Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
#1
Old 08-05-2003, 03:02 PM
Guest
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 1,852
Which religion is most likely correct?

This is an offshoot of Pascal's Wager Revisited, where people were discussing the various benefits of Pascal's Wager.

I submit that the most important aspect to determine is which religion is most likely correct.

I believe that one way to determine this is by age: the older a religion is, particularly among religions that have suspiciously similar stories, the more likely it is to be the "correct" one.
#2
Old 08-05-2003, 03:09 PM
Guest
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Bangkok/52/Male
Posts: 8,869
That would be Argumentum ad antiquitatem.
#3
Old 08-05-2003, 03:20 PM
Guest
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 81,621
Ruck: Ahh, but the problem is in the definition of "similar". Is Judaism "similar" to Christianity?

I'd say none are correct. But if I had to pick one, then maybe I'd pick the one with the largest number of adult converts.
#4
Old 08-05-2003, 03:21 PM
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 1,598
Well, personally, I'd argue that whichever religion is most likely correct (assuming there is one), it's in all probability not yours. Oh wait -- I already did argue that.

OK, how about this then. Yes, it's possible that the oldest religion may have some claim to being more correct simply due to its age. Consider, however, that the older a religion is the more likely it will be infused with all sorts of ridiculous notions that attempt to explain the universe as a result of ignorance and fear. Conversely, the newer a religion is, the more likely that it will accord with what we currently believe to be true as a result of modern scientific inquiry.

Of course, the latter proposition seems to lead to situations where an entire "religion" is based on a God with no discernable properties and which requires nothing of its followers other than belief, as shown in this thread and the one you quoted in the OP. I would submit that these religions, while perhaps non-falsifiable due to their complete lack of claims, can also not be considered "correct" in any meaningful way. Or even considered "religions" for that matter.

You also need to define what you mean by "correct". If you mean the religion that best describes the nature of God and the proscribed manner of worship necessary to receive his benificence, I would say that you are making an unfounded assumption that there actually is a God in the first place. If there is no God, then no religion that professes his existence is "correct." If, however, you mean the religion that best teaches its followers to be better people, or best helps its followers find comfort and solace in this life, I think you have a number of qualified candidates.

Finally, define "religion." Does a religion necessarily have to believe in God, or would you consider any organization where people come together to discuss topics of deep import to be a religion? Is Buddhism a religion? How about Unitarian? What about the Masons?

Regards,

Barry
__________________
Licensed Member of the Amalgamated Union of Philosophers, Sages, Luminaries, and Other Professional Thinking Persons.

"godzillatemple, I think I think as clearly as you...I just have trouble matching your clarity of expression." - Somnambulist

"Same here. It sounds so much BETTER when YOU think it!" - Kalhoun
#5
Old 08-05-2003, 03:21 PM
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midwest, USA
Posts: 1,500
The only way to determine if a religion is correct is to have said religion's deity appear, perform some miracles, clearly and consicely explain to everyone why they should be following His/Her religion, and then remain contactable for an indefinite amount of time by anyone who has questions.
#6
Old 08-05-2003, 03:48 PM
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 3,676
Why should only one religion be correct?
#7
Old 08-05-2003, 04:03 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Tel Aviv
Posts: 22,508
Quote:
Originally posted by BrightNShiny
Why should only one religion be correct?
Because "all beliefs are equally correct" is also a belief.
#8
Old 08-05-2003, 04:03 PM
BANNED
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: St. Paul, MN
Posts: 58,797
According to Southpark:
"The correct answer is the Mormons...the Mormons."
#9
Old 08-05-2003, 04:08 PM
Guest
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Meatspace
Posts: 5,680
Ah yes, DtC, but Rowan Atkinson said it was the Jews..."I'm afraid the Jews were right..."
#10
Old 08-05-2003, 04:11 PM
Guest
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 311
Re: Which religion is most likely correct?

Quote:
Originally posted by Rucksinator
This is an offshoot of Pascal's Wager Revisited, where people were discussing the various benefits of Pascal's Wager.

I submit that the most important aspect to determine is which religion is most likely correct.

I believe that one way to determine this is by age: the older a religion is, particularly among religions that have suspiciously similar stories, the more likely it is to be the "correct" one.
I would take the opposite view. Each successive religion supercedes the older, antiquated religion, like an administrative policy or a new car. Thus Judaism was superceded by Christianity which was superceded by Islam, which was replaced by Bahai, etc. That means that the correct religion is the Church of the SubGenius, brought to us by the prophet Bob.

