I challenge any religious person to give me one rational reason for believing...

....in whatever god you worship instead of the thousands of other gods?

Yes only one reason and I will convert. Unfortunately making absolute statements is not allowed in this forum as it comes under "forcing your beliefs onto others and offending others". But I am struggling to find how is it even a debate anymore whether being religious is rational or not? Due to the whole world being literally connected now, we know the extraordinary no. of different belief systems that have been there with mankind. In the old times this was not possible as you only knew about the more popular ones and not the ridiculous amonts that we know off now.

You can make all the philisophical arguments and intelligent design in favour of a creator or personal god all you want but how do you even make an educated guess as to which god is the real one? You could feel the presence of god as intensely as it gets but you really dont have much of a choice apart from being agnostic...

People believe what they believe simply because of how and where they were brought up.

Because mine is better than everyone else's?

Well, imo, most believers are believers of x deity due to convention; their place of birth being the most important parametre.

"Once you understand why you dismiss all other possible Gods, you'll understand why I dismiss yours."

"Once you understand why you dismiss all other possible Gods, you'll understand why I dismiss yours."

urdead18

Another religion thread.....

Because thats what they choose to believe?

Because Xenu is an incredibly badass name, that's why :|

It takes faith to believe in a god, and the one I believe in gives you a gift of faith to believe.

I won't go into any specifics, as a forum post can't provide any faith.

In fact, I would go as far to say that threads on religion or the lack of same are an exercise in futility, as all will continue on with what they believe or don't believe.:)

In other words, what's the point?:P

Who said there is more than one God and not merely more than one understanding of that one God?LJS9502_basic

But that's not even relavent, I need to know how can someone come to a conclusion as to which understanding of god is the "right one" cuz many of these understandings are contradictory and hence mutually exclusive...

Who said there is more than one God and not merely more than one understanding of that one God?LJS9502_basic

Each and everyone one of our faculties are subjective to some type of debilitating doubt. For the eyes, the ears, the hands, the nose, and the tongue the possibility of something which is deceiving the senses is always present. It need not be something of a supernatural nature either. There are plenty of medical phenomena like Synesthesia which creates the fact that our senses can be fooled and are often fooled. These sensory perceptions are but one of the many faculties we humans have. We can reason, we can sense, and we have the disposition of belief. However, how can we truly distinguish between these three types of faculties? Senses can easily be fooled. Why are we so fool hardy in our clinging to our reason? I see no reason why reason cannot itself be fooled by some factor of which I currently know not what. Given that I am unable to rule out the possibility that my reason could be fooled, I see no reason why to trust reason more than the senses. Nor do I see any reason to trust reason more than faith. Given that all faculties are subject to debilitating doubt, why should we listen to reason any more than faith or sensory perceptions? Let the scientists have their faith in reason. Let the religious people have their faith in faith. Let the empiricists have their faith in senses. You want a valid reason for belief? Maybe you should equally ask yourself for a valid reason to believe reason good sir. Vandalvideo

I dont believe in anything and have abandoned the idea of knowing why I exist. I am not an atheist because I know that god doesnt exist, I am an atheist because I dont know if god exists....

Well this topic won't go anywhere unheated with the comments that could be made, for example I'm muslim, and I will state how the Holy Quran states facts not known by men for hundreds of years later (stages of birth, embryo whatnot, the geographical important of moutains, and many other facts, can't think of right now) but it's all wabout what you want to believe I guessguitarshr3dd3r

Well this topic won't go anywhere unheated with the comments that could be made, for example I'm muslim, and I will state how the Holy Quran states facts not known by men for hundreds of years later (stages of birth, embryo whatnot, the geographical important of moutains, and many other facts, can't think of right now) but it's all wabout what you want to believe I guessguitarshr3dd3r

Also, if you pray towards Mecca then your back is also facing Mecca because the Earth is round.

And the geographical significance of mountains? It says that they're there to prevent earthquakes when in fact they are the result of earthquakes.

