Total Posts:14|Showing Posts:1-14
Jump to topic:

What Makes A Religion "Official?"

ChaseE
Posts: 5
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2016 1:44:04 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
I was perusing the challenge debates and found one titled "Proving the Catholic Church to teach incorrect doctrine, making them a man-made church." Couldn't we technically say the same thing about all religions? Don't all religions have a human founder?

So, I thought about it, and I figured that all religions have something to do with the supernatural/transcendent, with some having bodies in this supernatural/transcendent area. Then, there comes a human translator who senses the divine and interprets it for all others. Every interpretation is different (which explains monotheism, pantheism, polytheism, atheism...) but this seems to be the foundation for religion.

These are the "founders" of the major religions:

Judaism: Abraham
Christianity: Jesus Christ
Islam: Muhammed
Hinduism: Author of the Vedas
Buddhism: the Buddha

Note that all of these people were those who experienced divine intervention (the first three 'spoke' to God/YHWH/Allah, Buddha experienced nirvana, which is a transcendent experience in which one becomes 'enlightened,' and Hinduism... I'm guessing the author of the Vedas had some divine inspiration for writing the Vedas. Not much is known about that, right?) All of these religions have some doctrines, either written down or passed on orally. If this is the case, then aren't all religions technically man-made? And then what makes a religion? Are Pastafarians part of a religious group, technically speaking?

I'm asking because I'm only 17, and I feel like this is the kind of territory scholars spend years researching and studying.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,715
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2016 2:10:16 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/26/2016 1:44:04 AM, ChaseE wrote:
I was perusing the challenge debates and found one titled "Proving the Catholic Church to teach incorrect doctrine, making them a man-made church." Couldn't we technically say the same thing about all religions? Don't all religions have a human founder?

So, I thought about it, and I figured that all religions have something to do with the supernatural/transcendent, with some having bodies in this supernatural/transcendent area. Then, there comes a human translator who senses the divine and interprets it for all others. Every interpretation is different (which explains monotheism, pantheism, polytheism, atheism...) but this seems to be the foundation for religion.

These are the "founders" of the major religions:

Judaism: Abraham
Christianity: Jesus Christ
Islam: Muhammed
Hinduism: Author of the Vedas
Buddhism: the Buddha

Note that all of these people were those who experienced divine intervention (the first three 'spoke' to God/YHWH/Allah, Buddha experienced nirvana, which is a transcendent experience in which one becomes 'enlightened,' and Hinduism... I'm guessing the author of the Vedas had some divine inspiration for writing the Vedas. Not much is known about that, right?) All of these religions have some doctrines, either written down or passed on orally. If this is the case, then aren't all religions technically man-made? And then what makes a religion? Are Pastafarians part of a religious group, technically speaking?

I'm asking because I'm only 17, and I feel like this is the kind of territory scholars spend years researching and studying.

Response: Speaking for Islam, it was revealed by Allah. Therefore, it is not man-made, yet Allah passed down the revelation to man.
ChaseE
Posts: 5
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2016 2:22:34 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/26/2016 2:10:16 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 10/26/2016 1:44:04 AM, ChaseE wrote:
I was perusing the challenge debates and found one titled "Proving the Catholic Church to teach incorrect doctrine, making them a man-made church." Couldn't we technically say the same thing about all religions? Don't all religions have a human founder?

So, I thought about it, and I figured that all religions have something to do with the supernatural/transcendent, with some having bodies in this supernatural/transcendent area. Then, there comes a human translator who senses the divine and interprets it for all others. Every interpretation is different (which explains monotheism, pantheism, polytheism, atheism...) but this seems to be the foundation for religion.

These are the "founders" of the major religions:

Judaism: Abraham
Christianity: Jesus Christ
Islam: Muhammed
Hinduism: Author of the Vedas
Buddhism: the Buddha

Note that all of these people were those who experienced divine intervention (the first three 'spoke' to God/YHWH/Allah, Buddha experienced nirvana, which is a transcendent experience in which one becomes 'enlightened,' and Hinduism... I'm guessing the author of the Vedas had some divine inspiration for writing the Vedas. Not much is known about that, right?) All of these religions have some doctrines, either written down or passed on orally. If this is the case, then aren't all religions technically man-made? And then what makes a religion? Are Pastafarians part of a religious group, technically speaking?

I'm asking because I'm only 17, and I feel like this is the kind of territory scholars spend years researching and studying.

Response: Speaking for Islam, it was revealed by Allah. Therefore, it is not man-made, yet Allah passed down the revelation to man.

Right, but that's what I'm saying. Muhammed was divinely inspired by Gabriel, who spoke on Allah's behalf. It was Muhammed who gathered up the followers of this new religion because he acted as the interpreter. All major religions seem to possess this trait of someone who speaks with divine/transcendent authority. Is that necessary for official religions?
janesix
Posts: 3,437
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2016 2:36:20 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/26/2016 2:22:34 AM, ChaseE wrote:
At 10/26/2016 2:10:16 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 10/26/2016 1:44:04 AM, ChaseE wrote:
I was perusing the challenge debates and found one titled "Proving the Catholic Church to teach incorrect doctrine, making them a man-made church." Couldn't we technically say the same thing about all religions? Don't all religions have a human founder?