Slack!
#11
Old 08-05-2003, 04:13 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: MN in winter/TX in summer
Posts: 207
In my biased world, Christianity is the correct one. C.S. Lewis's book, [u]Mere Christianity[/b] has something to say on the subject as well. It's something like since Christianity is the world religion that makes the least sense, it is the most likely not to be made up by people.

And John Mace, you seem to make the point that since adults are older, and presumably wiser, they would make the better choices about religion. You have to remember though, that children didn't elect George W. Bush. Adults did.
#12
Old 08-05-2003, 04:15 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: MN in winter/TX in summer
Posts: 207
Dern coding. The book is Mere Christianity, not "[u]Mere Christianity[/b]"

Trying to unbold an underline.
#13
Old 08-05-2003, 04:20 PM
Guest
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Nawth Shuah
Posts: 1,327
The one that gives a person the best explanation for their experiences, the best support for overcoming their failings, and the best opportunity to become the best person that it is in their capability to be.

Which one is that?

Well, which person are you talking about?
#14
Old 08-05-2003, 04:35 PM
Charter Member
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Altered States of America
Posts: 12,537
The question is, to an objective thinker, meaningless. Unless the OP was tendentiously trying to set up an answer in favor of his own religion, there is simply no way anyone could answer it without bias. The Japanese have a sensible answer for such a question: mu. In Zen, mu means that the question has no answer, really. (I don't mean to imply that Zen is the answer to the question! Only that Zen has an answer.)
#15
Old 08-05-2003, 05:04 PM
Guest
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Shmocation
Posts: 882
Agreed, jomo mojo. It's like asking which way is west of up.

The only proper response is that ZOINKS!! look that Scooby Doo was so good at.
#16
Old 08-05-2003, 05:04 PM
Member
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: A better place to be
Posts: 26,718
The Unitarians -- if anybody is right, they're on record as agreeing with them!

Jomo, does that make every cow a Zen Master?
#17
Old 08-05-2003, 05:36 PM
Guest
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,795
Might I suggest that all religions are partly right and mostly wrong. Which religion is mostly right (or more wrong) is irrelevant. Each religion has a basis of truth that should be accepted by all even non-theists because their truth is universal. Be good to your fellow man.

Belief in God is personal and individual. Religion extends that belief to encompass a group of people with the same traditions and peripheral beliefs. Religion is for the people. God is for the person.
#18
Old 08-05-2003, 06:55 PM
BANNED
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 3,122
Why is "being good to my fellow man" a universal truth?
#19
Old 08-05-2003, 07:13 PM
Guest
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Fifth corner of the Earth
Posts: 17,034
Maybe God changes his choice of the "right" religion from time to time. Or, to steal from The Frantics:

Thomas: "Boy, and the Jews thought they were God's chosen people."
St. Peter: "Oh, that was years ago. First it was the Jews for a few thousand years, then God got into Muslem 'cause He liked their hats. Then when they started slicing off hands, God went with the Indians. Then there were the Hopi Indians, and the Aztecs, and--"
Thomas: "What about us Catholics?"
St. Peter: "Oh, He never liked them. The closest He ever got was the Anglicans 'cause He liked Henry VIII's sense of humor."
__________________
--R.J.
Electric Escape -- Information superhighway rest area #10,186
#20
Old 08-05-2003, 11:53 PM
Guest
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 1,852
Hey, I was looking for a historical debate, not a philosophical one.

Anyway, first let's assume that there is a god or gods who created the universe....

I'd assume that he/she/they wouldn't wait until this late* in the general scheme of things to reveal themselves; I think that's logical.

* (knowing that the universe has been around for billions of years, and humans haven't changed significantly in the past 20,000 or so)

Next, to clarify my Argumentum ad antiquitatem...

Quote:
Originally posted by John Mace
Ruck: Ahh, but the problem is in the definition of "similar". Is Judaism "similar" to Christianity?
I've heard that the story of Moses was based on an older Sumerian (sp?) story, that the story of Noah's Ark was based on the Epic of Gilgamesh, etc. It seems to me that if 2 religions have very similar stories, then either: 1) the later version ripped off the earlier version, or 2) the early version's similarities to the truth of the later version were coincidental.

I've got to go with #1.

Another point to consider when determining which religion is correct [Rucksinator tries to steer the debate back to where he had first intended it], is how scientifically correct it's texts (AKA "bibles") are.

