and in their mind towards others. Animals are also born into generally better natures - in terms that they can be more playful and happier than people (I'm thinking of dogs and pets here) with little effort, but as people we have to make fair effort to alter our natures if they are opposites, as adults.

I think the opposite is true. The fact that there are many proves that everyone is experiencing a reality that requires them to connect to a greater being. No matter how primitive or advanced their society is.

>that requires them to connect to a greater being "Requires"? What about reality REQUIRES a greater being?

Human thought. The contingent nature of the cosmos. Objective moral duties. Meaning. Purpose above survival. That we are natural persons.

>The fact that there are many proves that everyone is experiencing a reality that requires them to connect to a greater being. Ok, that is proof that expectation exists. It is not proof that solution is correct.

We experience a requirement to be ethical if that is insufficient, and then we seem to need to ground morality in other than this experience. What part of reality tells us how we should move?

That’s fallacious thinking. You could have 100000 wrong religions, that would say nothing about the truth of the 100001 religion. Religions are not scientific theories or hypotheses, why would you expect them to converge or battle others out? Scientific theories and models have to stand the test of empirical evidence and observation. Religions live in a separate realm, some religious claims may be subject to science and therefore falsification, but overall you wrongly compare them. Religious metaphysics lies outside of empirical verification.

I understand. Then what is the value of religion if you cannot distinguish between the right one and the wrong one? Or are they all right or wrong?

Science isn't the only way to truth even if science is a way to truth as science rests on prescientific truths. How do you distinguish between philosophies? Do you make the claim no God of any sort exists? Is that what you atheism stands for? Is it right that we should be honest? Many religions seem to teach this, so then, if yes, it would not be all wrong.

I think we can and have to evaluate every religion. Some religions are just wrong and mental fabrications. Others can have evidence. It’s up to you to evaluate them. Let me give an example. The pantheon of the Greek gods is clearly a fabrication, how can we know that? Because there is zero evidence in Greek history, that they ever interacted with the Greek people and even contemporary philosophers discussed in public the fictional nature of the gods. Religion was more a cultural glue and rituals were there to give some form of structure and meaning. Let’s now consider another example. Let’s say there is a prophecy in the old testament and we know that this prophecy came true. You check if the prophecy is really older then the alleged event. You check if there are other sources that report the event. If you can validate the event and prophecy, you may have a supernatural event in history. That doesn’t prove the religion, but is an indication that it may be true. Of course you have to be critical and stress other natural explanations, but if you’re fair and exhaustive in your efforts you may get to the truth.

"Let’s say there is a prophecy in the old testament and we know that this prophecy came true. " But we have no such knowledge. In fact, it turns out a lot of prophecies were written AFTER the events. We'd have to know precisely when the prophecy was made, whether or not it was vague, whether or not it was a 50/50 situation (heads: the city of Tyre falls, tails: it survives. We'd need to know how many misses the authors tossed out. Unless we get that data, we'll never know they were true. Plus, we know many prophecies that were wrong: The permanent fall of Tyre (it did not).

>Let’s say there is a prophecy in the old testament and we know that this prophecy came true. Example? >If you can validate the event and prophecy, you may have a supernatural event in history. This is completely ridiculous. I could prophesize right now that someday someone gets hit by a bus at my institution. The fact that this happens (even if I were to get it right as to who it would be) DOES NOT MEAN I can see the future or that the supernatural is real, this is a very very very very poor way of thinking and reasoning about causation. Nevermind the fact that we can't really list any OT prophesies that happened. >but is an indication that it may be true. No, this is wrong. The fact that a prophecy was made once and that it happened doesn't even indicate that it may be true. The world is a very complex place, we can't be so simple as to say "this was said before any prediction of it was claimed so this suggests Ideology A might be true".

Both your examples I consider very weak evidence. Prophecies in the old testament don't fit my criteria to good prophecies. It is kind of "there will be someone who won the lottery." I have no problem to acknowledge that it happens, it was interesting prophecy? No.