So, I thought about it, and I figured that all religions have something to do with the supernatural/transcendent, with some having bodies in this supernatural/transcendent area. Then, there comes a human translator who senses the divine and interprets it for all others. Every interpretation is different (which explains monotheism, pantheism, polytheism, atheism...) but this seems to be the foundation for religion.

These are the "founders" of the major religions:

Judaism: Abraham
Christianity: Jesus Christ
Islam: Muhammed
Hinduism: Author of the Vedas
Buddhism: the Buddha

Note that all of these people were those who experienced divine intervention (the first three 'spoke' to God/YHWH/Allah, Buddha experienced nirvana, which is a transcendent experience in which one becomes 'enlightened,' and Hinduism... I'm guessing the author of the Vedas had some divine inspiration for writing the Vedas. Not much is known about that, right?) All of these religions have some doctrines, either written down or passed on orally. If this is the case, then aren't all religions technically man-made? And then what makes a religion? Are Pastafarians part of a religious group, technically speaking?

I'm asking because I'm only 17, and I feel like this is the kind of territory scholars spend years researching and studying.

Response: Speaking for Islam, it was revealed by Allah. Therefore, it is not man-made, yet Allah passed down the revelation to man.

Right, but that's what I'm saying. Muhammed was divinely inspired by Gabriel, who spoke on Allah's behalf. It was Muhammed who gathered up the followers of this new religion because he acted as the interpreter. All major religions seem to possess this trait of someone who speaks with divine/transcendent authority. Is that necessary for official religions?

What do you mean by official?
ChaseE
Posts: 5
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2016 2:39:09 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/26/2016 2:36:20 AM, janesix wrote:
At 10/26/2016 2:22:34 AM, ChaseE wrote:
At 10/26/2016 2:10:16 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 10/26/2016 1:44:04 AM, ChaseE wrote:
I was perusing the challenge debates and found one titled "Proving the Catholic Church to teach incorrect doctrine, making them a man-made church." Couldn't we technically say the same thing about all religions? Don't all religions have a human founder?

So, I thought about it, and I figured that all religions have something to do with the supernatural/transcendent, with some having bodies in this supernatural/transcendent area. Then, there comes a human translator who senses the divine and interprets it for all others. Every interpretation is different (which explains monotheism, pantheism, polytheism, atheism...) but this seems to be the foundation for religion.

These are the "founders" of the major religions:

Judaism: Abraham
Christianity: Jesus Christ
Islam: Muhammed
Hinduism: Author of the Vedas
Buddhism: the Buddha

Note that all of these people were those who experienced divine intervention (the first three 'spoke' to God/YHWH/Allah, Buddha experienced nirvana, which is a transcendent experience in which one becomes 'enlightened,' and Hinduism... I'm guessing the author of the Vedas had some divine inspiration for writing the Vedas. Not much is known about that, right?) All of these religions have some doctrines, either written down or passed on orally. If this is the case, then aren't all religions technically man-made? And then what makes a religion? Are Pastafarians part of a religious group, technically speaking?

I'm asking because I'm only 17, and I feel like this is the kind of territory scholars spend years researching and studying.

Response: Speaking for Islam, it was revealed by Allah. Therefore, it is not man-made, yet Allah passed down the revelation to man.

Right, but that's what I'm saying. Muhammed was divinely inspired by Gabriel, who spoke on Allah's behalf. It was Muhammed who gathered up the followers of this new religion because he acted as the interpreter. All major religions seem to possess this trait of someone who speaks with divine/transcendent authority. Is that necessary for official religions?

What do you mean by official?

Is the religion true or false? What makes a true religion and what makes a false religion? "Official" means true, in other words. These would be Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, etc. Unofficial would be things like Pastafarianism, where it doesn't meet up with certain criteria. My question is: what is that criteria?
janesix
Posts: 3,437
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2016 2:48:17 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/26/2016 2:39:09 AM, ChaseE wrote:
At 10/26/2016 2:36:20 AM, janesix wrote:
At 10/26/2016 2:22:34 AM, ChaseE wrote:
At 10/26/2016 2:10:16 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 10/26/2016 1:44:04 AM, ChaseE wrote:
I was perusing the challenge debates and found one titled "Proving the Catholic Church to teach incorrect doctrine, making them a man-made church." Couldn't we technically say the same thing about all religions? Don't all religions have a human founder?

So, I thought about it, and I figured that all religions have something to do with the supernatural/transcendent, with some having bodies in this supernatural/transcendent area. Then, there comes a human translator who senses the divine and interprets it for all others. Every interpretation is different (which explains monotheism, pantheism, polytheism, atheism...) but this seems to be the foundation for religion.

These are the "founders" of the major religions:

Judaism: Abraham
Christianity: Jesus Christ
Islam: Muhammed
Hinduism: Author of the Vedas
Buddhism: the Buddha

Note that all of these people were those who experienced divine intervention (the first three 'spoke' to God/YHWH/Allah, Buddha experienced nirvana, which is a transcendent experience in which one becomes 'enlightened,' and Hinduism... I'm guessing the author of the Vedas had some divine inspiration for writing the Vedas. Not much is known about that, right?) All of these religions have some doctrines, either written down or passed on orally. If this is the case, then aren't all religions technically man-made? And then what makes a religion? Are Pastafarians part of a religious group, technically speaking?

I'm asking because I'm only 17, and I feel like this is the kind of territory scholars spend years researching and studying.

