Total Posts:58|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Contradictions between Religions

Romanii
Posts: 4,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 11:52:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
This thread was inspired by a debate I recently completed with philochristos about the validity of Religious Pluralism.
Basically, the debate devolved into him bringing up contradictions between religions, me suggesting possible reconciliations between them, and him attempting to refute them.

Unfortunately, debates aren't very conducive to learning and developing views through back and forth discussion; they are more for people who already know what they're talking about, which I really don't, quite yet.
Thus, I have started this thread, with the hopes that the forum format would be better for helping me solidify my arguments for Religious Pluralism.

Bring up any contradiction between religions, and I will attempt to show why it doesn't refute the validity of Religious Pluralism.

Many thanks to anyone who obliges :D
XLAV
Posts: 13,725
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2014 12:27:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Some religions say our actions and belief will determine if we should go to hell or heaven.
Some religions say if you lived a good and humble life you get reincarnated.
Romanii
Posts: 4,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2014 9:59:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/26/2014 12:27:53 AM, XLAV wrote:
Some religions say our actions and belief will determine if we should go to hell or heaven.
Some religions say if you lived a good and humble life you get reincarnated.

What you are describing is the contradiction between the afterlife system in Abrahamic faiths (Christianity, Islam, Judaism) and Eastern religions (Hinduism, theistic Buddhism, Sikhism, Jainism).

Abrahamic faiths say that you live once, are judged, and are sent on into the afterlife. Now, they also say that depending on how you lived and how you are judged, you either end up in Heaven or Hell, but they are never clear about what exactly those things are.

Eastern religions, on the other hand, say that Hell is being stuck in the cycle of reincarnation, separated from God, stuck in the material world, while Heaven is eventual escape from the cycle and union with God. However, it does maintain that each life is a chance to get into Heaven, with the same concept of judgement (by Karmic law) at the end of each life, with a good life allowing for Heaven (Union with God) and a bad life warranting going to Hell (back into the cycle of reincarnation).

Thus, the only thing we are really looking at here is a difference in the number of chances given to a human soul in getting to Heaven. Eastern religions say that there are an infinite number of chances to get into Heaven. Abrahamic religions do NOT necessarily preach against more than one chance being given. In fact the existence of an all-loving God would REQUIRE multiple chances. The only difference is that Abrahamic faiths choose to concentrate only on THIS chance, while Eastern religions choose to do the same, but also acknowledge the existence of further lives/chances.

In conclusion, the two systems of afterlife really aren't that different, possibly even compatible, representing different aspects of the same divine reality.

More curious similarities that add to the likelihood of this theory:

-Abrahamic faiths say that humans are sinful and are doomed for Hell anyways. Eastern religions also say that humans are sinful, but they take it a step further and say that they are ALREADY in Hell by living in the material world. Not that big a difference, and another hint of a single divine reality.

-ALL religions have the same basic method for getting into Heaven: faith in God, prayer/meditation, moral conduct, and Love.

I'm happy to clarify or respond to any challenges against this.... if anyone reads all this, that is XD
Conservative101
Posts: 191
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2014 9:21:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Christians believe in the New Testament but the Jews don't...what say ye?
When in doubt, start riots and scream racism
Romanii
Posts: 4,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2014 9:24:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/26/2014 9:21:30 PM, Conservative101 wrote:
Christians believe in the New Testament but the Jews don't...what say ye?

"Ye" says that the New Testament is a man-made document, written by followers of Jesus decades after his death with plenty of motivation for fabrication, and is thus unlikely to be very historically accurate.
ESocialBookworm
Posts: 14,373
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2014 9:36:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/26/2014 9:00:07 PM, Romanii wrote:
BUMP! @#$%

nac

Poor u! *hugs*
Solonkr~
I don't care about whether an ideology is "necessary" or not,
I care about how to solve problems,
which is what everyone else should also care about.

Ken~
In essence, the world is fucked up and you can either ignore it, become cynical or bitter about it.