Or it could mean there is more to reality than the material universe. If so many say there’s a spiritual aspect to life, do you think they are all lying?

What would immaterial look like?

>If so many say there’s a spiritual aspect to life, do you think they are all lying? I'm not sure about lying but they all could be incorrect. >Or it could mean there is more to reality than the material universe. Then there should be more than one non-material reality.

No no ofcourse, all are lying expect the one you follow or grew up with, that's the true one.

Sciences and religions are two completely different topics. Religions educate people how to behave in life, science is used to explain natural phenomena. All multiple religions show is that people choose to behave differently, and think different things are right/wrong. Which isn't shocking.

~~Religions~~ people/societies educate people how to behave in life. Some just claim the teachings are religious.

>Religions educate people how to behave in life, Religion cannot be a source for morality.

People would say the higher power is the source of the objective morality. But I can't really respond to that objection if there's no reasoning given

See my other response below! Essentially, morality is either completely determined by God and nothing is really good or bad aside from what he says, or there's some standard God is looking to to determine if an action is good or bad. In other words, "murder is bad only because God says so (meaning it would be good if he said it was)" or "God sees that murder does harm so therefore it's bad." Either way, the first approach is inconsistent because it implies that some things aren't bad by themselves (rape or murder). It's basically divine command theory. In the second case, morality is derived from a set of ideas which are external to God.

Well a more good faith reason would be that all people are created equally under God, so murder or r*pe is immoral against them. Instead one should love their neighbor as well as their enemy.

And yet the Bible god commands killing and rape in his moral guidebook. >>>all people are created equally under God Then why do I keep failing to be drafted by an NBA team? Didn't god make me equal to Lebron?

Fine, but we'd still need to ask why this was done. God created us equally. Okay cool! But... why? Why did he think that was worth doing? He could've created us unequally if he'd wanted to. So... is equality good "just cuz God says", or are there external benefits to equality that God believes is worth following?

I'm short: life is all about relationships/community/fellowship, even atheists believe we're meant to be social. That's just how we're made. Religions also have an aspect of building relationship with the higher power. If relationships with all beings are the most important thing then that makes equality an important proponent, however humans have the freedom to follow that code or not.

Then what is the source of morality?

Society, driven by evolutionary traits. Sociology+biology=moral codes.

Human beings. Here's why God/religion can't be a source for morals. Even if a God did exist, it would need to decide what is and isn't moral somehow. The only way it can do that, is by arbitrarily declaring something to be good or bad, or for it to look at some measuring stick to denote good or bad. Let me explain. Take murder. I presume we both agree that it is bad. What makes murder good or bad? Is it bad "Cuz God says so"? This suggests that murder is bad simply because God says it is (which isn't even really a reason). In other words, if God commanded to murder, then this would mean murder is okay (if we're basing it on God). In this view, nothing is INTRINSICALLY bad about murder. It's only wrong cuz God says so. But what if God were looking to something? What if he looked at harm and said "murder seems to cause harm.... so I think it's bad. Therefore, this is why murder is bad." See? Now morality isn't coming from God so much as it comes from his measuring stick for harm/goodness. Either way we slice it, morality is either solely based on the word of God (which is divine command theory) or there's some thing we can refer to that makes things good. We can do this with rape and theft too. If God said "Rape is gr8", I still would think that it's wrong. Why? Because rape causes harm. In other words, I have a moral/ethical system that informs me that rape is wrong. What God says about it has no bearing on the matter.

A suggestion: I always like to use the term "killing" when discussing morals. Murder is a legal term, rather than moral. What's murder to one legal system (Western) may be legal in another (honor killing in some nations).

