Exactly What Convinced You?

sunrise123 said:

Nothing. All people are in essence searching for the same thing. Some call it God. Some call it truth, love, justice, beauty, joy, harmony and so forth. My path is right for me and other people's journey's are right for them.

Click to expand...

I agree with the first part, but you could qualify that our various journeys sometimes takes us down the wrong path for us, which itself then becomes part of the journey for us. It's not necessarily that it was "right", but just simply what shapes us.

Mister Silver said:

Anti-theists would be; they believe that religion does more harm than good, that religion should go completely the way of being recognized as mere mythology.

Click to expand...

That sounds a lot like religions which believe other "false religions" should be put out of business because they deceive and harm others. In fact, it's actually exactly the same thing.

Skwim said:

Exactly what was it that convinced you your religion is worth following and the other religions were not?

.

Click to expand...

Two phases:

1. Reading the Bible as an adult, I found the writers honest and their claims reasonable.

2. After accepting Jesus's words as wholly true, I followed them to their logical end. There is a true faith and false religions.

Mister Silver said:

I also began to study comparative religions in school and online, reading historical/archaeological religious texts from the library, and I began to understand that all religion was man-made.

Click to expand...

So being "man-made" means they have no truth? Isn't science as a way of understanding the world "man-made" as well? The last I checked none of it is considered "divine revelation". It's humans who came up with the systems to measure and talk about the world with using the language of science. So why can't humans use mythologies as narrative language, symbolic language to talk about human experiences? Something doesn't have to be mathematically verifiable for it to communicate actual, practical truth.

Mister Silver said:

If in relatively modern times a man named Gardener could create Wicca based on ancient pagan lore, and if another man could create Scientology based on science fiction, and if another man could create Mormonism via his expertise in conning others, I began to realize that all religions were the same.

Click to expand...

So based on the existence of extreme examples, all of it is the same thing?

Mister Silver said:

These people claimed to be divinely inspired, yet there was no evidence of divinity except the religion's creator's personal testimony which my logical brain simply could not accept as truth merely on faith.

Click to expand...

Yes, there are lots of people who make lots of claims, so therefore it's all the same thing and there is no genuine article anywhere? The reality is, that many, such as myself, who actually do have experience of what can be called "the divine", tend to not start religions. It's those who follow them who do. That doesn't mean that there isn't any truth in them.

Mister Silver said:

Then there was the historical angle involving the major harm religion has done, still does, and seems it will continue to do. I have yet to study a religion that has helped more than it harmed.

Click to expand...

Really? As a fun exercise, try to write out everything positive that religion has done. I'll bet you might be surprised how easy it is. For one thing, if it didn't have any value, then why would humans continue to have them from the very beginning of their social structures? It seems to me that evolution is going to disagree with you here. It seems that there is an evolutionary advantage to them, sort of like why humans "love".

Mister Silver said:

I have studied buddhism, but I consider that a philosophy rather than a religion

Click to expand...

Except of course, it is an actual religion. All religions have a philosophy at the core. The philosophy of Christianity is "love one another". The philosophy of Buddhism is "awaken your Buddha nature." The philosophy of Scientism is "Embrace human reason", for example.

Mister Silver said:

though I could not get past the illogical inconsistencies of what it entailed.

Click to expand...

Such as? I'm curious here.

Mister Silver said:

I have reached a point in my life where nothing can convince me to be religious, especially when I believe that the world would be better off without religion.

Click to expand...

It sounds to me like that is religious. You have a vision of truth you wish the world shared with you. Isn't a shared vision of truth, what is at the core of human religions, in all their forms?

Skwim said:

Exactly what was it that convinced you your religion is worth following and the other religions were not?

.

Click to expand...

I was a Christian in name only in my youth and did not encounter other religions until after I became a born again Christian.

Early in my faith I tried to be good by my own efforts but that did not work very well. That is how I view other religions. When I received the gift of tongues the Holy Spirit became more active in my life and he has done very well in keeping me from sin.

Jumi said:

Why would everyone be convinced that other religions or worldviews are not worth following?

Click to expand...

I believe a religion that doesn't work is not worth following.

Mister Silver said:

When I was a theist,


Anti-theists would be; they believe that religion does more harm than good, that religion should go completely the way of being recognized as mere mythology.

Click to expand...

I believe that amounts to ignorance.

Windwalker said:

So being "man-made" means they have no truth? Isn't science as a way of understanding the world "man-made" as well? The last I checked none of it is considered "divine revelation". It's humans who came up with the systems to measure and talk about the world with using the language of science. So why can't humans use mythologies as narrative language, symbolic language to talk about human experiences? Something doesn't have to be mathematically verifiable for it to communicate actual, practical truth.


