A question for all religious believers -- why is your religion more true than any other?

[mangalavara]

I wouldn't describe myself as a Hindu or a Pagan but they seem pretty cool and groovy to me. My only gripe is where there is significant misappropriation and misrepresentation

Lol. As a Hindu, I will continue misappropriating your cows for religious purposes!

 

[Secret Chief]

Lol. As a Hindu, I will continue misappropriating your cows for religious purposes!

Over my dead plant-based burger.

 

[Tamino]

Lol. As a Hindu, I will continue misappropriating your cows for religious purposes!

Lol, if you run out of holy cows, you're welcome to share mine!

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Or, conversely, an example of a mildly voyeuristic trolling for contention.

I have read a great deal of apologetics, and it is an interest of mine, so this is not an insincere thread.

Mind you, as an atheist and a humanist, I am as much interested in how people attempt to use logic to defend their beliefs (some of which I personally find truly indefensible) as I am in those beliefs themselves. To you, that may seem already contentious, but to me it's a matter of intellectual curiousity.

 

[sayak83]

It does seem to me that all of the religious people I know accept that their creed, their religion's essential beliefs, are correct, while all others -- because they obviously don't agree with the central tenets of their sect, must be somehow lacking.

As a non-believer in any religion, I am curious how it is, what evidence, what logic, leads you to suppose that your particular religion/denomination/sect got it right, while the others did not.

This thread is meant to be a great opportunity for believers of all kinds to engage -- to write apologetics in defense of their beliefs. I'm hoping to see significant essays!

Personally I prefer Hinduism over others because it does not depend in infallibility claims or historical miracle claims of some founding figure and how it's principles are to actualized in public and private lives is left to the judgement of its practitioners ..making it adaptive to the times and situations. This it guides rather than commands.
It's weakness is practicing Hinduism properly requires some amount of skill and one can practice Hinduism horribly if what you want is to be commanded. It's not a "cheap" mass-market religion...though efforts are underway to create a variant of that kind.

 

[Secret Chief]

I have read a great deal of apologetics, and it is an interest of mine, so this is not an insincere thread.

Mind you, as an atheist and a humanist, I am as much interested in how people attempt to use logic to defend their beliefs (some of which I personally find truly indefensible) as I am in those beliefs themselves. To you, that may seem already contentious, but to me it's a matter of intellectual curiousity.

Is this the best tack to take in order to promote contributions?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

A lot of Abrahamic traditions don't either. Pluralism - the notion that multiple cultures, religions, et cetera, contain truths - is pretty much the norm at least in the United States these days. Exclusivism - one true truthism - really isn't "in" anymore so I'm confused by the framing of the OP.

I don't know if I think that's entirely correct -- especially when one factors in American evangelicals. I remember a CNN special with Christiane Amanpour from some years ago, in which, while talking to a girl of about 9 or 10, asking her about her school friends who were Muslim or Jewish. Her answer was a very blase "oh, they go to Hell," as she kept on drawing her picture.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Is this the best tack to take in order to promote contributions?

I didn't wish to be dishonest.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

It seems to me this is a sweeping generalisation. Perhaps by “religious people” you mean American evangelicals? Please don’t assume they are representative of religious people in general, nor even of Christians in particular.

Like everyone, I am a product of my time and place in the world. I grew up in a world that was mostly Protestant, some evangelical, but at a time when everyone had (or at least admitted to) a religious belief. There weren't many open atheists. I went to a private school run by Quakers, after I had been in a refuge for battered kids called the "Protestant Children's Village" in Ottawa. You most learn what's around you, so my view of religion is necessarily framed within that.

 

[Colt]

It does seem to me that all of the religious people I know accept that their creed, their religion's essential beliefs, are correct, while all others -- because they obviously don't agree with the central tenets of their sect, must be somehow lacking.

As a non-believer in any religion, I am curious how it is, what evidence, what logic, leads you to suppose that your particular religion/denomination/sect got it right, while the others did not.

This thread is meant to be a great opportunity for believers of all kinds to engage -- to write apologetics in defense of their beliefs. I'm hoping to see significant essays!

The extent of my religious doctrine is this, anyone anywhere, inside or outside of any religion who is searching for God will find God. When others find the Living God using the path of their experience, then they have validated my religious beliefs. Unity not uniformity!

The reason that God is difficult to find is because God isn't lost! ​

 

[vulcanlogician]

I went to a private school run by Quakers

What was THAT like? (If you don't mind sharing...)

Were they liberal or conservative Quakers?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I have read a great deal of apologetics, and it is an interest of mine, so this is not an insincere thread.

Mind you, as an atheist and a humanist, I am as much interested in how people attempt to use logic to defend their beliefs (some of which I personally find truly indefensible) as I am in those beliefs themselves. To you, that may seem already contentious, but to me it's a matter of intellectual curiousity.