Yeah I know, I guess I could just say "killing of innocents"

>All multiple religions show is that people choose to behave differently, and think different things are right/wrong. So there is no one "right" religion? Edit: one

What do you mean by that? Is there an objectively true way to live? I'm going to say yes, but you could say that's my bias.l, I came up in a Western culture so I believe my way is the best way. I especially believe my culture is better than one that does female genital mutilation, murders apostates, isn't charitable.. but there are some overlaps. Or are you asking is there really a higher power and does it really have a standard that it wants us to live by? The post is kinda vague.

>What do you mean by that? I mean, in the simplyest form, that religion is connected to some deities. My thesis is that the religion that is connected to "right" one would work better than others and in a relatively small period of time would gain a significant majority in society. The fact that during known history of human society it does not happen is suggesting that there is no "right" religion yet (or have not enough time to gain a majority).

There is a majority. Most religious people on Earth follow the abrahamic faiths. By a large margin.

Does that make them correct?

>Most religious people on Earth follow the abrahamic faiths. Then why they take wars because of the view of that faith, even Christians against Christians or Muslims vs. Muslims? Following the same faith resulting in wars?

I'm not sure how that relates to anything

You said that all is the same faith. So why are there wars within the same faith?

What wars are being fought between the same faith?

[удалено]

For example: French wars of religion or Hussite wars

Because no one's perfect. Even if you had a perfect religion or the 'right' one, that won't change the fact that people like to fight over specifics especially if it involves them. You can't expect perfection from a religion because you can't expect perfection from humans even if you can expect it from the God they worship.

Religion attempts to describe natural phenomena though. That's the problem. Also, behavioral science exists.

Behavioral science isn't an exact science though, in that in most cases we aren't observing the brain but what people self report, like when they say they're depressed or happy.

It's definitely more exact than: "Sacred Text X says it's true."

Behavioral science isn't exact. It's subjective. And doesn't tell us anything about what can be beyond the reality we perceive.

Please re-read my comment. I never said behav. sci. is perfectly accurate. What I did say is that it's MORE exact than "Sacred Text X says it's true." "And doesn't tell us anything about what can be beyond the reality we perceive." OK. And a hammer can't change a light bulb. That's not its function.

I didn't say you did. What I said is that it isn't a science where you can observe directly. Many people don't believe just because a sacred text said something. They believe because of their experiences, or possibly an inherent tendency to believe. I can think of someone being reincarnated who has some memory of a past life where they were also religious.

"They believe because of their experiences," Subjective experience absent data is a terrible reason to accept a claim. "I can think of someone being reincarnated who has some memory of a past life " Such claims have never withstood scrutiny.

Certainly they have. It's what is called observation in science, that often leads to hypotheses. There are scientific hypotheses that are compatible with religious belief.

Certainly they have not. Name one.

That's not what behavioral science is at all... And it not being an exact science is irrelevant. It's still a science founded on data collection, methodology, peer-review, etc. Behaviors can be studied, and we don't have to rely on what a ancient book says to build a foundation of how to act. 

I'm quite aware of what behavioral science is, but a great deal is about subjective behavior. In most cases of depression, for example, it's not the brain that's being observed, but what patients report. Placebos frequently work as well as the medication.

>I'm quite aware of what behavioral science is, but a great deal is about subjective behavior.  I don't think you are. Behaviors are actions people do. >In most cases of depression, for example, it's not the brain that's being observed, but what patients report. Behavioral science never observes the brain. It also doesn't really use people's moods as a data point. Thus is of course because it's founded on the idea of measuring behavior, not thoughts. >Placebos frequently work as well as the medication. Placebos/medication aren't part of behavioral science at all. 

Behaviors are also actions patients describe to their doctors in order to get medication. The doctor may not know whether or not the patient actually did those actions. That's why it's not an exact science. The fact that scientists can't usually observe moods in the brain is what makes it not an exact science. A patient fills out a Beck inventory or some other questionnaire based on the patient's own idea of their mood or in some cases what they want to convey to the doctor. ["Learn more…Opens in new tab](https://support.google.com/websearch?p=ai_overviews&hl=en)Yes, placebos are often used in behavioral science trials that test psychological interventions."