Response: Speaking for Islam, it was revealed by Allah. Therefore, it is not man-made, yet Allah passed down the revelation to man.

Right, but that's what I'm saying. Muhammed was divinely inspired by Gabriel, who spoke on Allah's behalf. It was Muhammed who gathered up the followers of this new religion because he acted as the interpreter. All major religions seem to possess this trait of someone who speaks with divine/transcendent authority. Is that necessary for official religions?

What do you mean by official?

Is the religion true or false? What makes a true religion and what makes a false religion? "Official" means true, in other words. These would be Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, etc. Unofficial would be things like Pastafarianism, where it doesn't meet up with certain criteria. My question is: what is that criteria?

In the us, there are no officially recognised religions. There are tax exemptions for religious organizations. The requirements are minimal. 1 ypu must have truly held beliefs in your religion 2 your practices must not break any laws. Thats it as far as i know and i dont know about other countries. Thus you can basically make up your own religion in the us. Thus pastafarianism could be considered a true religion and be tax exempt if there are true believers.
ChaseE
Posts: 5
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2016 2:54:52 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/26/2016 2:48:17 AM, janesix wrote:
At 10/26/2016 2:39:09 AM, ChaseE wrote:
At 10/26/2016 2:36:20 AM, janesix wrote:
At 10/26/2016 2:22:34 AM, ChaseE wrote:
At 10/26/2016 2:10:16 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 10/26/2016 1:44:04 AM, ChaseE wrote:
I was perusing the challenge debates and found one titled "Proving the Catholic Church to teach incorrect doctrine, making them a man-made church." Couldn't we technically say the same thing about all religions? Don't all religions have a human founder?

So, I thought about it, and I figured that all religions have something to do with the supernatural/transcendent, with some having bodies in this supernatural/transcendent area. Then, there comes a human translator who senses the divine and interprets it for all others. Every interpretation is different (which explains monotheism, pantheism, polytheism, atheism...) but this seems to be the foundation for religion.

These are the "founders" of the major religions:

Judaism: Abraham
Christianity: Jesus Christ
Islam: Muhammed
Hinduism: Author of the Vedas
Buddhism: the Buddha

Note that all of these people were those who experienced divine intervention (the first three 'spoke' to God/YHWH/Allah, Buddha experienced nirvana, which is a transcendent experience in which one becomes 'enlightened,' and Hinduism... I'm guessing the author of the Vedas had some divine inspiration for writing the Vedas. Not much is known about that, right?) All of these religions have some doctrines, either written down or passed on orally. If this is the case, then aren't all religions technically man-made? And then what makes a religion? Are Pastafarians part of a religious group, technically speaking?

I'm asking because I'm only 17, and I feel like this is the kind of territory scholars spend years researching and studying.

Response: Speaking for Islam, it was revealed by Allah. Therefore, it is not man-made, yet Allah passed down the revelation to man.

Right, but that's what I'm saying. Muhammed was divinely inspired by Gabriel, who spoke on Allah's behalf. It was Muhammed who gathered up the followers of this new religion because he acted as the interpreter. All major religions seem to possess this trait of someone who speaks with divine/transcendent authority. Is that necessary for official religions?

What do you mean by official?

Is the religion true or false? What makes a true religion and what makes a false religion? "Official" means true, in other words. These would be Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, etc. Unofficial would be things like Pastafarianism, where it doesn't meet up with certain criteria. My question is: what is that criteria?

In the us, there are no officially recognised religions. There are tax exemptions for religious organizations. The requirements are minimal. 1 ypu must have truly held beliefs in your religion 2 your practices must not break any laws. Thats it as far as i know and i dont know about other countries. Thus you can basically make up your own religion in the us. Thus pastafarianism could be considered a true religion and be tax exempt if there are true believers.

I'm not asking that. Religions are personal. If there is a set of criteria that a religion fails to meet, then those believers are living lies. This isn't a political question. It's a personal one.

So are there false religons? Is there a set of criteria with which we can evaluate religion? And if not, should we have one?
janesix
Posts: 3,437
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2016 3:06:45 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/26/2016 2:54:52 AM, ChaseE wrote:
At 10/26/2016 2:48:17 AM, janesix wrote:
At 10/26/2016 2:39:09 AM, ChaseE wrote:
At 10/26/2016 2:36:20 AM, janesix wrote:
At 10/26/2016 2:22:34 AM, ChaseE wrote:
At 10/26/2016 2:10:16 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 10/26/2016 1:44:04 AM, ChaseE wrote:
I was perusing the challenge debates and found one titled "Proving the Catholic Church to teach incorrect doctrine, making them a man-made church." Couldn't we technically say the same thing about all religions? Don't all religions have a human founder?

So, I thought about it, and I figured that all religions have something to do with the supernatural/transcendent, with some having bodies in this supernatural/transcendent area. Then, there comes a human translator who senses the divine and interprets it for all others. Every interpretation is different (which explains monotheism, pantheism, polytheism, atheism...) but this seems to be the foundation for religion.

These are the "founders" of the major religions:

Judaism: Abraham
Christianity: Jesus Christ
Islam: Muhammed
Hinduism: Author of the Vedas
Buddhism: the Buddha

Note that all of these people were those who experienced divine intervention (the first three 'spoke' to God/YHWH/Allah, Buddha experienced nirvana, which is a transcendent experience in which one becomes 'enlightened,' and Hinduism... I'm guessing the author of the Vedas had some divine inspiration for writing the Vedas. Not much is known about that, right?) All of these religions have some doctrines, either written down or passed on orally. If this is the case, then aren't all religions technically man-made? And then what makes a religion? Are Pastafarians part of a religious group, technically speaking?