Me~
"BAILEY + SOLON = SAILEY
MY SHIP SAILEY MUST SAIL"

SCREW THAT SHIZ #BANNIE = BAILEY & ANNIE

P.S. Shipped Sailey before it was cannon bitches.
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2014 9:52:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
As a Baha'i, I'd have to say that religious pluralism is rather similar to our beliefs. While I don't really have contradictions to give you (as I believe all religions came from one God), I'd simply like to comment on how we respond when someone points out contradictions to us. Hopefully, this may help you in future discussions.

Religion is a way of helping humanity grow spiritually and advance forward. It is akin to the school system, in an odd way. The student starts in the most basic and elementary classes, and slowly progresses until they're learning far more advanced concepts. Likewise, God has sent us messengers of God (e.g. Moses, Muhammed, Christ, the Bab, Baha'u'llah, etc.) to help us grow spiritually as we advance through the necessary stages.

So when people point out "contradictions," they really aren't contradictions. What was applicable to one era or time frame is now not so, for humanity has advanced forward. Necessarily, religion must bring new teachings for the new era. Of course, this brings up the question of why God simply didn't immediately send all of his messages all at once to mankind. Going with our earlier analogy, it's for the same reason we don't start giving children in the first grade lessons on trigonometry or parametric equations; they wouldn't be able to comprehend it.

To give a specific example, some people might point out verses in the Bible that commend discrimination against homosexuality (I believe this would be in the book of Leviticus). The Bible was not written by Jesus, but by the people of that era, who were influenced by societal values. Certainly, many of the verses in the book were inspired by his teachings, but he did not teach others to discriminate against homosexuals. Nevertheless, people during that time weren't ready to accept that homosexuality was something that was permissible or even tolerable, and this goes back to what I was saying earlier. You can't teach a child who is still learning how to multiply the basics of trigonometry and expect the child to understand. Likewise, God (the teacher) isn't going to give humanity (the student) something that it isn't ready for and can't accept.

If the discussion went on from this point of view, however, it would eventually lead to the question of, "What was God's purpose in making us?", which gets into a whole different discussion.
Kerfluffer
Posts: 123
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2014 10:16:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/26/2014 9:24:33 PM, Romanii wrote:
At 4/26/2014 9:21:30 PM, Conservative101 wrote:
Christians believe in the New Testament but the Jews don't...what say ye?

"Ye" says that the New Testament is a man-made document, written by followers of Jesus decades after his death with plenty of motivation for fabrication, and is thus unlikely to be very historically accurate.

Then I don't understand the point of this thread. There's only ONE absolute truth. This is either:
1) Atheism.
2) ONE of the existing (or future?) religions.
3) Something else entirely (borderline agnosticism)

If a religion got only something right, and another religion got something else right, then they're both false. "Even a broken clock is correct twice a day". It cannot be that any set of contradicting religions are all true.
Romanii
Posts: 4,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2014 11:07:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/26/2014 10:16:45 PM, Kerfluffer wrote:
At 4/26/2014 9:24:33 PM, Romanii wrote:
At 4/26/2014 9:21:30 PM, Conservative101 wrote:
Christians believe in the New Testament but the Jews don't...what say ye?

"Ye" says that the New Testament is a man-made document, written by followers of Jesus decades after his death with plenty of motivation for fabrication, and is thus unlikely to be very historically accurate.

Then I don't understand the point of this thread. There's only ONE absolute truth. This is either:
1) Atheism.
2) ONE of the existing (or future?) religions.
3) Something else entirely (borderline agnosticism)

If a religion got only something right, and another religion got something else right, then they're both false. "Even a broken clock is correct twice a day". It cannot be that any set of contradicting religions are all true.

Or those contradictions aren't really contradictions at all... Those "contradictions" can be explained either as

1) unnecessary, false, man-made doctrines or

2) different aspects of the same divine reality

Showing how all contradictions fall under those categories is the purpose of this thread.
Romanii
Posts: 4,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2014 11:28:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/26/2014 9:52:23 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
As a Baha'i, I'd have to say that religious pluralism is rather similar to our beliefs. While I don't really have contradictions to give you (as I believe all religions came from one God), I'd simply like to comment on how we respond when someone points out contradictions to us. Hopefully, this may help you in future discussions.

