Is religion guilty of moving the goalposts?

[thedoc]

I now understand. You wrote, "religions have different understandings and conceptions of God". True, but you stated, "every other religion is just as valid as the one they follow." so my comment was directed at the idea that all religions are "valid" when they often contradict each other violating the law of contradiction.

Yes, I probably should have added a few more qualifiers, Just as valid, just as corrupted, just as misunderstood, as the others. But if you dig deep enough, strip away enough of the crap, you'll find the same or a very similar message.

[thedoc]

I should add that I don't really consider Buddhism a religion even though the core message is very similar to Christianity and other religions. Buddhism falls short of being a religion because there is no clearly defined concept of a god, just some vague references to something beyond ourselves and life. This 'No Mind', 'One Mind", or 'Universal Mind' or whatever you choose to call it, can be interpreted as a reference to God, but it is not clearly stated as such.

[aiddon]

I should add that I don't really consider Buddhism a religion even though the core message is very similar to Christianity and other religions. Buddhism falls short of being a religion because there is no clearly defined concept of a god, just some vague references to something beyond ourselves and life. This 'No Mind', 'One Mind", or 'Universal Mind' or whatever you choose to call it, can be interpreted as a reference to God, but it is not clearly stated as such.

Which is why Buddhism is a very appealing tradition...it realised the limitations of religion in that we could never possibly understand our place in the universe - something other religions profess to know. Buddhism instead focuses on the things we can know, eg. Ourselves, and attempts to devlop and discover our human condition. It is ritualised exististentialism, and thus attractive for many agnostics and liberal atheists.

[uwot]

Looking at fossils and listening to stories are fundamentally different.

Not when the stories come with objective evidence of the type I've listed above.

I don't think you have quite grasped the difference between testimony and evidence. If I were to challenge someone trying to persuade me that evolution is a plausible theory, they can gather together as many fossils as they think it will take and try and persuade me that the process they call evolution explains the differences between the fossils. I may or may not accept the theory as a satisfactory explanation of the evidence, some people don't, but it would be silly to deny the fossils exist. By contrast, if I had never seen a fossil and all I had were books or stories on the internet, that before people existed, the world was populated by giant lizard like things, it is quite possible that I wouldn't believe it.
In effect, that's all you're offering, some stories that you happen to believe; they are consistent with your view of the world, but there is no evidence to support them. If I were to challenge a doctor who is trying to persuade me that a patient was cured by a miracle, what can they show me? They can show me any number of patients they claim were healed by divine intervention, but what distinguishes someone so cured from someone who just happened to get better?
A doctor saying a patient was cured by a miracle is just a doctor saying so. A scientist saying there used to be dinosaurs is just a scientist saying so, but there are fossils they can point to which suggest they may be right; there is evidence.

[uwot]

I now understand. You wrote, "religions have different understandings and conceptions of God".

As Xenophanes noted:
"But mortals suppose gods are born,
Wear their own clothes and have a voice and body.
The Ethiopians say that their gods are flat-nosed and black,
While Thracians say that theirs have blue eyes and red hair.
Yet if cattle or horses or lions had hands and could draw,
And could sculpt like men, then the horses would draw their gods
Like horses, and cattle like cattle; and each would shape
Bodies of gods in the likeness, each of their own kind."
That's more or less what people still do. I would only add that intelligent people, able to process abstract concepts, are apt to conceive of abstract gods.

True, but you stated, "every other religion is just as valid as the one they follow." so my comment was directed at the idea that all religions are "valid" when they often contradict each other violating the law of contradiction.

Only assuming any one of them is actually valid. My guess is that if you were to ask a follower of any particular religion, they would say it was theirs.

[aiddon]

Why do I have to know the meaning of it? It simply is what it is and I'm comfortable with that.

God is. We don't invent him or his attributes nor are we privy to all He has planned.

Now if I said something like the above in relation to science, there would be a very swift chorus of religionists that populate this forum, grinning and very pleased with themselves.

It appears that the religionist always has that trump card - hmmppffhh! I can't explain it - it just is. Must be a lovely thing to be able to call upon when backed into corner....

[aiddon]

P.S. -- Don't knock the wet weather in the Isles, old man...not until you've seen the weather I've seen.

Yeah, but does it rain every day? Like, every day?

[Immanuel Can]

I should add that I don't really consider Buddhism a religion even though the core message is very similar to Christianity and other religions.

Now, this is really, really funny.

So you know absolutely nothing about any of them? But you have an opinion about their "core message?"

You will astonish the whole population of South East Asia with your wisdom concerning the non-religiosity of Buddhism. I'm sure they'll appreciate being enlightened to the fact that they've been burning incense lo these many years to something that was not a religion.

And as for me, I'm so delighted to learn the "core message" of my own belief system from you. Apparently, I'm a functional Buddhist/Muslim/Zoroastrian/Rastafarian/Sufi/Gnostic/Wiccan/Neo-Pagan!

Tell us, o great sage, how is it you came by this universal key to knowledge of the TRUE "core message" of each of the religions you have studied so assiduously?

My sides hurt.

[Immanuel Can]

Aiddon wrote:

Yeah, but does it rain every day? Like, every day?

Well, okay, I'll grant you that...but does your "rain" ever pile up in a two-meter stack and stay for three months?

At least your blessed Isles are green.