I'm asking because I'm only 17, and I feel like this is the kind of territory scholars spend years researching and studying.

Response: Speaking for Islam, it was revealed by Allah. Therefore, it is not man-made, yet Allah passed down the revelation to man.

Right, but that's what I'm saying. Muhammed was divinely inspired by Gabriel, who spoke on Allah's behalf. It was Muhammed who gathered up the followers of this new religion because he acted as the interpreter. All major religions seem to possess this trait of someone who speaks with divine/transcendent authority. Is that necessary for official religions?

What do you mean by official?

Is the religion true or false? What makes a true religion and what makes a false religion? "Official" means true, in other words. These would be Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, etc. Unofficial would be things like Pastafarianism, where it doesn't meet up with certain criteria. My question is: what is that criteria?

In the us, there are no officially recognised religions. There are tax exemptions for religious organizations. The requirements are minimal. 1 ypu must have truly held beliefs in your religion 2 your practices must not break any laws. Thats it as far as i know and i dont know about other countries. Thus you can basically make up your own religion in the us. Thus pastafarianism could be considered a true religion and be tax exempt if there are true believers.

I'm not asking that. Religions are personal. If there is a set of criteria that a religion fails to meet, then those believers are living lies. This isn't a political question. It's a personal one.

So are there false religons? Is there a set of criteria with which we can evaluate religion? And if not, should we have one?

There is no set of criteria for personal belief, unless you decide there is. Thats what personal belief entails.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2016 4:34:35 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/26/2016 2:54:52 AM, ChaseE wrote:
At 10/26/2016 2:48:17 AM, janesix wrote:
At 10/26/2016 2:39:09 AM, ChaseE wrote:
At 10/26/2016 2:36:20 AM, janesix wrote:
At 10/26/2016 2:22:34 AM, ChaseE wrote:
At 10/26/2016 2:10:16 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 10/26/2016 1:44:04 AM, ChaseE wrote:
I was perusing the challenge debates and found one titled "Proving the Catholic Church to teach incorrect doctrine, making them a man-made church." Couldn't we technically say the same thing about all religions? Don't all religions have a human founder?

So, I thought about it, and I figured that all religions have something to do with the supernatural/transcendent, with some having bodies in this supernatural/transcendent area. Then, there comes a human translator who senses the divine and interprets it for all others. Every interpretation is different (which explains monotheism, pantheism, polytheism, atheism...) but this seems to be the foundation for religion.

These are the "founders" of the major religions:

Judaism: Abraham
Christianity: Jesus Christ
Islam: Muhammed
Hinduism: Author of the Vedas
Buddhism: the Buddha

Note that all of these people were those who experienced divine intervention (the first three 'spoke' to God/YHWH/Allah, Buddha experienced nirvana, which is a transcendent experience in which one becomes 'enlightened,' and Hinduism... I'm guessing the author of the Vedas had some divine inspiration for writing the Vedas. Not much is known about that, right?) All of these religions have some doctrines, either written down or passed on orally. If this is the case, then aren't all religions technically man-made? And then what makes a religion? Are Pastafarians part of a religious group, technically speaking?

I'm asking because I'm only 17, and I feel like this is the kind of territory scholars spend years researching and studying.

Response: Speaking for Islam, it was revealed by Allah. Therefore, it is not man-made, yet Allah passed down the revelation to man.

Right, but that's what I'm saying. Muhammed was divinely inspired by Gabriel, who spoke on Allah's behalf. It was Muhammed who gathered up the followers of this new religion because he acted as the interpreter. All major religions seem to possess this trait of someone who speaks with divine/transcendent authority. Is that necessary for official religions?

What do you mean by official?

Is the religion true or false? What makes a true religion and what makes a false religion? "Official" means true, in other words. These would be Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, etc. Unofficial would be things like Pastafarianism, where it doesn't meet up with certain criteria. My question is: what is that criteria?

In the us, there are no officially recognised religions. There are tax exemptions for religious organizations. The requirements are minimal. 1 ypu must have truly held beliefs in your religion 2 your practices must not break any laws. Thats it as far as i know and i dont know about other countries. Thus you can basically make up your own religion in the us. Thus pastafarianism could be considered a true religion and be tax exempt if there are true believers.

I'm not asking that. Religions are personal.

Belief is personal. Religion is most definitely not.

If there is a set of criteria that a religion fails to meet, then those believers are living lies. This isn't a political question. It's a personal one.

So are there false religons? Is there a set of criteria with which we can evaluate religion? And if not, should we have one?

Any worldview that is dependent on the unverifiable or untestable claims of a single person should be approached skeptically.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Skeptical1
Posts: 650
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2016 5:18:57 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/26/2016 4:34:35 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/26/2016 2:54:52 AM, ChaseE wrote:
At 10/26/2016 2:48:17 AM, janesix wrote:
At 10/26/2016 2:39:09 AM, ChaseE wrote:
At 10/26/2016 2:36:20 AM, janesix wrote:
At 10/26/2016 2:22:34 AM, ChaseE wrote:
At 10/26/2016 2:10:16 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 10/26/2016 1:44:04 AM, ChaseE wrote:
I was perusing the challenge debates and found one titled "Proving the Catholic Church to teach incorrect doctrine, making them a man-made church." Couldn't we technically say the same thing about all religions? Don't all religions have a human founder?