Thanks a lot!
Looks like we agree a lot on our religious beliefs as well :D


Religion is a way of helping humanity grow spiritually and advance forward. It is akin to the school system, in an odd way. The student starts in the most basic and elementary classes, and slowly progresses until they're learning far more advanced concepts. Likewise, God has sent us messengers of God (e.g. Moses, Muhammed, Christ, the Bab, Baha'u'llah, etc.) to help us grow spiritually as we advance through the necessary stages.

Yeah, the similarities between the core teachings of various religions definitely hints at all of them having been divinely inspired at heart.


So when people point out "contradictions," they really aren't contradictions. What was applicable to one era or time frame is now not so, for humanity has advanced forward. Necessarily, religion must bring new teachings for the new era. Of course, this brings up the question of why God simply didn't immediately send all of his messages all at once to mankind. Going with our earlier analogy, it's for the same reason we don't start giving children in the first grade lessons on trigonometry or parametric equations; they wouldn't be able to comprehend it.

Absolutely. Religion must change as society progresses in order for humanity to grow closer to God as a whole.


To give a specific example, some people might point out verses in the Bible that commend discrimination against homosexuality (I believe this would be in the book of Leviticus). The Bible was not written by Jesus, but by the people of that era, who were influenced by societal values. Certainly, many of the verses in the book were inspired by his teachings, but he did not teach others to discriminate against homosexuals. Nevertheless, people during that time weren't ready to accept that homosexuality was something that was permissible or even tolerable, and this goes back to what I was saying earlier. You can't teach a child who is still learning how to multiply the basics of trigonometry and expect the child to understand. Likewise, God (the teacher) isn't going to give humanity (the student) something that it isn't ready for and can't accept.

OMG I've been arguing for the man-made nature of most "holy scriptures" for ages...


If the discussion went on from this point of view, however, it would eventually lead to the question of, "What was God's purpose in making us?", which gets into a whole different discussion.

I would be very much interested in having such a discussion with you, given your knowledge in these matters. I think it would be a very enlightening experience :D
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 1:57:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/26/2014 11:28:57 PM, Romanii wrote:

OMG I've been arguing for the man-made nature of most "holy scriptures" for ages...

Really? I wouldn't think there was anything to argue.

Either the Bible is the word of God or it was made by people inspired by the teachings of Jesus, and most non-religious people will deny that the Bible is the word of God. So wouldn't they accept the fact that the people of that age wrote parts of the Bible?



If the discussion went on from this point of view, however, it would eventually lead to the question of, "What was God's purpose in making us?", which gets into a whole different discussion.

I would be very much interested in having such a discussion with you, given your knowledge in these matters. I think it would be a very enlightening experience :D

I wouldn't say I'm incredibly knowledgable. Before re-visiting this site from 2 years ago, for example, I had no idea of many philosophical concepts that are constantly used in debates today (e.g. Occam's Razor).

I'm certain you've had more experience than me, especially considering I don't often debate about serious topics and I just occasionally partake in sillier debates.
Romanii
Posts: 4,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 2:02:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 1:57:42 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 4/26/2014 11:28:57 PM, Romanii wrote:

OMG I've been arguing for the man-made nature of most "holy scriptures" for ages...

Really? I wouldn't think there was anything to argue.

Either the Bible is the word of God or it was made by people inspired by the teachings of Jesus, and most non-religious people will deny that the Bible is the word of God. So wouldn't they accept the fact that the people of that age wrote parts of the Bible?

I don't argue it with atheists much; it's more with religious fundamentalists who proclaim that the Bible is God's Word and use it to justify damnation for all non-Christians, the exclusion of homosexuals from society, and teaching Creationism in science classes...




If the discussion went on from this point of view, however, it would eventually lead to the question of, "What was God's purpose in making us?", which gets into a whole different discussion.