[Harry Baird]

Hello there, uwot. I'm feeling mellow right now, and so I don't feel like "pursuing you" any further in this exchange. I really don't think there's much point in continuing, do you? It's clear to me that you have simply decided that you don't want to believe, no matter what evidence presents itself - you simply choose to characterise it as "[just] some stories that you [Harry] happen[s] to believe". If it's not clear to you by this point that this is a grossly inadequate characterisation, well then... really, I doubt that there's anything I can say to change your mind. You are welcome to your abject denial, and all I will do is make it clear that I understand that this is exactly what it is. Onlookers can do their own research and make up their own minds; I have no hope of convincing *you*, and will leave it here between you and I on this subject. You are welcome to the last word if you would like it...

(No hard feelings, by the way)

[Kurt]

I should add that I don't really consider Buddhism a religion even though the core message is very similar to Christianity and other religions.

Now, this is really, really funny.

So you know absolutely nothing about any of them? But you have an opinion about their "core message?"

You will astonish the whole population of South East Asia with your wisdom concerning the non-religiosity of Buddhism. I'm sure they'll appreciate being enlightened to the fact that they've been burning incense lo these many years to something that was not a religion.

And as for me, I'm so delighted to learn the "core message" of my own belief system from you. Apparently, I'm a functional Buddhist/Muslim/Zoroastrian/Rastafarian/Sufi/Gnostic/Wiccan/Neo-Pagan!

Tell us, o great sage, how is it you came by this universal key to knowledge of the TRUE "core message" of each of the religions you have studied so assiduously?

My sides hurt.

Talking to a Budhist two days ago about this very subject, she is middle aged came from a very poor region in Malaysia. She does not consider it a Religion but more of a way of life or direction in life.

[uwot]

Hello Harry.

It's clear to me that you have simply decided that you don't want to believe, no matter what evidence presents itself - you simply choose to characterise it as "[just] some stories that you [Harry] happen[s] to believe".

If it is simply a question of wanting to believe or not, presumably you accept that you do want to believe.

If it's not clear to you by this point that this is a grossly inadequate characterisation, well then... really, I doubt that there's anything I can say to change your mind.

As Carl Sagan said: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." What is there other than "some stories that you [Harry] happen[s] to believe"?

You are welcome to your abject denial, and all I will do is make it clear that I understand that this is exactly what it is.

Abject is a bit strong; in one sense it is fair, I abjectly deny that stories on the internet or in books are evidence for miracles. On the other hand, I do not abjectly deny that a god exists and performs miraculous healings for reasons we cannot begin to fathom.

Onlookers can do their own research and make up their own minds...

Where should they look?

(No hard feelings, by the way)

(No, indeed.)

[Felasco]

As Carl Sagan said: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

Where is the evidence that human logic would be able to determine whether or not there is a God?

What is human logic? The poorly developed ability of one species on one planet in one of billions of galaxies, a species that was recently living in caves, and now perpetually lives on the edge of nuclear self extermination, a topic which doesn't merit mention by most members of the species.

What is God? God is usually defined as an all powerful creator. If such an entity exists it would be the creator of logic and natural laws such as physics, and thus would not be bound by those laws. Thus, it is pointless to attempt to analyze such an entity with human logic, given that such an entity would not be subject to the rule system being used to conduct the analysis.

Forum atheism is a fantasy belief system that's unwilling to be loyal to it's own stated premises.

[thedoc]

I now understand. You wrote, "religions have different understandings and conceptions of God".

As Xenophanes noted:
"But mortals suppose gods are born,
Wear their own clothes and have a voice and body.
The Ethiopians say that their gods are flat-nosed and black,
While Thracians say that theirs have blue eyes and red hair.
Yet if cattle or horses or lions had hands and could draw,
And could sculpt like men, then the horses would draw their gods
Like horses, and cattle like cattle; and each would shape
Bodies of gods in the likeness, each of their own kind."
That's more or less what people still do. I would only add that intelligent people, able to process abstract concepts, are apt to conceive of abstract gods.

True, but you stated, "every other religion is just as valid as the one they follow." so my comment was directed at the idea that all religions are "valid" when they often contradict each other violating the law of contradiction.

Only assuming any one of them is actually valid. My guess is that if you were to ask a follower of any particular religion, they would say it was theirs.

I believe you are correct about most theists, but I would also suggest that a few are willing to acknowledge that there is some truth in other religions, and there is at least one person on the planet that believes that all religions have some bit of God's truth and that no religion is all correct and exclusive. While I will allow others to anthropomorphize God, I think of God as a formless and spiritual.

[uwot]

Where is the evidence that human logic would be able to determine whether or not there is a God?

There is plenty evidence that it cannot.

What is human logic?

In one respect, it's the stuff that makes your computer work. It may be all those other things you mention, but it is effective in manipulating matter, the universe, in ways that we find useful.

What is God? God is usually defined as an all powerful creator. If such an entity exists it would be the creator of logic and natural laws such as physics, and thus would not be bound by those laws. Thus, it is pointless to attempt to analyze such an entity with human logic, given that such an entity would not be subject to the rule system being used to conduct the analysis.

How did you work that out?

Forum atheism is a fantasy belief system that's unwilling to be loyal to it's own stated premises.

This is gibberish. There is no such entity as 'Forum atheism' that has 'stated premises'. People who are inclined to believe in abstract entities see them everywhere.