If all paths lead to God, why should I choose your religion ?

[Trailblazer]

I just wait until all the religionists have come together and have found a consensus on what the true religion is.

Meanwhile, you have the cats. Who needs a religion when you have cats?

 

[Heyo]

Meanwhile, you have the cats. Who needs a religion when you have cats?

The Egyptians worshiped them as gods.

 

[Trailblazer]

The Egyptians worshiped them as gods.

Thanks, I did not know that. I worship them as if they were gods.
I got scratched but good by Atticus today and I was bleeding all over my clothes and the floor.... but I was more worried about him than me....
That's love.

 

[Heyo]

Thanks, I did not know that. I worship them as if they were gods.
I got scratched but good by Atticus today and I was bleeding all over my clothes and the floor.... but I was more worried about him than me....
That's love.

:friendly:

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I suggest what you believe is not a path at all. You might want eternity but it's a fallacy in my opinion. I've seen no evidence there is.

Okay, here is how I have learned to do it.
I will start with the following example derived from the law of non-contradiction.

One religious theist: I know God is Y and not Z
Another one: I know God is Z and not Y.
A note about the formal structure of X is Y. It includes a given time for X is Y and also in a sense place and the sense of what Y is.
So if for a given time/all time and a given space/all space X can't be Y and not Y.

But that is not unique for God. It applies to all claims of X is Y.
So here is what i noticed about I know.
In debates about knowledge and evidence the same thing can happen.
One person doing epistemology: I know that knowledge and evidence is Y and not Z.
Another one: I know that knowledge and evidence is Z and not Y.

So that also applies to you. You know what knowledge and evidence is, but there is other people, who do that differently. Now pay attention and I will use a variant of existence and use X is Y for the world is Y and all other variants.
We can observe for the claims of what the world is or similar words as the universe, reality and/or everything that all of these humans exist in the world, yet they can't agree on what the world is.
Technical note about some of them not being in world. If you debate a human and claim in effect that this human is not in the world, you run into the problem that you know something is not in the world, because you know that this human is not the world. Then you have to explain how you can know in the world that something is not in the world. That amounts to a contradiction as per everything is in the world and not in the world.

Now there is more than this, but for the fallacy of special pleading for knowledge, I don't do this one anymore: I am special for all humans in the world, because all of them as different for knowledge don't know what the world is, but I do. How? Because they however they know it, they know how to live in the world, because I can observe them being in the world.
So there is for you and evidence.
I can do evidence in a tradition that is not religious and over 2000 years old and evidence is maybe not as simple as you do it.
So here is a piece of advice. Put me on ignore and say to yourself in effect. For knowledge and evidence for all humans as for that, I am special, because I can do something they can't. I know what knowledge and evidence is.

Now if you don't do that, for a post of yours where you claim evidence, I will try to show you that you are not special, but neither am I.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Putting it simply, if you believe there's a god or paths etc, you must also be aware there is no evidence.

No evidence for paths? Sure there is. Objective evidence. One of these is the existence of this forum by means of members of multiple religions and no religion at all. You walk a path. Just not a religious one, apparently.

As far as evidence for gods? Subjective evidence based on personal experiences is still evidence.

The fact about faith is that faith does not equate to fact.

Of course not. If faith equated to fact, it wouldn't be called 'faith.'

 

[SalixIncendium]

It's not possible for all paths to lead to God when each of the major religions have opposing historical accounts, descriptions of deity, and belief systems. So, suggesting that all paths lead to God is as irrational as claiming that all religions are right.

If I start traveling south, and you start traveling north, we will both get to the North Pole eventually.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No evidence for paths? Sure there is. Objective evidence. One of these is the existence of this forum by means of members of multiple religions and no religion at all. You walk a path. Just not a religious one, apparently.

As far as evidence for gods? Subjective evidence based on personal experiences is still evidence.


Of course not. If faith equated to fact, it wouldn't be called 'faith.'

@Boris Norris
The "joke" about non-religious people is not that they are non-religious. Or in other words, that it has anything to do with them being that. Rather is the group of people that don't understand evidence as it relates to the world for subjective, inter-subjective and objective.

 

[1213]

Discuss

All paths may lead to God, but in the end you may like to find God that is not angry at you.

I recommend to follow Jesus, because his teachings are good.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

Discuss

One does not have to choose a religion.

Though, if one is of [any] faith and/or finds faith an interesting subject, it is spiritually enriching to learn the talk and terminology of different religions. It means that one can converse with others about faith with less misunderstanding.

Humbly,
Hermit

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

One does not have to choose a religion.

Though, if one is of [any] faith and/or finds faith an interesting subject, it is spiritually enriching to learn the talk and terminology of different religions. It means that one can converse with others about faith with less misunderstanding.

Humbly,
Hermit

Well, yes, for some definitions of religion that is true. For at least one other then all humans capable of having a value system are religious. In a sense religion is a part of human psychology and most people have a religion.

 

[Pete in Panama]

Yes, but @danieldemol makes a good point.

Not from what I saw. I was talking about the original religion and it seems @danieldemol was talking about the followers. the religion is divine and the followers are human.

 

[YoursTrue]

Not from what I saw. I was talking about the original religion and it seems @danieldemol was talking about the followers. the religion is divine and the followers are human.

ok, well I guess I don't know what either one of you is talking about.