I would be very much interested in having such a discussion with you, given your knowledge in these matters. I think it would be a very enlightening experience :D

I wouldn't say I'm incredibly knowledgable. Before re-visiting this site from 2 years ago, for example, I had no idea of many philosophical concepts that are constantly used in debates today (e.g. Occam's Razor).

I'm certain you've had more experience than me, especially considering I don't often debate about serious topics and I just occasionally partake in sillier debates.

Really? I've read some of your posts about philosophy and they seemed really good...
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 2:05:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/26/2014 10:16:45 PM, Kerfluffer wrote:

If a religion got only something right, and another religion got something else right, then they're both false. "Even a broken clock is correct twice a day". It cannot be that any set of contradicting religions are all true.

Not necessarily. If one views religion as a means to spiritually advance human progress, then it would make sense why one religion "got something right" and another "got something else right."

When you go to school and you learn about math, you first learn the basics: addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. None of this is false, and all of it is correct. Later you get somewhat more complex, learning about square roots, powers, negatives, and so on. This is also correct. This all leads to algebra and graphing, which are part of the foundations of all other areas of math. All of what they taught you is correct, but it occurred at different stages, and the same case occurs with religion.

Of course, there are also things which appear to be contradictions, but really aren't. For example, in your early school years, a teacher might have told you, "You can't have a negative sign under a radical."

This is obviously not true. We have a symbol, "i," to represent the square root of -1. Why would the teachers "lie" to us? Because they knew we weren't yet ready to learn that form of math. We had to progress, first learning about radicals, exponents, and negative numbers before we could learn about imaginary numbers. The same is true of religions. We have to spiritually progress until we're ready for the next stage.
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 2:11:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 2:02:25 PM, Romanii wrote:

I don't argue it with atheists much; it's more with religious fundamentalists who proclaim that the Bible is God's Word and use it to justify damnation for all non-Christians, the exclusion of homosexuals from society, and teaching Creationism in science classes...

Ah, that can get quite troublesome.


Really? I've read some of your posts about philosophy and they seemed really good...

I won't deny that I have a good general understanding of philosophy (particularly Greek or Roman) and can argue it quite well; however, I don't really feel as though I have extensive knowledge in most well-known religions (e.g. Hinduism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, to name a few), and I won't feel completely comfortable discussing them until I've read their holy books and studied their scriptures. That's not to say that I have no experience with them -- I have basic knowledge on their teachings, but I don't feel as though it's enough.

There's always so much more to learn ...
Romanii
Posts: 4,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 2:14:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 2:11:31 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 4/27/2014 2:02:25 PM, Romanii wrote:

I don't argue it with atheists much; it's more with religious fundamentalists who proclaim that the Bible is God's Word and use it to justify damnation for all non-Christians, the exclusion of homosexuals from society, and teaching Creationism in science classes...

Ah, that can get quite troublesome.


Really? I've read some of your posts about philosophy and they seemed really good...

I won't deny that I have a good general understanding of philosophy (particularly Greek or Roman) and can argue it quite well; however, I don't really feel as though I have extensive knowledge in most well-known religions (e.g. Hinduism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, to name a few), and I won't feel completely comfortable discussing them until I've read their holy books and studied their scriptures. That's not to say that I have no experience with them -- I have basic knowledge on their teachings, but I don't feel as though it's enough.

There's always so much more to learn ...

Hahaha definitely. I'm actually more well-versed in theology and not so much in philosophy... I've only recently started to get into philosophy and it's all been quite interesting!

As a side-note, do you believe that any philosophical/empirical arguments for God's existence are completely sound?
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 2:24:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 2:14:43 PM, Romanii wrote:

As a side-note, do you believe that any philosophical/empirical arguments for God's existence are completely sound?

You can't really have empirical arguments for God (with our current technology, or even future technology). For a being that's supposed to be omnipotent and completely above not only our understanding of the laws of the universe, but above the laws themselves, how could we verifiably disprove or prove his existence with empirical evidence? All of which, needless to say, is based upon our incredibly limited mindset and perspectives (in comparison to God himself). I suppose, however, you could have empirical evidence that suggests the existence/non-existence of God, but I wouldn't consider it completely sound.