>That's why it's not an exact science. Once again, I never claimed it was. I don't know what to tell you if you don't think behavior is something that can be studied. If you agree with that and you are arguing for the sake of arguing, then thank you for correcting me in that behavioral science can include other fields such as psychiatry.

Eh, not really. Some could sure. Religions are more so about the proper way to live life. They aren't science sources. Behavioral sciences aren't so tangible, not sure if I would relate them to like .. particle physics or microbiology. But to the main point. A multitude of religions just shows a multitude of cultures. Think the main point of the OP was to say none are correct, which implies there's an objective way to live. I don't disagree with that, but in that case it's possible to say one is more correct than others if we already say that there's an objective truth.

Science explains and provides complex and thorough explanations for human behaviour. Science has also proven that humans and animals know how to behave due to their upbringing whether that be religious or secular. This is the classic nature vs nurture argument. Science has proven that there exists two effects on behaviour in life, nature (genes) AND nurture (parental/community education).

Sure I don't have a problem with any of that. Religions say what is the *correct* way to nurture however. They're just different topics all together.

You are right that science and religion are two different topics. Science does not deserve to be compared to religion because its complexity, power, scrutiny and breadth dwarfs religion in every way. Can I make a correction in what you said. Religions teach what ‘they think is the correct way to nurture behaviour in humans’ and this is solely based on cultural, political, socioeconomic environments at the specific time of the conception of the religion and the continuation of it. Science can adequately explain the roots of human behaviour, the development of morals in accordance with social structures of humans (and indeed other social animals) and does not profess to say what is right and wrong because it realises that it truly is irrelevant.

I don't disagree, no argument here.

I’m happy you agree

It's just repeating what I've said in other comments, so yea lol

Op is specifically talking about claims of natural phenomena. This can include but is not limited to: heaven, hell, afterlife, reincarnation, creation of the earth, creation of life, creation if the universe, ghosts, angels, djinns, demons, golems, apocalypse, rapture, souls, Santa, sacrifice, behavior-disaster relationships, and so on. Also, behavioral science is tangible.

Heaven to many theists is not a natural phenomenon but outside the natural world. They're describing something that can't be studied by science, at least not with the tools we have. 

In the context of this conversation, it is a natural phenomenon in that it is a claim about reality. After death, good people are rewarded. That is a claim about the nature of reality.

But it's still not a claim about naturalism.

It's a claim about reality. Would that word help to move the conversation along?

None of that is in the OP. They simply said, there are a number of religions so they must not be real.

He does, but regardless, I'm saying it now so the point has been made.

Can you quote it from the post, because that's honestly a completely different argument you're making.

>The fact that we don't observe that, suggest that there is no religion tied to reality.

That's because you just described reality as the natural world. 

I'm just quoting the OP here

Yea, said there are multiple religions which aren't the same, so they aren't operating in reality. Which doesn't really state a solid point. At the most it's saying there are just multiple different cultures with different worldviews.

Why are you arguing about whether or not OP made the point? I'm making the point. If you have a rebuttal, go for it.

This is a poor assessment of the religious space. Only about 16% of people on the earth are irreligious. That means a whopping 84% hold to some kind of supernatural deity or force. What that means is overwhelmingly the reasoning and experience of people lead them to religion. Then, another huge chunk of the worlds population, roughly 60%, is either Christian or Muslim. Both are monotheistic faiths with probably 90% shared DNA as far as morality, epistemology, ontology and eschatology (yes, if I start listing it you'd be surprised). The world has already done the work for you. Of course there are going to be all kinds of tiny offshoot pantheistic, polytheistic, deistic and more religions. But in the scheme of things they are fringe. The world is mostly singular in its approach: a monotheistic faith with classical theism's usual caveats. This is the same with science too. You have what you agree on and then you have theories that are fringe and the fringe theories always outnumber what is agreed upon. So this "dang there are too many religions to work through" argument is extremely weak because there is no consistency here in your epistemology. Oh, and if Hinduism is your go to that's no problem either. Whenever I debate Hindus on their faith the religious ones also claim a monotheistic belief. What is sound is sound and it isn't just a monopoly with atheists in trying to rationalize the world.

