is there any religion that is not structured as a tautology?

[cambridge79]

Peace be on you.
Revealed religions in original form are not tautology.

revealed religions are considered to be true only because we assume the revelations are real. How do we assume that the revelations are real? because revealed religions tells us they are.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

the most simple? circular reasoning:
God exists because this book says it does.
This book is special because god inspired it.

or another big one: God is good no matter what. If something good happens, praise to god. If something bad happens "he moves in misterious ways and who are we to read his mind".

Religions look to me just like casinos where the house always wins no matter how the dice rolls.

FYI: none of those are tautologies. Good thing, too, since tautologies are necessarily true.

 

[DawudTalut]

revealed religions are considered to be true only because we assume the revelations are real. How do we assume that the revelations are real? because revealed religions tells us they are.

The true revelation have:
= majesty.
= prophecy
= usefulness
= bring positive changes
= tells new things
= the true revelations still continue in this era according to Ahmadiyya Muslims, so it is not something written in past, it happens now too.

 

[paarsurrey]

is there any religion that is not structured as a tautology?

Repetition of what? Please elaborate
Regards

 

[David1967]

I'm not myself a Buddhist but I'm wondering what your agenda is here? In the OP you asked if any religions are not based on tautologies. I offered you an example of one that apparently isn't. Your response was to ignore the question of whether or not it was a tautology and instead question it on all sorts of unrelated grounds. So at this point I'm left wondering you were all that honest in your OP. Are you really here to discuss tautological religions? Or are you just anti-religious? There's nothing wrong with with being anti-religious. But it's also boring to try to explain religions to people who are anti-religious -- and usually also a waste of time because they tend to have their minds made up -- and I really don't think it's worth it for me to waste my time here.

Oh, by the way, in answer to one of your questions: It doesn't take a Buddhist to know that Buddhism emphasizes the necessity of each person experiencing the truths of the religion for themselves, rather than merely accept the authority of the Buddha or the clergy. It teaches that if you cannot after thorough effort personally confirm a teaching to be true, you are to reject it.

Good point SS. I am not a Buddhist either but I think it would do us all well to take example from them and think out things for ourselves not merely because someone said so. How many wacky and often time dangerous things do people often times follow just because some charismatic, seemingly wise person convinces them they should? Examples ; David Koresh, Jim Jones, ISIL............................

 

[outhouse]

Those are not questions of religion but of philosophy.

That's what I was going to imply.

Really not the best descriptor for this example.

 

[George-ananda]

the most simple? circular reasoning:
God exists because this book says it does.
This book is special because god inspired it.

or another big one: God is good no matter what. If something good happens, praise to god. If something bad happens "he moves in misterious ways and who are we to read his mind".

Religions look to me just like casinos where the house always wins no matter how the dice rolls.

I would say non-dual Hinduism (God and creation are not-two) does not fit your understanding of a tautology. I don't know how familiar you are with non-dual thinking. What you are talking about would only apply to dualist (Abrahamic) thinking.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

The most simple [example of a tautology]? circular reasoning:
God exists because this book says it does.
This book is special because God inspired it.

Or another big one: God is good no matter what. If something good happens, praise to God. If something bad happens "he moves in mysterious ways and who are we to read his mind".

I don't usually bother with atheists, but

1. A circular argument is not an example of a tautology (read the dictionary), but I suspect that was what you meant in the first place.

2. Your first example is true of religions like Christianity or Islam, but not all religions are based on a book or a single "revelation".

3. In the second argument, again (like most atheists) you are mistaking an argument against Abrahamic religions with one against religion in general. The argument from evil is indeed a very powerful argument against those religions which believe in an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent creator. But a creator doesn't have to be any of those. If one who wasn't was challenged, she might reply "I don't claim my universe is perfect: it was just the best I could manage. Sure, some of the inhabitants sometimes get caught in the machinery, but they have a reasonable life the rest of the time. If you don't like it, go and kill yourself."

Paganism is not based on circular argument. People have religious experiences. Those which are weird are usually ignored by others (excepting the Abrahamic "prophets") and so a consensus builds up. The pagan religions of the Americas, Africa, Asia, and Ancient Europe all have a similar world view, independently arrived at. Anyone who thinks that involves circularity needs to study some elementary epistemology.

 

[EtuMalku]

i think i'm not very informed on them, can you please elaborate a bit?

Dogma free systems such as Luciferianism and Satanism

 

[Yerda]

Yes. All of them.

 

[Scuba Pete]

If i for example ask "is there any black people who can do math" you may accuse me to be a racists, you may not like the way the question is structured and consider it biased and you would be right on it.

I would actually assume you to be ignorant of proper English grammar. I would them try to determine if English were a second language for you, you lacked a formal education, were from an impoverished neighborhood or were simply being inattentive or lazy. But then, you could be the victim of auto-cowrecked as I often am on this tablet.

Ignorance and/or bias without animosity should never be construed as racism.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I would say non-dual Hinduism (God and creation are not-two) does not fit your understanding of a tautology.

Heh - actual tautologies don't fit his understanding of a tautology.

 

[serp777]

I'm not myself a Buddhist but I'm wondering what your agenda is here? In the OP you asked if any religions are not based on tautologies. I offered you an example of one that apparently isn't. Your response was to ignore the question of whether or not it was a tautology and instead question it on all sorts of unrelated grounds. So at this point I'm left wondering you were all that honest in your OP. Are you really here to discuss tautological religions? Or are you just anti-religious? There's nothing wrong with with being anti-religious. But it's also boring to try to explain religions to people who are anti-religious -- and usually also a waste of time because they tend to have their minds made up -- and I really don't think it's worth it for me to waste my time here.

Oh, by the way, in answer to one of your questions: It doesn't take a Buddhist to know that Buddhism emphasizes the necessity of each person experiencing the truths of the religion for themselves, rather than merely accept the authority of the Buddha or the clergy. It teaches that if you cannot after thorough effort personally confirm a teaching to be true, you are to reject it.

I question the idea that Buddhism is a religion. Its something between a religion and a philosophy. Buddhism need not require any supernatural deities.