The chances of being right when it comes to religion.

[Nakosis]

When questions like this come up, I become tempted to repeat once again a link to the "Blind Men and the Elephant" metaphor story

See that... They were all wrong weren't they.

 

[Quintessence]

All I am saying is just because you feel something doesn't make it valid to feel said thing or that said thing is justification to believe in gods.

Why? Who decides what is "valid?"

Seems to me "valid" is basically a fancy human way of "I happen to agree with this." As Luis said, it really is a personal matter.

Merely believing in gods doesn't mean much of diddly squat anyway.
(it's also not the language I would use to describe how I feel about the gods. I "believe" in the gods about as much as I "believe" in gravity)

 

[Lorgar-Aurelian]

Why? Who decides what is "valid?"

Seems to me "valid" is basically a fancy human way of "I happen to agree with this." As Luis said, it really is a personal matter.

Merely believing in gods doesn't mean much of diddly squat anyway.
(it's also not the language I would use to describe how I feel about the gods. I "believe" in the gods about as much as I "believe" in gravity)

I would hope that reality, things being testable on some level would decide what is valid. Not random bull****.

 

[Quintessence]

I would hope that reality, things being testable on some level would decide what is valid. Not random bull****.

Sorry... you lost me here. I don't understand at all what you are getting at. Wait... are you an adherent of Scientism or something?

 

[Lorgar-Aurelian]

I would hope that reality, things being testable on some level would decide what is valid. Not random bull****.

Sorry... you lost me here. I don't understand at all what you are getting at.

Never mind then

 

[Quintessence]

I would hope that reality, things being testable on some level would decide what is valid. Not random bull****.

Okay, okay... two questions:

1. Do you believe that if something is not tested by Science!™ it is "invalid?"
2. Do you believe that something that is "invalid" completely lacks any value and should be done away with?

Okay, I lied... one more question: what random bull$#%%? I have no idea what you are talking about there.

 

[Lorgar-Aurelian]

Okay, okay... two questions:

1. Do you believe that if something is not tested by Science!™ it is "invalid?"
2. Do you believe that something that is "invalid" completely lacks any value and should be done away with?

Okay, I lied... one more question: what random bull$#%%? I have no idea what you are talking about there.

1. I would like more than a feeling to justify religious ideology.
2. No I never said that.
3. Random bull**** being most of the spiritual practices people have that have nothing to back them up.

 

[sayak83]

All I am saying is just because you feel something doesn't make it valid to feel said thing or that said thing is justification to believe in gods.

I am confused as to why I am not justified in personally believing in a certain worldview based on certain set of personal experiences that provides me with personal evidence for it. If I am trying to convince you then its a different matter. Then I will have to point to public experiences/reason or tell you how you can replicate my own experiences in your own personal life. Of course, if my worldview conflicts with publicly available experience/evidence/reason, then I have a problem, but many religions do not have this issue at all.

 

[Quintessence]

1. I would like more than a feeling to justify religious ideology.

Cool! That's not hard. I'm not aware of any ideology, religious or otherwise, that is grounded solely on human feelings. It might be the most important thing for all of them, though. If a human doesn't feel like doing something, it tends not to do it unless coerced, yeah?

2. No I never said that.

I know - I was asking for clarification's sake. You're something of an enigma for me right now and I'm trying to figure you out. If nothing else, know I appreciate the productive threads you've been creating lately and asking some interesting questions!

3. Random bull**** being most of the spiritual practices people have that have nothing to back them up.

You and I must see things very differently? I'm not aware of any human activity (spiritual or otherwise - though to be honest I really couldn't tell you what "spiritual" means as I don't use that word) that has no backing. You'd have to give me a specific example to think about?

 

[Quintessence]

Of course, if my worldview conflicts with publicly available experience/evidence/reason, then I have a problem, but many religions do not have this issue at all.

And even then, it is only a problem if one insists upon thinking in "either-or" or "black-white" terms rather than "both-and" terms or "use this here and that there" terms.

 

[Lorgar-Aurelian]

Cool! That's not hard. I'm not aware of any ideology, religious or otherwise, that is grounded solely on human feelings. It might be the most important thing for all of them, though. If a human doesn't feel like doing something, it tends not to do it unless coerced, yeah?



I know - I was asking for clarification's sake. You're something of an enigma for me right now and I'm trying to figure you out. If nothing else, know I appreciate the productive threads you've been creating lately and asking some interesting questions!



You and I must see things very differently? I'm not aware of any human activity (spiritual or otherwise - though to be honest I really couldn't tell you what "spiritual" means as I don't use that word) that has no backing. You'd have to give me a specific example to think about?

It's also possible that on some level I resent the fact that I can't seem to gain faith no matter how hard I try. I often feel a pull towards the gods but can never justify it enough for me to not brush it off as nonsense,

 

[LuisDantas]

I would hope that reality, things being testable on some level would decide what is valid.

For science, sure. But that is not the scope that applies to matters of gods.

Not random bull****.

If you think of belief in gods as bull*, odds are that you do not feel any particular affinity with it to begin with. So why worry?

 

[LuisDantas]

1. I would like more than a feeling to justify religious ideology.
2. No I never said that.
3. Random bull**** being most of the spiritual practices people have that have nothing to back them up.

Why would it need backing? Why should religious practice and ideology not be capable and willing to sustain themselves on their own terms?

 

[Akivah]

Lets pretend all religions are equally possibly correct. If one goes by nothing but the numbers the chance of you being correct are 1 in 19 if you count the large religions of the world . From there if you add in religious sects and dead religions the chance goes down even lower.

So how do you figure which religion is the correct one if there is indeed a correct one?

This is a pretty silly post. You could substitute any other topic for religion and it would make as much sense. For example, let's pretend that are football teams are equally possibly correct. How can you possibly figure which team is the correct one?

The (fill in the blank) is correct for you, if you believe it to be true.

 

[Lorgar-Aurelian]

This is a pretty silly post. You could substitute any other topic for religion and it would make as much sense. For example, let's pretend that are football teams are equally possibly correct. How can you possibly figure which team is the correct one?

The (fill in the blank) is correct for you, if you believe it to be true.

You started with a point then went with an example that doesn't make sense. You could of used numerous other things but you went with one of the only examples that doesn't actually work. Who goes around and says "Which football team is correct?" without context this makes no sense.

 

[Akivah]

I would hope that reality, things being testable on some level would decide what is valid.

This is part of your problem. Religion mostly deals with the spiritual, it can't be put into a test tube. It is actionable due to our words, emotions, and beliefs. You are looking for tangible attributes on a topic that only deals with intangibles.

 

[Akivah]

You started with a point then went with an example that doesn't make sense. You could of used numerous other things but you went with one of the only examples that doesn't actually work. Who goes around and says "Which football team is correct?" without context this makes no sense.

Which ice cream is correct?
Which car is correct?

All of them work.

 

[Lorgar-Aurelian]

Which ice cream is correct?
Which car is correct?

All of them work.

Can you at least go with something that makes sense with the end of the sentence "is correct"

 

[Lorgar-Aurelian]

This is part of your problem. Religion mostly deals with the spiritual, it can't be put into a test tube. It is actionable due to our words, emotions, and beliefs. You are looking for tangible attributes on a topic that only deals with intangibles.

I just can't see any reason to put faith in the intangibles.

 

[LuisDantas]

@Lorgar-Aurelian : it might be a good idea to attempt to clearly state (to yourself at least) what is the purpose and structure of a religion.