So, I thought about it, and I figured that all religions have something to do with the supernatural/transcendent, with some having bodies in this supernatural/transcendent area. Then, there comes a human translator who senses the divine and interprets it for all others. Every interpretation is different (which explains monotheism, pantheism, polytheism, atheism...) but this seems to be the foundation for religion.

These are the "founders" of the major religions:

Judaism: Abraham
Christianity: Jesus Christ
Islam: Muhammed
Hinduism: Author of the Vedas
Buddhism: the Buddha

Note that all of these people were those who experienced divine intervention (the first three 'spoke' to God/YHWH/Allah, Buddha experienced nirvana, which is a transcendent experience in which one becomes 'enlightened,' and Hinduism... I'm guessing the author of the Vedas had some divine inspiration for writing the Vedas. Not much is known about that, right?) All of these religions have some doctrines, either written down or passed on orally. If this is the case, then aren't all religions technically man-made? And then what makes a religion? Are Pastafarians part of a religious group, technically speaking?

I'm asking because I'm only 17, and I feel like this is the kind of territory scholars spend years researching and studying.

Response: Speaking for Islam, it was revealed by Allah. Therefore, it is not man-made, yet Allah passed down the revelation to man.

Right, but that's what I'm saying. Muhammed was divinely inspired by Gabriel, who spoke on Allah's behalf. It was Muhammed who gathered up the followers of this new religion because he acted as the interpreter. All major religions seem to possess this trait of someone who speaks with divine/transcendent authority. Is that necessary for official religions?

What do you mean by official?

Is the religion true or false? What makes a true religion and what makes a false religion? "Official" means true, in other words. These would be Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, etc. Unofficial would be things like Pastafarianism, where it doesn't meet up with certain criteria. My question is: what is that criteria?

In the us, there are no officially recognised religions. There are tax exemptions for religious organizations. The requirements are minimal. 1 ypu must have truly held beliefs in your religion 2 your practices must not break any laws. Thats it as far as i know and i dont know about other countries. Thus you can basically make up your own religion in the us. Thus pastafarianism could be considered a true religion and be tax exempt if there are true believers.

I'm not asking that. Religions are personal.

Belief is personal. Religion is most definitely not.

If there is a set of criteria that a religion fails to meet, then those believers are living lies. This isn't a political question. It's a personal one.

So are there false religons? Is there a set of criteria with which we can evaluate religion? And if not, should we have one?

Any worldview that is dependent on the unverifiable or untestable claims of a single person should be approached skeptically.

My two cents:

The term religion is generally associated with some sort of belief in the supernatural, which, to the best of my knowledge has never been verified. But if by "religion" you just mean a set of beliefs, then I think that is something you have to work out for yourself, and not accept what anyone else tells you.

Furthermore, I don't think it makes a lot of sense to believe something because it's what you want to believe. You look at the world around you, encounter some claim or assertion and ask yourself "does it make sense to believe this - is this what the evidence suggests?"

Bertrand Russell (a really smart guy) once said <paraphrasing, but I'm pretty sure it's very close>:

"If a thing is true, you should believe it. If it is false, you should disbelieve it. If you don't know whether it is true or false, then you should suspend judgement".

You could do a lot worse than read some of his writing, along with whatever religious works you choose.

I was around your age, maybe a year older, when I decided to stop believing what others told me I should believe, and have never looked back (that was a long time ago now).

Best of luck on your spiritual (or otherwise) journey.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2016 5:38:23 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/26/2016 5:18:57 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 10/26/2016 4:34:35 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/26/2016 2:54:52 AM, ChaseE wrote:
At 10/26/2016 2:48:17 AM, janesix wrote:
At 10/26/2016 2:39:09 AM, ChaseE wrote:
At 10/26/2016 2:36:20 AM, janesix wrote:
At 10/26/2016 2:22:34 AM, ChaseE wrote:
At 10/26/2016 2:10:16 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 10/26/2016 1:44:04 AM, ChaseE wrote:
I was perusing the challenge debates and found one titled "Proving the Catholic Church to teach incorrect doctrine, making them a man-made church." Couldn't we technically say the same thing about all religions? Don't all religions have a human founder?

So, I thought about it, and I figured that all religions have something to do with the supernatural/transcendent, with some having bodies in this supernatural/transcendent area. Then, there comes a human translator who senses the divine and interprets it for all others. Every interpretation is different (which explains monotheism, pantheism, polytheism, atheism...) but this seems to be the foundation for religion.

These are the "founders" of the major religions:

Judaism: Abraham
Christianity: Jesus Christ
Islam: Muhammed
Hinduism: Author of the Vedas
Buddhism: the Buddha

Note that all of these people were those who experienced divine intervention (the first three 'spoke' to God/YHWH/Allah, Buddha experienced nirvana, which is a transcendent experience in which one becomes 'enlightened,' and Hinduism... I'm guessing the author of the Vedas had some divine inspiration for writing the Vedas. Not much is known about that, right?) All of these religions have some doctrines, either written down or passed on orally. If this is the case, then aren't all religions technically man-made? And then what makes a religion? Are Pastafarians part of a religious group, technically speaking?