Waste of time. It would be nice if you outlined the parameters of what you'd accept as "rational;" without that, there's no point in going on because you're under no obligation to ever accept anything. As it is, the "there are a bunch of religions therefore none of them are right" argument is slightly ridiculous. Religions touch anyway.Theokhoth

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]Waste of time. It would be nice if you outlined the parameters of what you'd accept as "rational;" without that, there's no point in going on because you're under no obligation to ever accept anything. As it is, the "there are a bunch of religions therefore none of them are right" argument is slightly ridiculous. Religions touch anyway.Gambler_3

No, because you still haven't defined "rational."

Everyone believes they're God's Gift to the Masses when it comes to rationality, and most of them are wrong. You should consider yourself a possible case of this and outline what it is that you will or will not accept as a rational argument. Otherwise, you'll have the window to reject any attempt made because "It's not rational enough."

The word "rational" is an emotional cop-out and is meaningless.

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]Waste of time. It would be nice if you outlined the parameters of what you'd accept as "rational;" without that, there's no point in going on because you're under no obligation to ever accept anything. As it is, the "there are a bunch of religions therefore none of them are right" argument is slightly ridiculous. Religions touch anyway.Theokhoth

No, because you still haven't defined "rational."

Everyone believes they're God's Gift to the Masses when it comes to rationality, and most of them are wrong. You should consider yourself a possible case of this and outline what it is that you will or will not accept as a rational argument. Otherwise, you'll have the window to reject any attempt made because "It's not rational enough."

The word "rational" is an emotional cop-out and is meaningless.

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]Waste of time. It would be nice if you outlined the parameters of what you'd accept as "rational;" without that, there's no point in going on because you're under no obligation to ever accept anything. As it is, the "there are a bunch of religions therefore none of them are right" argument is slightly ridiculous. Religions touch anyway.Theokhoth

No, because you still haven't defined "rational."

Everyone believes they're God's Gift to the Masses when it comes to rationality, and most of them are wrong. You should consider yourself a possible case of this and outline what it is that you will or will not accept as a rational argument. Otherwise, you'll have the window to reject any attempt made because "It's not rational enough."

The word "rational" is an emotional cop-out and is meaningless.

Btw why do you seem so irritated? The word rational is an emotional cop-out hahahahaha gud one!:lol:

Show me a reason which makes it more probable that one religion is the right one over others. I am not even asking for any proof just a more probable situation.

Necause its what my parents taught me and it goes along with my values. However, I am one to believe that God just appears himself to different people in different ways.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]Hmm well show me how being a christian is more rational than any of the other abrahimic religions...is that good enough?

urdead18

No, because you still haven't defined "rational."

Everyone believes they're God's Gift to the Masses when it comes to rationality, and most of them are wrong. You should consider yourself a possible case of this and outline what it is that you will or will not accept as a rational argument. Otherwise, you'll have the window to reject any attempt made because "It's not rational enough."

The word "rational" is an emotional cop-out and is meaningless.

Well, I'd say there have been a few genuine gifts from God to the masses in the form of highly intelligent people: The Founding Fathers, Plato, etc.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]Hmm well show me how being a christian is more rational than any of the other abrahimic religions...is that good enough?

Gambler_3

No, because you still haven't defined "rational."

Everyone believes they're God's Gift to the Masses when it comes to rationality, and most of them are wrong. You should consider yourself a possible case of this and outline what it is that you will or will not accept as a rational argument. Otherwise, you'll have the window to reject any attempt made because "It's not rational enough."

The word "rational" is an emotional cop-out and is meaningless.

Btw why do you seem so irritated? The word rational is an emotional cop-out hahahahaha gud one!:lol:

Show me a reason which makes it more probable that one religion is the right one over others. I am not even asking for any proof just a more probable situation.

You've now ignored a simple request to do what any basic philosophy student knows how to do two times. If you don't lay out what you will and will not accept, in specific terms, then your argument is useless and I can see right through you.

The word "rational" is meaningless. You can accept anything as rational in your own sphere and reject anything as irrational until you define your terms, which you clearly have no intention of doing. :roll:

Jesus is alive.

Indeed it's impossible for me to prove it in the sense that every single person will be unable to deny its truth (as very few things in this world fit that description), but I find the evidence to be overwhelming. Want some evidence? Read a book like N. T. Wright's The Resurrection of the Son of God. His material about the resurrection is excellent (but his views regarding justification are horrible).