To be honest, @Secret Chief (post #26) put it better than I.

FWIW, I have read a great deal of apologetics as well, and it is an interest of mine as well. And, like you, I've been a member here for a good number of years. It takes very little prescience to suspect that the OP wording is most likely evoke two types of response:

• a declaration that "mine is more true than theirs" is not a productive way to relate to religion, or
• a litany of quotes from 'scripture.'

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

What was THAT like? (If you don't mind sharing...)

Were they liberal or conservative Quakers?

I actually loved going to that school. Beautiful campus (it was a boarding school, so we lived there) -- 350 acre working farm, only 155 students covering grades 7-13, so about 20 students (all male) per GRADE, not per class. Religion was not really much a part of school life -- liberal Quakers don't push on anybody -- although we did have assembly on Sundays, which were modestly Christian but little "doctrine." The school had Jewish students and a few from other religions. The cost, today, for a boarding student is about $65,000 CDN per grade.

 

[vulcanlogician]

I actually loved going to that school. Beautiful campus (it was a boarding school, so we lived there) -- 350 acre working farm, only 155 students covering grades 7-13, so about 20 students (all male) per GRADE, not per class. Religion was not really much a part of school life -- liberal Quakers don't push on anybody -- although we did have assembly on Sundays, which were modestly Christian but little "doctrine." The school had Jewish students and a few from other religions.

Agreed. That is a beautiful campus.

I've had plenty of experience with liberal Quakers. As far as religious folks go, they are quite impressive. Even the Christian Quakers... they are typically decent and understanding people.

What were assemblies like? Were accomodations made for the Jewish students?

 

[Secret Chief]

Agreed. That is a beautiful campus.

I've had plenty of experience with liberal Quakers. As far as religious folks go, they are quite impressive. Even the Christian Quakers... they are typically decent and understanding people.

What were assemblies like? Were accomodations made for the Jewish students?

The Buddhist centre I used to attend was regularly attended by two Quakers. They brought biscuits too.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Agreed. That is a beautiful campus.

I've had plenty of experience with liberal Quakers. As far as religious folks go, they are quite impressive. Even the Christian Quakers... they are typically decent and understanding people.

What were assemblies like? Were accomodations made for the Jewish students?

If you look at the main (pillared) building, along the roofline there are 6 gables. I was in a geography class under the far right gable when JFK was killed in Dallas. The Headmaster himself came to tell us, and all the other classes. Classes were stopped for the day.

Assemblies were geared more towards private contemplation of generalized "spiritual" topics, little connected to any fixed religion. Jews attended, but there was nothing to offend anyone. We celebrated Hannukah as well as Christmas (no Diwali, but it was a long time ago).

 

[vulcanlogician]

Assemblies were geared more towards private contemplation of generalized "spiritual" topics, little connected to any fixed religion. Jews attended, but there was nothing to offend anyone. We celebrated Hannukah as well as Christmas (no Diwali, but it was a long time ago).

I'm unfamiliar with how Quaker assemblies are run generally (outside of unprogrammed meetings). Everyone celebrated Hanukkah? I'd love to hear more.

 

[soulsurvivor]

As a non-believer in any religion, I am curious how it is, what evidence, what logic, leads you to suppose that your particular religion/denomination/sect got it right, while the others did not

Everyone believes their own religion has the truth but none of them have any evidence to prove it. And logic doesn't always work for proving existence of gods or their laws if different for different religions. Those laws which are universal (like no killing) are accepted by atheists as well.

However, if the Christ returns soon, some of the beliefs of Christians will be proven. However, I think the Christ will contradict some of their beliefs after he returns - for instance, about reincarnation and karma - that would prove some beliefs of Hindus and Buddhists. Until then we have to live in some ambiguity about what is the truth. The return of the Christ may change some atheists' minds, but I think many will continue to say that he is a fake (or a magician if he performs some miracles). I personally believe this event will happen soon - this year or next, so we don't have that long to wait.

 

[LuisDantas]

It does seem to me that all of the religious people I know accept that their creed, their religion's essential beliefs, are correct, while all others -- because they obviously don't agree with the central tenets of their sect, must be somehow lacking.

As a non-believer in any religion, I am curious how it is, what evidence, what logic, leads you to suppose that your particular religion/denomination/sect got it right, while the others did not.

This thread is meant to be a great opportunity for believers of all kinds to engage -- to write apologetics in defense of their beliefs. I'm hoping to see significant essays!

Seems to me that it is generally not possible to say with any intellectual honesty that a given religion is true while all others are false.

I also think that it is very rare for anyone outside the Abrahamics to make such a claim.

Most other adherents simply accept that there is a wide variety of religions, creeds and beliefs and that far as they know their current choice is the best fit for them.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I for one think @Evangelicalhumanist 's thread is a brilliant idea and am looking forward to reading the responses.

I'm not at all surprised.