Consequentially, I guess the best arguments would be philosophical or rational ones. Depending upon the argument, I might agree that it would be sound reasoning to prove (to ourselves) that God does indeed exist.
Romanii
Posts: 4,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 2:31:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 2:24:27 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 4/27/2014 2:14:43 PM, Romanii wrote:

As a side-note, do you believe that any philosophical/empirical arguments for God's existence are completely sound?

You can't really have empirical arguments for God (with our current technology, or even future technology). For a being that's supposed to be omnipotent and completely above not only our understanding of the laws of the universe, but above the laws themselves, how could we verifiably disprove or prove his existence with empirical evidence? All of which, needless to say, is based upon our incredibly limited mindset and perspectives (in comparison to God himself). I suppose, however, you could have empirical evidence that suggests the existence/non-existence of God, but I wouldn't consider it completely sound.

Consequentially, I guess the best arguments would be philosophical or rational ones. Depending upon the argument, I might agree that it would be sound reasoning to prove (to ourselves) that God does indeed exist.

Yeah I personally believe that even the best philosophical arguments for his existence (cosmological, teleological, introspective) are only suggestive of his existence.
I've heard a few empirical arguments from Quantum Mechanics, and they sound okay to me, but I really don't have enough knowledge in the matter to really know whether they're really valid.
For me, it is all mainly personal spiritual experiences. All those other arguments merely play supportive roles in my belief.
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 2:37:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 2:31:00 PM, Romanii wrote:
At 4/27/2014 2:24:27 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 4/27/2014 2:14:43 PM, Romanii wrote:

As a side-note, do you believe that any philosophical/empirical arguments for God's existence are completely sound?

You can't really have empirical arguments for God (with our current technology, or even future technology). For a being that's supposed to be omnipotent and completely above not only our understanding of the laws of the universe, but above the laws themselves, how could we verifiably disprove or prove his existence with empirical evidence? All of which, needless to say, is based upon our incredibly limited mindset and perspectives (in comparison to God himself). I suppose, however, you could have empirical evidence that suggests the existence/non-existence of God, but I wouldn't consider it completely sound.

Consequentially, I guess the best arguments would be philosophical or rational ones. Depending upon the argument, I might agree that it would be sound reasoning to prove (to ourselves) that God does indeed exist.

Yeah I personally believe that even the best philosophical arguments for his existence (cosmological, teleological, introspective) are only suggestive of his existence.
I've heard a few empirical arguments from Quantum Mechanics, and they sound okay to me, but I really don't have enough knowledge in the matter to really know whether they're really valid.
For me, it is all mainly personal spiritual experiences. All those other arguments merely play supportive roles in my belief.

That's the key, and it's something most people don't realize.

To really believe something or truly understand it (not just understand it, I mean truly understand it), you've got to read the writings, the teachings, the scriptures, and so on. You've got to meditate on them, pray, and really think about things, not just go online, see some arguments (the problem of evil, as an example), and base your entire belief system off of arguments that make sense to you. That's not to say that you should completely disregard them -- certainly it's okay to contemplate over rational/empirical arguments and discuss them, but that shouldn't be where someone's main source of belief comes from. At least, this is all from my own perspective.

Concerning the quantum mechanics, however, do you recall any evidences or arguments? I'd like to take a look at them and see if I can even remotely understand them.
Romanii
Posts: 4,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 2:46:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 2:37:37 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 4/27/2014 2:31:00 PM, Romanii wrote:
At 4/27/2014 2:24:27 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 4/27/2014 2:14:43 PM, Romanii wrote:

As a side-note, do you believe that any philosophical/empirical arguments for God's existence are completely sound?