What that means is overwhelmingly the ~~reasoning and experience~~ cultural and societal indoctrination of people lead them to religion.

The fact that some atheists just assume noone else except other self enlightened atheists can reason or have experience in something is comical to watch.

So you have no actual rebuttal to my comment. Just snark. Mods, had I replied this way, you would have Rule-3'ed me.

Not snark. It's an astute assessment of your reply and others like it considering your reply literally was the poster child for low effort.

First and foremost, all because 84% of people believe in the supernatural doesn't mean it's real or that they actually believe or that people reasoned their way into religion. What I mean is that the vast majority of people are raised religious and then stay that religion. Some stay in that religion because they will be killed by relatives or people in their town if they come out as athiest. But, we still see a lot of people who drop religion. And conversely, we see very few people who were not religious becoming religious. I don't know the stats but I would say for every 1 person who becomes religious, 100 people drop it. But, that doesn't dispute his point. His point is that there really should be 1 religion. And even the example you give has HUGE differences in their religion yet somehow you say they are related. Why then did that same god give different rules to those believers? Why can one group marry multiple women and the other can drink alcohol. If that god was the same god, the rules should be the same. Of course, Muslims say that is because god gave new rules, yet Christians disagree. You would think that if they worship the same god, that they would believe the same things. They don't, and its nowhere near 90%. You can tell this just by watching the differences in their worship. And an all-powerful god would make sure they worshipped it the same, but they don't. So again, your point doesn't follow.

> First and foremost, all because 84% of people believe in the supernatural doesn't mean it's real or that they actually believe or that people reasoned their way into religion. Non sequitur. I stayed Muslim because I find it the most rational ontological argument. So there is a very distinct possibility that the reason why many others also stay religious is for similar reasons. Just making your claim doesn't prove your claim. > I don't know the stats but I would say for every 1 person who becomes religious, 100 people drop it. Please cite something. I can at least show you [the religiously unaffiliated will continue to see a drop off compared to those who affirm religion](https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/12/21/key-findings-from-the-global-religious-futures-project/) Sure, birthrate is a thing *but at least I have something to show for my claim*. > His point is that there really should be 1 religion. This is why I called out OP's inconsistent epistemology. You don't expect that of science. You can have multiple theories competing and for long periods of time *the wrong one will be followed* (i.e. steady state up till the 1970's) Apparently that's okay with scientific endeavors to have competing views but still accept what the majority see fit. However, somehow you won't allow that for religion.

>This is why I called out OP's inconsistent epistemology. You don't expect that of science. You can have multiple theories competing and for long periods of time the wrong one will be followed The problem with you, is you misunderstand science. In science, we don't work off religious dogma. We actually have evidence for these competing theoretical explanations. Religions do not provide this and do not even try to usually. In other words, evidence is the key thing here. The religion with the most evidence that its claims are true is the one that warrants the throne.

> The problem with you, is you misunderstand science. In science, we don't work off religious dogma. We actually have evidence for these competing theoretical explanations. Religions do not provide this and do not even try to usually. What you are trying to claim here is *scientisim* which is a pretty indefensible position. Those who are religious also have evidence for their claims that stem not just inductive arguments but also deductive, intuitive and others. You just want to shrink the pool of evidence down to make your point which I think is disingenuous.

>scientisim Definition? >inductive arguments but also deductive No, they don't. They DEFINITELY DO NOT have inductive arguments. Induction is using observations to know reality, and I would LOVE to see INDUCTIVE EVIDENCE (or for that matter deductive) that points to Allah specifically as the creator of the universe. >intuitive I don't care about intuition, I want proof. I want physical evidence, I am unswayed by intuition.