So based on the existence of extreme examples, all of it is the same thing?


Yes, there are lots of people who make lots of claims, so therefore it's all the same thing and there is no genuine article anywhere? The reality is, that many, such as myself, who actually do have experience of what can be called "the divine", tend to not start religions. It's those who follow them who do. That doesn't mean that there isn't any truth in them.


Really? As a fun exercise, try to write out everything positive that religion has done. I'll bet you might be surprised how easy it is. For one thing, if it didn't have any value, then why would humans continue to have them from the very beginning of their social structures? It seems to me that evolution is going to disagree with you here. It seems that there is an evolutionary advantage to them, sort of like why humans "love".


Except of course, it is an actual religion. All religions have a philosophy at the core. The philosophy of Christianity is "love one another". The philosophy of Buddhism is "awaken your Buddha nature." The philosophy of Scientism is "Embrace human reason", for example.


Such as? I'm curious here.


It sounds to me like that is religious. You have a vision of truth you wish the world shared with you. Isn't a shared vision of truth, what is at the core of human religions, in all their forms?

Click to expand...

What the heck! Has someone hacked my account? I am being quoted for something I have not written.

Skwim said:

Exactly what was it that convinced you your religion is worth following and the other religions were not?

.

Click to expand...

I'ld like to provide an example of the reason I do not follow Christianity much. The other day at dinner, I told my in-law that I''ld had a pet, or favorite, chicken as a child. One day my mother butchered it and served her for supper. My in-law kindly told me, "When you get to heaven, you will recieve your chicken back unharmed." What?!!!! Do I need to recieve my chicken back, after we ate him and all?
It was finally this type of silliness that turned me from the faith. I finally quit going to church in 2000,
And my life was more pleasant, overall, and conflict in my life greatly reduced. My life got quieter, more peaceful, and less violent. I like it. I recently decided to look into wicca, precicely for the blend of mythology and real life that makes life enjoyable, if not truthful. Truth might be too hard to find. Maybe the answer lies in finding what you like and enjoy.

Skwim said:

Exactly what was it that convinced you your religion is worth following and the other religions were not?

.

Click to expand...

Logic, upbringing, and life experiences.

People are always asking theists why we believe, and usually I would post a large selection of links. But experience has shown that most people, myself included, just want a straight answer and don’t want to have to click tons of links. So this is a replacement response.


I first started leaving atheism when I realized that the metaphysical position of material monism was seriously flawed. My main rejection of gods was mainly based in this idea that if something is not material it does not exist, so when that failed my atheism started falling apart. There are many reasons that materialism is incorrect, from the fact that self-existence is axiomatic but non-physical, to the problem of property dualism in which mind and brain share basically no characteristics, and of course the well documented knowledge that while affecting the brain affects the mind, the opposite is also clearly true. Then as I got further into my rejection I came to realize that the mind is not the only immaterial thing by a long shot, but rather even logic and math are themselves immaterial yet obviously existent with a massive influence on the universe and how it works. Basically if materialism is right then the mind, logic, and math are all things that don’t actually exist, which is obvious nonsense.


Once my metaphysical view was more or less decimated, it was a long and rough journey to find a system which did not have these massive flaws, but also accurately described reality as we know it. It would have been easier just to grab onto any metaphysical system which provided answers, but that’s not how I was raised or educated. What I ended up coming to was a modified, modern version of Plato’s Theory of Forms. There are many good arguments for Forms, perhaps the best being that we can’t have any knowledge of things in a constant state of change. If there is no stable truth, no thing-in-itself, then knowledge is impossible because it would be in a constant state of flux. Yet we are obviously able to attain knowledge, so there must be something stable behind the constantly changing manifestations – the Realm of Forms.


Another good example for Platonism is our ability to recognize identical characteristics in non-identical things. For example, we can draw 10 triangles of different side lengths, different angles of the points, etc. Obviously the 10 triangles are non-identical, or there would simply be 1 triangle drawn 10 times. So how do we recognize 10 non-identical things as, basically, the same thing, in this case a triangle? That a Form of Triangles exists is the best possible explanation, there is the “thing-in-itself” for what triangles are, including having three sides, three points, 2 flips and 3 rotations. We recognize the 10 things as triangles because they partake in the same Form. We can further investigate just one of these characteristics, such as points. Find several pointed objects around you: a pencil, a door, a table, scissors, etc. and so on. All of these things have points, but the points are, obviously, non-identical (obvious because the points don’t even take up the same space and aren’t made out of the same atoms). Yet despite this, we recognize this same characteristic throughout all the objects: pointedness. But can we show pointedness in itself? The individual points are not pointedness themselves, or all other points would partake in that literal, physical point, which is obviously not the case. Again, Forms are the best explanation.