I'm asking because I'm only 17, and I feel like this is the kind of territory scholars spend years researching and studying.

Response: Speaking for Islam, it was revealed by Allah. Therefore, it is not man-made, yet Allah passed down the revelation to man.

Right, but that's what I'm saying. Muhammed was divinely inspired by Gabriel, who spoke on Allah's behalf. It was Muhammed who gathered up the followers of this new religion because he acted as the interpreter. All major religions seem to possess this trait of someone who speaks with divine/transcendent authority. Is that necessary for official religions?

What do you mean by official?

Is the religion true or false? What makes a true religion and what makes a false religion? "Official" means true, in other words. These would be Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, etc. Unofficial would be things like Pastafarianism, where it doesn't meet up with certain criteria. My question is: what is that criteria?

In the us, there are no officially recognised religions. There are tax exemptions for religious organizations. The requirements are minimal. 1 ypu must have truly held beliefs in your religion 2 your practices must not break any laws. Thats it as far as i know and i dont know about other countries. Thus you can basically make up your own religion in the us. Thus pastafarianism could be considered a true religion and be tax exempt if there are true believers.

I'm not asking that. Religions are personal.

Belief is personal. Religion is most definitely not.

If there is a set of criteria that a religion fails to meet, then those believers are living lies. This isn't a political question. It's a personal one.

So are there false religons? Is there a set of criteria with which we can evaluate religion? And if not, should we have one?

Any worldview that is dependent on the unverifiable or untestable claims of a single person should be approached skeptically.

My two cents:

The term religion is generally associated with some sort of belief in the supernatural, which, to the best of my knowledge has never been verified. But if by "religion" you just mean a set of beliefs, then I think that is something you have to work out for yourself, and not accept what anyone else tells you.

Furthermore, I don't think it makes a lot of sense to believe something because it's what you want to believe. You look at the world around you, encounter some claim or assertion and ask yourself "does it make sense to believe this - is this what the evidence suggests?"

Bertrand Russell (a really smart guy) once said <paraphrasing, but I'm pretty sure it's very close>:

"If a thing is true, you should believe it. If it is false, you should disbelieve it. If you don't know whether it is true or false, then you should suspend judgement".

You could do a lot worse than read some of his writing, along with whatever religious works you choose.

I was around your age, maybe a year older, when I decided to stop believing what others told me I should believe, and have never looked back (that was a long time ago now).

Best of luck on your spiritual (or otherwise) journey.

I assume you replied to the wrong person.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Skeptical1
Posts: 650
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2016 5:43:53 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/26/2016 5:38:23 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/26/2016 5:18:57 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 10/26/2016 4:34:35 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/26/2016 2:54:52 AM, ChaseE wrote:
At 10/26/2016 2:48:17 AM, janesix wrote:
At 10/26/2016 2:39:09 AM, ChaseE wrote:
At 10/26/2016 2:36:20 AM, janesix wrote:
At 10/26/2016 2:22:34 AM, ChaseE wrote:
At 10/26/2016 2:10:16 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 10/26/2016 1:44:04 AM, ChaseE wrote:
I was perusing the challenge debates and found one titled "Proving the Catholic Church to teach incorrect doctrine, making them a man-made church." Couldn't we technically say the same thing about all religions? Don't all religions have a human founder?

So, I thought about it, and I figured that all religions have something to do with the supernatural/transcendent, with some having bodies in this supernatural/transcendent area. Then, there comes a human translator who senses the divine and interprets it for all others. Every interpretation is different (which explains monotheism, pantheism, polytheism, atheism...) but this seems to be the foundation for religion.

These are the "founders" of the major religions:

Judaism: Abraham
Christianity: Jesus Christ
Islam: Muhammed
Hinduism: Author of the Vedas
Buddhism: the Buddha

Note that all of these people were those who experienced divine intervention (the first three 'spoke' to God/YHWH/Allah, Buddha experienced nirvana, which is a transcendent experience in which one becomes 'enlightened,' and Hinduism... I'm guessing the author of the Vedas had some divine inspiration for writing the Vedas. Not much is known about that, right?) All of these religions have some doctrines, either written down or passed on orally. If this is the case, then aren't all religions technically man-made? And then what makes a religion? Are Pastafarians part of a religious group, technically speaking?

I'm asking because I'm only 17, and I feel like this is the kind of territory scholars spend years researching and studying.

Response: Speaking for Islam, it was revealed by Allah. Therefore, it is not man-made, yet Allah passed down the revelation to man.

Right, but that's what I'm saying. Muhammed was divinely inspired by Gabriel, who spoke on Allah's behalf. It was Muhammed who gathered up the followers of this new religion because he acted as the interpreter. All major religions seem to possess this trait of someone who speaks with divine/transcendent authority. Is that necessary for official religions?

What do you mean by official?

Is the religion true or false? What makes a true religion and what makes a false religion? "Official" means true, in other words. These would be Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, etc. Unofficial would be things like Pastafarianism, where it doesn't meet up with certain criteria. My question is: what is that criteria?

In the us, there are no officially recognised religions. There are tax exemptions for religious organizations. The requirements are minimal. 1 ypu must have truly held beliefs in your religion 2 your practices must not break any laws. Thats it as far as i know and i dont know about other countries. Thus you can basically make up your own religion in the us. Thus pastafarianism could be considered a true religion and be tax exempt if there are true believers.