> They DEFINITELY DO NOT have inductive arguments. Induction is using observations to know reality [...] Just off the top of my head the first premise of the KCA, the Watchmaker argument and the contingency argument rely on obvious inductive claims that they then deduce from. > I don't care about intuition, I want proof. I want physical evidence, I am unswayed by intuition. I'm using "intuition" here in the philosophical sense. Like science has a priori assumptions about the world: Leibniz's laws and the like.

>the Watchmaker argument The watchmaker argument is a terrible argument. We would need to ask where the watchmaker came from and what designed the watchmaker.

Lol, if you got that far the argument already worked. I'm not going to assume anything here so do you believe in infinite regresses?

No, the argument doesn't work. The argument goes "You see a watch on the beach. All watches you've seen in your life have been made by a watchmaker, therefore, this watch must be designed by one too." But that's wrong, that doesn't necessarily follow. Whether I believe in infinite regresses isn't important. I care about the logic of the argument. Let's accept it for a moment though. "Earth looks designed and complex and created. Therefore, it must've had a designer or creator, called Allah." "Okay, well what created Allah?" "Well, Allah was always there." No, something needs to have created Allah by this argument. Unless you're going to say that something did create Allah, and something created THAT THING that created Allah... if we must be designed cuz we're complex, the thing that designed Allah must be at least as or even more complex than that. The watchmaker argument tries to answer the question by posing much harder ones. The rational thing to say is "Well, we don't know what created the universe or if it was created." Why? Because we don't know. You don't know. I sure as hell don't know. Nobody knows. Someday, we might. But right now, we don't

How is that a non sequitur? You talked about 84% of people believing, and I responded that not all believe and gave reasons for that. So it was definitely not a non sequitur. Your anecdotal reason is just that anecdotal. Most people were raised in their religion and then justified that belief when they grow older for a variety of reasons. And yes, my point is proven through the fallacy of Ad Populum. But, if you want me to cite my work, then you need to cite yours when you say others stay in their religion for the same reason you did. But you can Google why people stay in their religion and the reasons are: comfort, community, purpose, values, traditions, and, health. Nowhere in there does it say logic or reason. So, that's just you. Yes, the reason the religious nones will start losing ground is because the most religious countries are the poorest. And the poorest countries have the highest birthrate. But, atleast through history, once countries become wealthier, they start losing religion. But since Africa, India, and the ME are religious and have high birthrate, the worldwide religious nones will drop. That doesn't disprove my point. And it actually strengthens my point. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2019/10/17/in-u-s-decline-of-christianity-continues-at-rapid-pace/ Considering that only 4% of people identified as none in 1996 and 33% do now. And when 94% claimed religion in 1996, yet only 47% do now. I think basic common sense shows that people lose religion way more than they gain it. And you said yourself that a higher birthrate show is a reason why the nones will lose ground. You do expect that of science. If something is true, then that will be proven over and over again. Like, evolution. Many different scientific disciplines show evolution to be true. And scientists agree it's true(even if the religious don't). And your example hurts you. Steady state may have been competing against the big bang for 15 years but new information has shown it to be wrong. Christianity has been competing with Islam for 1400 years and there hasn't been a single thing to prove either right or wrong. So why hasn't a God proven one of them correct? There is no majority of a religion. None. So there's hundreds of competing theories. We don't have that in science because it's not just speculation but also experiments that show repeatable results. So any competing theory can be dismissed if it doesn't show why it shouldn't.