Then there were little things here and there. For example, I always found it suspicious that consciousness leaped forward in the Upper Paleolithic Revolution, despite anatomically modern humans existing for hundreds of thousands of years before that event. Further, the abilities of the mind are what we can call “against nature.” In other words, consciousness is capable of accomplishing things that could not naturally occur. We do not need to wait out sickness because we have manipulated nature to create medication. Architects change the face of nature with their own subjective images, counselors teach those with mental illness how to overcome and redirect these natural, chemical processes with conscious intent, engineers create all sorts of goodies that could never be grown in a garden without consciousness no matter how long we let the system of nature run for. It became obvious that there was something strange about consciousness, that something unnatural could not be solely by natural processes and events. Of course having realizing that Platonism was true, I understood that there was indeed a Form of Consciousness, and I began to ponder if this was somehow worthy of the title “God.”


Another big one, which then fed back into this understanding of Platonism, was the mind-blowing discovery of Life Fields, a concept investigated by Dr. Harold Saxton Burr. In short, Dr. Burr discovered and proved, through a massive number of scientific experiments, that human bodies have “Life Fields” or “L-Fields,” which are like electromagnetic fields but predictive of future states. For example, measuring of the L-Field can predict cancer before there is any sign of cancer, it can predict menstrual cycles, changes in mood, periods of superior and inferior learning, the location of the head/tail/nervous system in an egg, and the list goes on. In other words, Dr. Burr more or less discovered a blueprint for the development and changes of the physical body. He logically went on to theorize this was evidence of a designer, for blueprints require and suggest intentional design. Burr proposed this was God and left it be, arguing against materialism for the remainder of his life. However, Lt. Colonel Dr. Michael A. Aquino, a prominent member of the psychological operations aspect of the U.S. military, showed that platonic Forms explain L-Fields without the need for a standard, creator god. If Platonism is correct there is a Form of the Individual, and if there is a Form of the Individual, which would be outside of space and time, this would easily explain how there would be “future” knowledge to create a blueprint of the physical individual. If you are going to develop cancer in 8 months, the individual Form is already aware of this, and this connection between Form and body is what creates the “Life-Field.”


Eventually this line of thought led me to a type of polytheism, what I call Platonic Polytheism. You see, a Form contains all that which it manifests, for example the Form of Triangles includes the Form of Points, of Sidedness, of the Number 3. Likewise, a Form of Consciousness, which must exist if Platonism is correct, would contain that which it manifests, such as self-awareness, desire, emotion, and so forth. From there it did not take long to connect the dots – an immaterial, timeless, necessary, and self-aware being with intent and personality: that is precisely what a God is. Not an onmi-God of monotheism no, but a God of polytheism. Further, there are more Forms like this than simply consciousness: desire, love, anger, knowledge, the list simply goes on and on, and if the Form of Consciousness is a God, so are these other similar Forms.

Windwalker said:

I agree with the first part, but you could qualify that our various journeys sometimes takes us down the wrong path for us, which itself then becomes part of the journey for us. It's not necessarily that it was "right", but just simply what shapes us.

Click to expand...

Yes there is a risk of getting into the right-wrong duality. My intent was to not assume that my way was the one and only way. It was an attempt to put the following into words

Muffled said:

I believe a religion that doesn't work is not worth following.

Click to expand...

Ask people of any religion and you will hear them say it works and makes sense. If they believed otherwise, they probably wouldn't follow that religion.

Skwim said:

Exactly what was it that convinced you your religion is worth following and the other religions were not?

Click to expand...

Basically by personal experience, till to the point that it can be logically deduced. It boils down to the question that if Jesus is true then how can this truth reach humans and for them to be well-informed to the extent where human salvation is concerned.

The most efficient way for God's truth to reach humans is by God showing up to humans. Nothing can be made more direct than that. So God should show up unless He has a good reason to hide behind. To this, the Christianity God does have a good reason. As by the covenant granted, humans will have to rely on faith to be saved. If God shows up, it simultaneously means that no humans can be saved.

The second most efficient way is through human witnessing. Humans themselves failed to realize how powerful and how important human witnessing is in conveying a truth. It actually says that who knows this way must be God. Humans, without their own awareness, rely heavily on human witnessing to reach a truth of any kind, even in terms of a scientific truth. That's why among 100% humans who know for a fact that black holes exist, 99% of them don't have the evidence. In the end, the vast majority of human will rely on scientists as the eye-witnesses for them to believe the existence of black holes with faith. Humans reach this truth by putting faith in the scientists as eye-witnesses. That's the way how a truth is conveyed among humans.