I'm not asking that. Religions are personal.

Belief is personal. Religion is most definitely not.

If there is a set of criteria that a religion fails to meet, then those believers are living lies. This isn't a political question. It's a personal one.

So are there false religons? Is there a set of criteria with which we can evaluate religion? And if not, should we have one?

Any worldview that is dependent on the unverifiable or untestable claims of a single person should be approached skeptically.

My two cents:

The term religion is generally associated with some sort of belief in the supernatural, which, to the best of my knowledge has never been verified. But if by "religion" you just mean a set of beliefs, then I think that is something you have to work out for yourself, and not accept what anyone else tells you.

Furthermore, I don't think it makes a lot of sense to believe something because it's what you want to believe. You look at the world around you, encounter some claim or assertion and ask yourself "does it make sense to believe this - is this what the evidence suggests?"

Bertrand Russell (a really smart guy) once said <paraphrasing, but I'm pretty sure it's very close>:

"If a thing is true, you should believe it. If it is false, you should disbelieve it. If you don't know whether it is true or false, then you should suspend judgement".

You could do a lot worse than read some of his writing, along with whatever religious works you choose.

I was around your age, maybe a year older, when I decided to stop believing what others told me I should believe, and have never looked back (that was a long time ago now).

Best of luck on your spiritual (or otherwise) journey.

I assume you replied to the wrong person.

Oops, I'm bad. Yes, I'm sorry. Clicked on the wrong button obviously. I meant to reply to the OP.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2016 5:45:26 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/26/2016 5:43:53 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 10/26/2016 5:38:23 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/26/2016 5:18:57 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 10/26/2016 4:34:35 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/26/2016 2:54:52 AM, ChaseE wrote:
At 10/26/2016 2:48:17 AM, janesix wrote:
At 10/26/2016 2:39:09 AM, ChaseE wrote:
At 10/26/2016 2:36:20 AM, janesix wrote:
At 10/26/2016 2:22:34 AM, ChaseE wrote:
At 10/26/2016 2:10:16 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 10/26/2016 1:44:04 AM, ChaseE wrote:
I was perusing the challenge debates and found one titled "Proving the Catholic Church to teach incorrect doctrine, making them a man-made church." Couldn't we technically say the same thing about all religions? Don't all religions have a human founder?

So, I thought about it, and I figured that all religions have something to do with the supernatural/transcendent, with some having bodies in this supernatural/transcendent area. Then, there comes a human translator who senses the divine and interprets it for all others. Every interpretation is different (which explains monotheism, pantheism, polytheism, atheism...) but this seems to be the foundation for religion.

These are the "founders" of the major religions:

Judaism: Abraham
Christianity: Jesus Christ
Islam: Muhammed
Hinduism: Author of the Vedas
Buddhism: the Buddha

Note that all of these people were those who experienced divine intervention (the first three 'spoke' to God/YHWH/Allah, Buddha experienced nirvana, which is a transcendent experience in which one becomes 'enlightened,' and Hinduism... I'm guessing the author of the Vedas had some divine inspiration for writing the Vedas. Not much is known about that, right?) All of these religions have some doctrines, either written down or passed on orally. If this is the case, then aren't all religions technically man-made? And then what makes a religion? Are Pastafarians part of a religious group, technically speaking?

I'm asking because I'm only 17, and I feel like this is the kind of territory scholars spend years researching and studying.

Response: Speaking for Islam, it was revealed by Allah. Therefore, it is not man-made, yet Allah passed down the revelation to man.

Right, but that's what I'm saying. Muhammed was divinely inspired by Gabriel, who spoke on Allah's behalf. It was Muhammed who gathered up the followers of this new religion because he acted as the interpreter. All major religions seem to possess this trait of someone who speaks with divine/transcendent authority. Is that necessary for official religions?

What do you mean by official?

Is the religion true or false? What makes a true religion and what makes a false religion? "Official" means true, in other words. These would be Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, etc. Unofficial would be things like Pastafarianism, where it doesn't meet up with certain criteria. My question is: what is that criteria?

In the us, there are no officially recognised religions. There are tax exemptions for religious organizations. The requirements are minimal. 1 ypu must have truly held beliefs in your religion 2 your practices must not break any laws. Thats it as far as i know and i dont know about other countries. Thus you can basically make up your own religion in the us. Thus pastafarianism could be considered a true religion and be tax exempt if there are true believers.

I'm not asking that. Religions are personal.

Belief is personal. Religion is most definitely not.

If there is a set of criteria that a religion fails to meet, then those believers are living lies. This isn't a political question. It's a personal one.

So are there false religons? Is there a set of criteria with which we can evaluate religion? And if not, should we have one?

Any worldview that is dependent on the unverifiable or untestable claims of a single person should be approached skeptically.

My two cents:

The term religion is generally associated with some sort of belief in the supernatural, which, to the best of my knowledge has never been verified. But if by "religion" you just mean a set of beliefs, then I think that is something you have to work out for yourself, and not accept what anyone else tells you.

Furthermore, I don't think it makes a lot of sense to believe something because it's what you want to believe. You look at the world around you, encounter some claim or assertion and ask yourself "does it make sense to believe this - is this what the evidence suggests?"