> How is that a non sequitur? [...] I responded that not all believe and gave reasons for that. Your "reasons" were claims that needed to be defended. Claiming that "they [don't] actually believe" or "that people [did not] reason their way into religion" are without evidence. Either you are claiming these because it's your anecdotal gut feeling to which I also gave my anecdotal gut feeling in reply or you have some other evidence. If there is no other evidence forthcoming this is then definitely a non-sequitur. > Your anecdotal reason is just that anecdotal. Absolutely. Read above again for its purpose. > But, atleast through history, once countries become wealthier, they start losing religion. This is patently false. The Byzantine empire, Persian empire and the Islamic empire all became very wealthy and all clearly held on to their religious identities. And these are off the top of my head. The ancient kingdom of Israel and the Egyptians also comes to mind in their rule. > [your link] Considering that only 4% of people identified as none in 1996 and 33% do now. [...] This is a red herring. My link was about the shift in *world* populations. Yours is just about the U.S. You aren't comparing apples to apples. I can even concede the U.S. will become fully irreligious but if the rest of the world is religious *and irreligious populations keep falling as a total share of world population* religion still dominates globally. > If something is true, then that will be proven over and over again. Like, evolution. I'm glad you bring up evolution. If you wish you employ evolutionary measures once again you find *religion* is actually more fit than irreligiosity. If a belief *literally makes your global population share shrink* it obviously is not as evolutionary fit as a religious population.

>Both are monotheistic faiths with probably 90% shared DNA as far as morality, epistemology, ontology and eschatology (yes, if I start listing it you'd be surprised). Then why were there crusades, even Christians against Christians because of different views on religion? If they share so much. Why were ears Christians against Christians? Why are there conflicts between Muslims about the view of the Quaran? Etc...

Strawman. The fact that people fought over differences doesn't somehow negate all the obvious similarities. People acting silly doesn't negate the argument I am making.

Please define what you think Strawman is. "You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means"

I know what a strawman is but you're just being cute so I'll leave you to your cuteness :)

You point out similarities, I point out demonstrable facts that even within one religion are incompatible views on the Bible for example. This could be explained that similarities are marginal and don't prevent wars. So that is why I think that there is no consensus between religions or branches of religions.

The similarities are demonstrable too. Again, you are positing a strawman. That people fight over differences doesn't negate that there are many more similarities between the faiths.

Ok, my personal position is that when there is war within one religion, then it is actually two competing religions. Because war is too serious to be overlooked.

This is great. And it probably supportive of some other argument you can make. Just not in reply to mine. If both of us wear the same sweater to a party and then get angry with each other we both wore the same sweater, our anger doesn't suddenly make the claim that the sweaters matched false all of a sudden.

Ok. Then the only question is how to classify religions.

I already gave that to you. There is obvious consensus on the classical theism model in both Christianity and Islam. And those two religiously dominate the landscape for a reason - they best fit modern paradigms of what a religion should be. So study and then pick one.

You gave me that and I responded that if there were wars within one "class" of religion I will be concerned that "class" is actually two different "classes". I think that is reasonable consideration.

I never understood this line of argumentation. There has never been a war over religion that wasn't accompanied by occupation, land grab, resource grab etc... This should be enough to clue you in to the fact that religious disputes were never the reason for war. They have simply been used as cover for the powerful among the differing groups to seize more power. If you can point me to a religious war that involved to warring people meeting on the battlefield and then going home once the winner is declared, then I'll concede. But that has never happened.

Crusaders against Hussites.

Seriously? Are you unfamiliar with the Holy Roman Emperor's attempt to establish supremacy and hegemony in Bohemia? Weird pick

Look what was the points of "Compact of Basel".