For this way to work, there are 2 key factors. One is broadcast, such that the information can spread as wide as possible. That is, many will know that black holes exist as a fact. The second is believe with faith, before being evidenced. In nature it is thus,

Acts 1:8 (NIV2011)
But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”

This is the first part of the trick. It is to make as many know as possible (i.e., the existence of black holes for a fact).
The second part is for those hear to put faith to believe (such that they are saved).

Only God knows this trick, as humans don't know that putting faith in witnessing is a powerful way of conveying a truth. Instead they mistakenly think that humans will have to rely on evidence to reach a truth.


So If God has something crucial to tell to humans, these are the way for His truth to convey. If God doesn't have anything crucial to tell, it means that humans don't need to believe anything He says. Christianity is thus the only choice.


Moreover, because salvation concerns humans today and 2000 years alike. What God said 2000 years ago should be consistent with what He says today. Bible is the only human document which allows reconciliation for us to speculate that today's Bible remains the same as it was 2000 years ago theologically.

We have a whole library of Dead Sea Scrolls for us to tell that the OT contents today remains the same contents some 2000 years ago, theologically. We have independence NT sources, that's how the KJV and NIV are based off. Both independent sources with the contents theologically consistent.

Skwim said:

Exactly what was it that convinced you your religion is worth following and the other religions were not?

.

Click to expand...

When I was shown the Message of Baha'u'llah, that there was only One God and all the religions were a progession of Revelation, the logic of this could not be rejected.

That the Message of Baha'u'llah addressed the issues of this day was confirmation of this principal of Progressive Revelation and confirms scientific thought that there is eveloution of species.

Regards Tony

sunrise123 said:

Yes there is a risk of getting into the right-wrong duality. My intent was to not assume that my way was the one and only way. It was an attempt to put the following into words

Click to expand...

I agree. My signature line include my favorite quote from the Zen Buddhist poet, "Many paths lead from the foot of the mountain, but at the peak we all gaze at the single bright moon."

Skwim said:

Exactly what was it that convinced you your religion is worth following and the other religions were not?

.

Click to expand...

Trial and error.

I'm interested that the vast majority of replies to this thread point to the emotional rather than the rational, perhaps with the exception of;

Tony Bristow-Stagg said:

the logic of this could not be rejected.

Click to expand...

For most people religion appears to be a way to escape from the mundane grind of life, a distraction from it. I'm not being sniffy about religion here, after all we all engage in distractions (beer and sport are mine) but the wider question is this;
Is religion nothing more than a distraction from the reality of life? A lifestyle accessory to keep us focused on achieving our goals during our brief lives? If so, shouldn't we be looking at other motivational methods in 2017? Religion has a lot of unpleasant baggage, the Abrahamic religions in particular.

I spent a long time trying to define what I believed in, and I've obsessively Googled many different religions as a result. I found that they all held truth, and I respected their beliefs and practices but the idea of becoming a member of such faiths went against some sort of grain in my head. Strict dogma just didn't feel right for me, as wonderful as their ideals might be. I found this quite distressing, as I've always wanted to be a loyal devotee (I know, that sounds counter-intuitive after I just said I didn't like strict religious systems.)

But then I found paganism.

Although there are indeed pagan religious systems that can be strict, it can also be a sort of spiritual DIY, a path in which you hone and define your own belief system. With paganism, I don't feel guilty for being a human being with a human ego that makes mistakes. I don't feel as though there's going to be some sort of eternal torture waiting for me after I pass--needless to say, it's quite liberating. I can create my own rituals with symbolism that actually means something to me. Not to mention, there's a slew of deities to choose from (and I think I made a pretty good choice, if I do say so myself.) Paganism allows me to honor myself and my beliefs whilst still being a religious person.

I can have my cake and eat it too.

The Holy Bottom Burp said:

I'm interested that the vast majority of replies to this thread point to the emotional rather than the rational, perhaps with the exception of;

For most people religion appears to be a way to escape from the mundane grind of life, a distraction from it. I'm not being sniffy about religion here, after all we all engage in distractions (beer and sport are mine) but the wider question is this;
Is religion nothing more than a distraction from the reality of life? A lifestyle accessory to keep us focused on achieving our goals during our brief lives? If so, shouldn't we be looking at other motivational methods in 2017? Religion has a lot of unpleasant baggage, the Abrahamic religions in particular.

Click to expand...

It is when religion falls into the winter of superstition and fundamental doctrine that it is renewed. We live in a day when all things have been made new and the possibilities are now unlimited. This is refelcted in scientific progress just prior yo and since 1844.

I would suggest a person should not choose Religion if they want a distraction from life. Once one accepts Faith, the work has just started, it becomes a very full and rewarding life

Hope you are well and happy. Regards Tony