You can't really have empirical arguments for God (with our current technology, or even future technology). For a being that's supposed to be omnipotent and completely above not only our understanding of the laws of the universe, but above the laws themselves, how could we verifiably disprove or prove his existence with empirical evidence? All of which, needless to say, is based upon our incredibly limited mindset and perspectives (in comparison to God himself). I suppose, however, you could have empirical evidence that suggests the existence/non-existence of God, but I wouldn't consider it completely sound.

Consequentially, I guess the best arguments would be philosophical or rational ones. Depending upon the argument, I might agree that it would be sound reasoning to prove (to ourselves) that God does indeed exist.

Yeah I personally believe that even the best philosophical arguments for his existence (cosmological, teleological, introspective) are only suggestive of his existence.
I've heard a few empirical arguments from Quantum Mechanics, and they sound okay to me, but I really don't have enough knowledge in the matter to really know whether they're really valid.
For me, it is all mainly personal spiritual experiences. All those other arguments merely play supportive roles in my belief.

That's the key, and it's something most people don't realize.

To really believe something or truly understand it (not just understand it, I mean truly understand it), you've got to read the writings, the teachings, the scriptures, and so on. You've got to meditate on them, pray, and really think about things, not just go online, see some arguments (the problem of evil, as an example), and base your entire belief system off of arguments that make sense to you. That's not to say that you should completely disregard them -- certainly it's okay to contemplate over rational/empirical arguments and discuss them, but that shouldn't be where someone's main source of belief comes from. At least, this is all from my own perspective.

Absolutely. I've never understood how people can start believing in God based off nothing but philosophical arguments. Direct experience has always been the best way for me to confirm something's existence.


Concerning the quantum mechanics, however, do you recall any evidences or arguments? I'd like to take a look at them and see if I can even remotely understand them.

Here's the link to the QM argument Rational_Thinker9119 made:
http://www.debate.org...

Interestingly enough, he was playing Devil's Advocate that time...
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 2:49:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 2:46:41 PM, Romanii wrote:
At 4/27/2014 2:37:37 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 4/27/2014 2:31:00 PM, Romanii wrote:
At 4/27/2014 2:24:27 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 4/27/2014 2:14:43 PM, Romanii wrote:

As a side-note, do you believe that any philosophical/empirical arguments for God's existence are completely sound?

You can't really have empirical arguments for God (with our current technology, or even future technology). For a being that's supposed to be omnipotent and completely above not only our understanding of the laws of the universe, but above the laws themselves, how could we verifiably disprove or prove his existence with empirical evidence? All of which, needless to say, is based upon our incredibly limited mindset and perspectives (in comparison to God himself). I suppose, however, you could have empirical evidence that suggests the existence/non-existence of God, but I wouldn't consider it completely sound.

Consequentially, I guess the best arguments would be philosophical or rational ones. Depending upon the argument, I might agree that it would be sound reasoning to prove (to ourselves) that God does indeed exist.

Yeah I personally believe that even the best philosophical arguments for his existence (cosmological, teleological, introspective) are only suggestive of his existence.
I've heard a few empirical arguments from Quantum Mechanics, and they sound okay to me, but I really don't have enough knowledge in the matter to really know whether they're really valid.
For me, it is all mainly personal spiritual experiences. All those other arguments merely play supportive roles in my belief.

That's the key, and it's something most people don't realize.

To really believe something or truly understand it (not just understand it, I mean truly understand it), you've got to read the writings, the teachings, the scriptures, and so on. You've got to meditate on them, pray, and really think about things, not just go online, see some arguments (the problem of evil, as an example), and base your entire belief system off of arguments that make sense to you. That's not to say that you should completely disregard them -- certainly it's okay to contemplate over rational/empirical arguments and discuss them, but that shouldn't be where someone's main source of belief comes from. At least, this is all from my own perspective.

Absolutely. I've never understood how people can start believing in God based off nothing but philosophical arguments. Direct experience has always been the best way for me to confirm something's existence.


Concerning the quantum mechanics, however, do you recall any evidences or arguments? I'd like to take a look at them and see if I can even remotely understand them.

Here's the link to the QM argument Rational_Thinker9119 made:
http://www.debate.org...