Given that I have already shown in that other thread that you accept on faith at least one statement, despite the fact that no objective, empirical evidence can be provided in favor of its truth, I'm really not quite sure why you're still pointing the finger at others for doing the same.

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

No, because you still haven't defined "rational."

Everyone believes they're God's Gift to the Masses when it comes to rationality, and most of them are wrong. You should consider yourself a possible case of this and outline what it is that you will or will not accept as a rational argument. Otherwise, you'll have the window to reject any attempt made because "It's not rational enough."

The word "rational" is an emotional cop-out and is meaningless.

Theokhoth

Btw why do you seem so irritated? The word rational is an emotional cop-out hahahahaha gud one!:lol:

Show me a reason which makes it more probable that one religion is the right one over others. I am not even asking for any proof just a more probable situation.

You've now ignored a simple request to do what any basic philosophy student knows how to do two times. If you don't lay out what you will and will not accept, in specific terms, then your argument is useless and I can see right through you.

The word "rational" is meaningless. You can accept anything as rational in your own sphere and reject anything as irrational until you define your terms, which you clearly have no intention of doing. :roll:

Well, you have to divide polytheistic religions from monotheistic ones. There are very few monotheistic religions today, so taking out the polytheistic aspect wipes out a bunch of gods. The problem with polytheistic gods is that they were very weak in terms of being a god -- they only had one thing to reign over, if you look at Greek mythology this is apparent. Plato was one of the first people who dared to say there was only one God even in his polytheistic social structure. Plato believed that everything had an essence -- everything existed before man even discovered it (which is true, just because we didn't know Carbon existed doesn't mean it didn't exist, we just gave it a name). Therefore, the fact that everything has an existence makes existence itself have an existence. What is the existence of existence? Plato named this entity, the container of every essence that ever existed, an infinite number of existences (since it is possible that anything exists even if it does not presently) God. To further validate his theory, he claimed that it is impossible for existence to not exist. IF "nothing" exists, something, as in "nothing", still exists. This God that Plato refers to could easily be any God we know today. It is very true that all Abrahmic religions worship the same God, but how do we know that other monotheistic religions don't worship this same God, but with a different name? Rheiken

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Who said there is more than one God and not merely more than one understanding of that one God?Gambler_3

But that's not even relavent, I need to know how can someone come to a conclusion as to which understanding of god is the "right one" cuz many of these understandings are contradictory and hence mutually exclusive...

[QUOTE="Rheiken"]Well, you have to divide polytheistic religions from monotheistic ones. There are very few monotheistic religions today, so taking out the polytheistic aspect wipes out a bunch of gods. The problem with polytheistic gods is that they were very weak in terms of being a god -- they only had one thing to reign over, if you look at Greek mythology this is apparent. Plato was one of the first people who dared to say there was only one God even in his polytheistic social structure. Plato believed that everything had an essence -- everything existed before man even discovered it (which is true, just because we didn't know Carbon existed doesn't mean it didn't exist, we just gave it a name). Therefore, the fact that everything has an existence makes existence itself have an existence. What is the existence of existence? Plato named this entity, the container of every essence that ever existed, an infinite number of existences (since it is possible that anything exists even if it does not presently) God. To further validate his theory, he claimed that it is impossible for existence to not exist. IF "nothing" exists, something, as in "nothing", still exists. This God that Plato refers to could easily be any God we know today. It is very true that all Abrahmic religions worship the same God, but how do we know that other monotheistic religions don't worship this same God, but with a different name? chopperdave447

Accusing Plato of being illogical is just funny.

Because that's what they'd like to believe in. Why do you order whatever you order when you go to a restaurant? because that's what you'd like to eat. Same deal.XilePrincess

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]Yes ofcourse most people believe they're god's gift and therefore believe in the religion of their birth believing that god gave them the right religion lmao. The only few people who dare to change their religion off birth or abandon it altogether are the only rational people it would seem given the minute probabilities of being born in the most logical religion.