 

[YoursTrue]

Well, I don't know that. I don't even know if there is a God. So for other people's morality in the end, I don't claim God or any objective source. I leave that to God, if there is a God. I just state my beliefs as they are mine. That is called subjectivism and yet I am religious.

Oh boy you got me. You're not sure that there is a God, but yet you are religious? How does that work, please explain briefly if you will, thank you kindly.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Oh boy you got me. You're not sure that there is a God, but yet you are religious? How does that work, please explain briefly if you will, thank you kindly.

Well, not all humans believe in God, but yet some of them are religious. It depends on the definition of religion.

For me it means that I believe in non-revealed deity, but not theistic God, yet as a strong skeptic and agnostic I know nothing of that deity.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Well, I don't know that. I don't even know if there is a God. So for other people's morality in the end, I don't claim God or any objective source. I leave that to God, if there is a God. I just state my beliefs as they are mine. That is called subjectivism and yet I am religious.

I feel the same about the existence of God and other deities. I don't believe that the existence of deities can be empirically proven.

As I've said in other threads (such as this one), it's my belief that no one—not me, you, or anyone else—can empirically or independently demonstrate whether God or any deities are real or not. No human being has ever searched across all of space and time to give verifiable and empirical proof for the existence of deities since human beings lack omniscience, omnipotence, and the capacity to exist everywhere at once. In my opinion, we—meaning you, me, and everyone else (including Christians)—make decisions on whether or not to believe in God, in other gods, or in anything else supernatural based on the limited knowledge that we have. I also believe that any claims made by Christians that "God saved me and changed my life" or "I sense God's hand in my life, so I know he is real" are anecdotal evidence and don't meet the criteria for empirical and verifiable proof, just as my belief in multiple deities is only supported by anecdotal evidence and doesn't satisfy the criteria for empirical and verifiable evidence either. I believe in many different deities, while Christians choose to believe in one God. As a Wiccan and polytheist, I believe in multiple deities, but I know that I cannot provide sufficient empirical and verifiable evidence of their existence. By the same token, I can't provide empirical and verifiable evidence that the God of the Bible doesn't exist, just as, when I was a Christian, I couldn't provide empirical and verifiable evidence that he exists. And this is why I am an agnostic, not an atheist, when it comes to the existence of God. To be honest, I can't say with certainty that I know that any deities exist or don't exist because I'm not all-knowing and all-powerful, and I can't transcend time and be in all places at once to prove the existence of deities. I wouldn't be honest if I said that there aren't any gods that exist.

 

[Alien826]

Here's a train of thought that at least tries to be logically connected.

If there is no God, then all this discussion is moot, so let's start from the viewpoint of someone who believes that some kind of God exists, and there is an afterlife in which the truth will be revealed.

There are so many religions with so many different beliefs, each arrived at sincerely and after much study, that there's not much point re-doing their work. So the assumption that nobody actually knows with any certainty what the nature of God can reasonably be made.

So, if you must choose a religion, take your pick. Using the moral values it espouses as a criterion is probably a good way to do so.

Otherwise, keep your mind open. You'll have less to unlearn after you die and get told how it really is.

 

[Secret Chief]

Discuss

They don't.

 

[osgart]

If I had to answer this question I would say it's far better to not pick anyone else's religion but the religion that convinces one the most I would still approach it with skepticism. If after surviving thorough skepticism one finds themselves with no doubts whatsoever about the religion's truth then I would say one has landed upon their religion. Yet new information could always arise and maybe one day that religion will be overthrown.

All I can say is that in my religion all living creatures have abstract qualities of character and being. Of virtues and vices one can choose their path. Good and evil are not spiritual forces, instead they are realities of one's choices. Because there are abstract qualities of being I concluded that there is intelligence behind the creation of life. To choose good over evil allows a person to be free and think in the freest of ways. Beyond that it's all mystery, and unknowns. Of physical existence science is the most powerful way to explore that. In regards to why we are here there is no avoiding philosophy. Religion is philosophy as far as I'm concerned. I also believe there is an unconditioned reality that is the eternal foundation of life. I believe existence is infinite in all directions. I don't buy into the God thing as of yet. Go ahead and prove me wrong!

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

If there is no God, then all this discussion is moot, so let's start from the viewpoint of someone who believes that some kind of God exists, and there is an afterlife in which the truth will be revealed.

So, if you must choose a religion, take your pick. Using the moral values it espouses as a criterion is probably a good way to do so.

Otherwise, keep your mind open. You'll have less to unlearn after you die and get told how it really is.

I believe the problem is, or at least, from what I've seen and experienced as a medium, that what a person believes religiously can have a direct impact on their afterlife, even causing them to become an earthbound spirit and unable to cross over into the spirit world. As a medium, I've spoken with earthbound human spirits who were confused because they weren't in heaven with God and Jesus, as they expected to be immediately after death, or asleep in their grave, as they were taught. I've often been asked, "Where is God?" "Where is Jesus?" and "Why am I not in heaven yet?" I've had to explain to these spirits, first, that I'm a psychic medium who can see and hear them; second, what happened to them; and third, that I can help them cross over and then persuade them to do so. And, once they get over the initial shock that I'm a psychic medium who can see, hear, and speak to them (most believed that mediumship isn't real or that it's of the devil), they're willing to listen to me and follow my guidance, just like the spirit of a young girl mentioned in a previous post.