Bertrand Russell (a really smart guy) once said <paraphrasing, but I'm pretty sure it's very close>:

"If a thing is true, you should believe it. If it is false, you should disbelieve it. If you don't know whether it is true or false, then you should suspend judgement".

You could do a lot worse than read some of his writing, along with whatever religious works you choose.

I was around your age, maybe a year older, when I decided to stop believing what others told me I should believe, and have never looked back (that was a long time ago now).

Best of luck on your spiritual (or otherwise) journey.

I assume you replied to the wrong person.

Oops, I'm bad. Yes, I'm sorry. Clicked on the wrong button obviously. I meant to reply to the OP.

No worries! I just didn't want your thoughtful post to be wasted on me. ;-)
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Skeptical1
Posts: 650
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2016 5:48:18 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/26/2016 5:45:26 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/26/2016 5:43:53 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 10/26/2016 5:38:23 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/26/2016 5:18:57 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 10/26/2016 4:34:35 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/26/2016 2:54:52 AM, ChaseE wrote:
At 10/26/2016 2:48:17 AM, janesix wrote:
At 10/26/2016 2:39:09 AM, ChaseE wrote:
At 10/26/2016 2:36:20 AM, janesix wrote:
At 10/26/2016 2:22:34 AM, ChaseE wrote:
At 10/26/2016 2:10:16 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 10/26/2016 1:44:04 AM, ChaseE wrote:
I was perusing the challenge debates and found one titled "Proving the Catholic Church to teach incorrect doctrine, making them a man-made church." Couldn't we technically say the same thing about all religions? Don't all religions have a human founder?

So, I thought about it, and I figured that all religions have something to do with the supernatural/transcendent, with some having bodies in this supernatural/transcendent area. Then, there comes a human translator who senses the divine and interprets it for all others. Every interpretation is different (which explains monotheism, pantheism, polytheism, atheism...) but this seems to be the foundation for religion.

These are the "founders" of the major religions:

Judaism: Abraham
Christianity: Jesus Christ
Islam: Muhammed
Hinduism: Author of the Vedas
Buddhism: the Buddha

Note that all of these people were those who experienced divine intervention (the first three 'spoke' to God/YHWH/Allah, Buddha experienced nirvana, which is a transcendent experience in which one becomes 'enlightened,' and Hinduism... I'm guessing the author of the Vedas had some divine inspiration for writing the Vedas. Not much is known about that, right?) All of these religions have some doctrines, either written down or passed on orally. If this is the case, then aren't all religions technically man-made? And then what makes a religion? Are Pastafarians part of a religious group, technically speaking?

I'm asking because I'm only 17, and I feel like this is the kind of territory scholars spend years researching and studying.

Response: Speaking for Islam, it was revealed by Allah. Therefore, it is not man-made, yet Allah passed down the revelation to man.

Right, but that's what I'm saying. Muhammed was divinely inspired by Gabriel, who spoke on Allah's behalf. It was Muhammed who gathered up the followers of this new religion because he acted as the interpreter. All major religions seem to possess this trait of someone who speaks with divine/transcendent authority. Is that necessary for official religions?

What do you mean by official?

Is the religion true or false? What makes a true religion and what makes a false religion? "Official" means true, in other words. These would be Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, etc. Unofficial would be things like Pastafarianism, where it doesn't meet up with certain criteria. My question is: what is that criteria?

In the us, there are no officially recognised religions. There are tax exemptions for religious organizations. The requirements are minimal. 1 ypu must have truly held beliefs in your religion 2 your practices must not break any laws. Thats it as far as i know and i dont know about other countries. Thus you can basically make up your own religion in the us. Thus pastafarianism could be considered a true religion and be tax exempt if there are true believers.

I'm not asking that. Religions are personal.

Belief is personal. Religion is most definitely not.

If there is a set of criteria that a religion fails to meet, then those believers are living lies. This isn't a political question. It's a personal one.

So are there false religons? Is there a set of criteria with which we can evaluate religion? And if not, should we have one?

Any worldview that is dependent on the unverifiable or untestable claims of a single person should be approached skeptically.

My two cents:

The term religion is generally associated with some sort of belief in the supernatural, which, to the best of my knowledge has never been verified. But if by "religion" you just mean a set of beliefs, then I think that is something you have to work out for yourself, and not accept what anyone else tells you.

Furthermore, I don't think it makes a lot of sense to believe something because it's what you want to believe. You look at the world around you, encounter some claim or assertion and ask yourself "does it make sense to believe this - is this what the evidence suggests?"

Bertrand Russell (a really smart guy) once said <paraphrasing, but I'm pretty sure it's very close>:

"If a thing is true, you should believe it. If it is false, you should disbelieve it. If you don't know whether it is true or false, then you should suspend judgement".

You could do a lot worse than read some of his writing, along with whatever religious works you choose.

I was around your age, maybe a year older, when I decided to stop believing what others told me I should believe, and have never looked back (that was a long time ago now).

Best of luck on your spiritual (or otherwise) journey.

I assume you replied to the wrong person.

Oops, I'm bad. Yes, I'm sorry. Clicked on the wrong button obviously. I meant to reply to the OP.

No worries! I just didn't want your thoughtful post to be wasted on me. ;-)

Haha "cast not your pearls before the (fellow) swine?" Damn, I wish there was a retract button!