Btw why do you seem so irritated? The word rational is an emotional cop-out hahahahaha gud one!:lol:

Show me a reason which makes it more probable that one religion is the right one over others. I am not even asking for any proof just a more probable situation.

Gambler_3

You've now ignored a simple request to do what any basic philosophy student knows how to do two times. If you don't lay out what you will and will not accept, in specific terms, then your argument is useless and I can see right through you.

The word "rational" is meaningless. You can accept anything as rational in your own sphere and reject anything as irrational until you define your terms, which you clearly have no intention of doing. :roll:

I'm not the one making excuses. Why don't you just do it? do you not want results from the discussion? I doubt it, personally, but if I'm wrong then why don't you just go ahead and do it?

Given that I have already shown in that other thread that you accept on faith at least one statement, despite the fact that no objective, empirical evidence can be provided in favor of its truth, I'm really not quite sure why you're still pointing the finger at others for doing the same.

GabuEx

And I have agreed that it is us mere human limitations which force us to believe in love, I certainly cannot imagine a life where I'll be asking people "proof" of their love for me. If a religious person can admit that they only believe in god cuz they cant imagine a life without it then we have an entirely different matter on our hands and a matter which I respect alot more than those who seem to have a rational justification of it.

[QUOTE="chopperdave447"][QUOTE="Rheiken"]Well, you have to divide polytheistic religions from monotheistic ones. There are very few monotheistic religions today, so taking out the polytheistic aspect wipes out a bunch of gods. The problem with polytheistic gods is that they were very weak in terms of being a god -- they only had one thing to reign over, if you look at Greek mythology this is apparent. Plato was one of the first people who dared to say there was only one God even in his polytheistic social structure. Plato believed that everything had an essence -- everything existed before man even discovered it (which is true, just because we didn't know Carbon existed doesn't mean it didn't exist, we just gave it a name). Therefore, the fact that everything has an existence makes existence itself have an existence. What is the existence of existence? Plato named this entity, the container of every essence that ever existed, an infinite number of existences (since it is possible that anything exists even if it does not presently) God. To further validate his theory, he claimed that it is impossible for existence to not exist. IF "nothing" exists, something, as in "nothing", still exists. This God that Plato refers to could easily be any God we know today. It is very true that all Abrahmic religions worship the same God, but how do we know that other monotheistic religions don't worship this same God, but with a different name? Theokhoth

Accusing Plato of being illogical is just funny.

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

You've now ignored a simple request to do what any basic philosophy student knows how to do two times. If you don't lay out what you will and will not accept, in specific terms, then your argument is useless and I can see right through you.

The word "rational" is meaningless. You can accept anything as rational in your own sphere and reject anything as irrational until you define your terms, which you clearly have no intention of doing. :roll:

Theokhoth

I'm not the one making excuses. Why don't you just do it? do you not want results from the discussion? I doubt it, personally, but if I'm wrong then why don't you just go ahead and do it?

How do you know that the God of nonexistence is the right God? Acemaster27

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="chopperdave447"] i'm sorry. that is just babble without any reason or logic or empirical evidence to back it up. Gambler_3

Accusing Plato of being illogical is just funny.

One who can reason doesnt mean is always correct; what is logical isnt always factually correct.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Given that I have already shown in that other thread that you accept on faith at least one statement, despite the fact that no objective, empirical evidence can be provided in favor of its truth, I'm really not quite sure why you're still pointing the finger at others for doing the same.

Gambler_3

And I have agreed that it is us mere human limitations which force us to believe in love, I certainly cannot imagine a life where I'll be asking people "proof" of their love for me. If a religious person can admit that they only believe in god cuz they cant imagine a life without it then we have an entirely different matter on our hands and a matter which I respect alot more than those who seem to have a rational justification of it.

If you are not asking for empirical evidence, then what quantifies a reason for believing as "rational" as opposed to "irrational"?

This is precisely what Theokhoth is trying to find out, too.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="chopperdave447"] i'm sorry. that is just babble without any reason or logic or empirical evidence to back it up. Gambler_3

Accusing Plato of being illogical is just funny.

Talking about Plato being illogical is like talking about Darwin being a "buy-your-degree" scientist.