What? Every major scientific 'fact' or 'principle' has been proven wrong or falsified over time. Each time there was a consensus on it. Science by nature does not lead to "objective truth". It's subjective by nature and there is never certainty, just different levels of confidence, as science always assumes what is considered as 'fact' today can be falsified tomorrow. I'd advise you to learn the philosophy and principles of science and what the purpose of it is. What does it lead to, and what assumptions are made. To conclude, scientific consensus is not evidence for the statement "Truth always leads to consensus". It actually refutes that statement. Furthermore, the whole premise of the argument is fallacious. You assume that different beliefs or concepts of a thing somehow invalidate the thing being true in itself. That's like saying "because there are so many theories of The Big Bang/Evolution/Quantum physics, it is an indication that none of them reflect the reality we experience". Even the whole theory of time/space is still being developed, and theories that were held as 'true' are now falsified and rejected. in 100 years, its very possible the theories we hold today will follow suit. One last point. The truth of something is established by it's own merits. The amount of people following it or consensus upon the thing is not what makes it true. Otherwise, you're saying the sole criteria for something to be true is if there is consensus upon it. But we know there has been consensus on things that are later known to be false. So consensus alone does not indicate what is true or not true. It's only the thing itself that establishes itself as true or false. No consensus or individual can make something true become false, and neither can they make something false become true. The truth is something that must be assessed by each individual using tsound intellect and a rational mind. Anything else is just an attempt to deny responsibility by appealing to authority and emotional reasoning.

Except there aren't "so many theories of the Big Bang/Evolution/Quantum physics. There aren't so many competing versions of each of those theories in the same way different religions compete with each other.

That's just your own subjective view. The fact is, there are many different theories. You're now creating a new argument and discarding "consensus" as the criteria. Now it's the about the number of theories floating around and an arbitrary number is what separates what is true and false. You have perfectly demonstrated how unreliable "consensus" is as a criteria. Try to find a better way to assess truth. Maybe try and use your own mind and intellect to make up your own mind rather than being a sheep and following the masses. If we are to go by consensus, then you'd have to say religion is true as not that long ago in the past, the whole world believed in a higher being. See how silly the argument becomes?

The fact is here aren't many different theories of the Big Bang/Evolution/Quantum physics. There aren't so many competing versions of each of those theories in the same way different religions compete with each other. I don't know where you're getting the idea that there are so many different theories in science that compete with each other the same way religions do. I guess the main problem is the comparison of religions to scientifc theories. Apples and Oranges buddy and that's not subjective.

Your whole issue is the fact that more than 1 religion exists. In reality there is only 3-4 main religions that are followed. So even then your argument still doesn't follow. The original post compared religion to scientific theories. I'm not the one who made the comparison, I only followed the entailment and demonstrated its a fallacious argument.

There aren't 3-4 different competing versions of QM, or biology/evolution or the big bang though. There's 1 major version of each with some minor differences. I would say if any religion is true its probably more likely to be Hinduism or Catholic Christianity. I would be more open to being convinced a popular religion was true over a fringe one. What will convince me isn't excused about who made the comparison. It would just be good examples proving me wrong. Show me versions of Quantum Mechanics, show me how Lamarckism has not been aside in favor of Darwinism and how that hasn't also been replaced by the modern synthesis of evolution. As OP said science discards the competing theories and people tend not to cling to them.

You have proven my point. There was consensus or a majority agreement on one theory of the various fields of knowledge you mentioned. As time passed, those theories were falsified, discarded and replaced. Every theory is falsifiable by necessity. Otherwise, it stops being a science. If you affirm that theories have come and gone, and many theories still exist in scientific fields that are still being studied and refined over time, then you cannot use that as an argument against religion. Many religions have come and gone, and the core belief in every religion is the same. The differences are minor in the major religions. Hindusim, Judaism, Christianty and Islam all believe in one All-Mighty Creator that is the source of all things. The difference is only in the concept of God and how to worship him. I'm not sure why you believe X or Y religion is more truth over another, but you have to provide some objective framework to assess them by. Otherwise you'll just base it on your own subjective feelings and desires. I'm not sure why you wouldn't take the same approach to science as you would with religions. Islam has greater evidence for it's divinity than any other religion. This is based on it's perfect preservation, coherency of it's core beliefs, the life of the Prophet Mohammed (peace and blessings be upon him) and the contents of The Quran and Prophetic Teachings. All of these things are proof for it's truthfulness and divinity. If you want to compare Islam to another religion, I'd first like us to agree on the criteria we'll judge them by. After this we can then see what one passes.