Interestingly enough, he was playing Devil's Advocate that time...

Oh, I remember taking a brief look at that before. I didn't really read it, though .... I think I'm better off watching One Piece xd

But really, I'll try to actually read it this time around. Thanks for the link.
annanicole
Posts: 19,791
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 6:40:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/26/2014 11:07:07 PM, Romanii wrote:
At 4/26/2014 10:16:45 PM, Kerfluffer wrote:
At 4/26/2014 9:24:33 PM, Romanii wrote:
At 4/26/2014 9:21:30 PM, Conservative101 wrote:
Christians believe in the New Testament but the Jews don't...what say ye?

"Ye" says that the New Testament is a man-made document, written by followers of Jesus decades after his death with plenty of motivation for fabrication, and is thus unlikely to be very historically accurate.

Then I don't understand the point of this thread. There's only ONE absolute truth. This is either:
1) Atheism.
2) ONE of the existing (or future?) religions.
3) Something else entirely (borderline agnosticism)

If a religion got only something right, and another religion got something else right, then they're both false. "Even a broken clock is correct twice a day". It cannot be that any set of contradicting religions are all true.

Or those contradictions aren't really contradictions at all... Those "contradictions" can be explained either as

1) unnecessary, false, man-made doctrines or

2) different aspects of the same divine reality

Showing how all contradictions fall under those categories is the purpose of this thread.

Someone asked you to reconcile the differences between Judaism and Christianity, and you replied that, well, you've decided that the NT is a false, man-made document written by men with motivation to deceive.

That's your answer? You could just as well say that about the Old Testament, the Koran, and everything else. Somehow I doubt that that's much of a "reconciliation": "Christians, throw away the New Testament, and perchance you can more easily reconcile with the Jews. Then the Muslims can throw away the Koran. Then finally, this what-has-become-a-great-mass of Jews can throw aside the OT. After we've gotten rid of all the old writings, we can go on "personal experience" and prove things by how we "feel".

Is that pretty much what you're driving at?
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Romanii
Posts: 4,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 6:47:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 6:40:31 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 4/26/2014 11:07:07 PM, Romanii wrote:
At 4/26/2014 10:16:45 PM, Kerfluffer wrote:
At 4/26/2014 9:24:33 PM, Romanii wrote:
At 4/26/2014 9:21:30 PM, Conservative101 wrote:
Christians believe in the New Testament but the Jews don't...what say ye?

"Ye" says that the New Testament is a man-made document, written by followers of Jesus decades after his death with plenty of motivation for fabrication, and is thus unlikely to be very historically accurate.

Then I don't understand the point of this thread. There's only ONE absolute truth. This is either:
1) Atheism.
2) ONE of the existing (or future?) religions.
3) Something else entirely (borderline agnosticism)

If a religion got only something right, and another religion got something else right, then they're both false. "Even a broken clock is correct twice a day". It cannot be that any set of contradicting religions are all true.

Or those contradictions aren't really contradictions at all... Those "contradictions" can be explained either as

1) unnecessary, false, man-made doctrines or

2) different aspects of the same divine reality

Showing how all contradictions fall under those categories is the purpose of this thread.

Someone asked you to reconcile the differences between Judaism and Christianity, and you replied that, well, you've decided that the NT is a false, man-made document written by men with motivation to deceive.

That's your answer? You could just as well say that about the Old Testament, the Koran, and everything else. Somehow I doubt that that's much of a "reconciliation": "Christians, throw away the New Testament, and perchance you can more easily reconcile with the Jews. Then the Muslims can throw away the Koran. Then finally, this what-has-become-a-great-mass of Jews can throw aside the OT. After we've gotten rid of all the old writings, we can go on "personal experience" and prove things by how we "feel".

Is that pretty much what you're driving at?

Lol I never said we have to "throw away" holy scriptures, as they all have great teachings in them. However, at the end of the day, they WERE written by human beings, so errors are to be expected. To answer your question, yes, I am saying that direct contact with the divine is a better than following ancient people's writings, but those writings are still valuable sources of information.