For example, if it could be shown that a 7,000 year old religion has a sacred text that states that the earth is round and rotates around the sun, then I'd be much more likely to believe it than the Old Testament.
#21
Old 08-06-2003, 12:10 AM
Guest
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 1,852
Quote:
Originally posted by godzillatemple

You also need to define what you mean by "correct". If you mean the religion that best describes the nature of God and the proscribed manner of worship necessary to receive his benificence, I would say that you are making an unfounded assumption that there actually is a God in the first place. If there is no God, then no religion that professes his existence is "correct." If, however, you mean the religion that best teaches its followers to be better people, or best helps its followers find comfort and solace in this life, I think you have a number of qualified candidates.

Finally, define "religion." Does a religion necessarily have to believe in God, or would you consider any organization where people come together to discuss topics of deep import to be a religion? Is Buddhism a religion? How about Unitarian? What about the Masons?

Regards,

Barry
By "correct" I mean the religion that best describes god and what he wants. (God may not necessarily want its followers to be better people.)


Again, assuming that god exists, for the purposes of this debate, non-theistic religions don't count.

Joe Random, barring god appearing, I think that if there were a 7,000 year old document stating that Zogov and his wives Mubak and Luko are the only Real Gods, and that they created the Earth to rotate around the sun, along with 8 other planets*, and that all that they required was that everybody wave to the sun once a year; well then I'd be more inclined to believe that than, say, Mormonism.

* and maybe something else thrown in about how to clone sheep
#22
Old 08-06-2003, 12:31 AM
Charter Member
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: IN USA
Posts: 13,223
well, definitely Ethical Monotheism-
that there is One God from whom all morality derives and God's primary moral requirement is that people behave decently towards each other.

what variation of that, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Noachism, classical Unitarianism, Bahai, etc, is truest? I'll go with Christianity. Why? Because except for Bahai, it's the only one addresses the Joan Osbourne Q, and it is the only one at all in which the ultimate answer is "Jesus".
#23
Old 08-06-2003, 12:46 AM
Guest
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 1,852
Quote:
Originally posted by BrightNShiny
Why should only one religion be correct?
For the purposes of this debate, using the guidelines that I only vaguely defined partly through the debate, only one religion can be MOST correct.

I was really looking for ancient religions.

[not to hijack by own thread, but....] IMHO, Christianity used Judiasm for as long as it needed to, then abandoned it. I'm still not sure why Christians still use the OT [/hijack]

Are there any religions that have demonstrated an uncanny ("before their time") knowledge of the universe?

Perhaps it will clarify my position a little bit to explain that my disbelief in the divinity of the OT is because I can't believe that the creator of the universe got so many things wrong, scientifically speaking.
#24
Old 08-06-2003, 02:00 AM
Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 41,779
Quote:
Originally posted by Jonmarzie
In my biased world, Christianity is the correct one. C.S. Lewis's book, [u]Mere Christianity has something to say on the subject as well. It's something like since Christianity is the world religion that makes the least sense, it is the most likely not to be made up by people.
[/B]
Yeah, but Lewis wrote before either the Raelians or those clowns who believed the saucer was hiding behind the comet. Making the least sense is something religions are fiercely competitive about, I'd say.

I'll go with the oldest. Fertility goddess worship, that's for me.
#25
Old 08-06-2003, 08:09 AM
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 1,598
Quote:
Originally posted by Rucksinator
Anyway, first let's assume that there is a god or gods who created the universe....
Why? If your initial premise is flawed, then the rest of the argument isn't likely to make much sense. I could, for example, start an argument off by saying, "first, let's assume that anybody who believes in God is a child molestor...." Sure, we could have all sorts of interesting discussions based on that premise, but unless I can prove the original premise is true it's all rather pointless.

Quote:
I'd assume that he/she/they wouldn't wait until this late* in the general scheme of things to reveal themselves; I think that's logical.
Well, some religions teach that the fullness of his plan was revealed in detail to Adam and Eve, and that everything kind of went downhill from there.

Quote:
I've heard that the story of Moses was based on an older Sumerian (sp?) story, that the story of Noah's Ark was based on the Epic of Gilgamesh, etc. It seems to me that if 2 religions have very similar stories, then either: 1) the later version ripped off the earlier version, or 2) the early version's similarities to the truth of the later version were coincidental.
So, according to this theory, whatever religion that was practiced by the ancient Sumerians is most likely the "correct" one. Pity nobody follows that particular religion any more.

You also forgot option #3, which is that both religions contain stories to explain a very real, non-miraculous event. The fact that two religions describe a "great flood" can possibly be used as evidence that there was, in fact, such a flood. It doesn't mean, however, that the cause and/or moral lessons ascribed to the flood are valid.

Quote:
For example, if it could be shown that a 7,000 year old religion has a sacred text that states that the earth is round and rotates around the sun, then I'd be much more likely to believe it than the Old Testament.
As I stated before, the older a religion is, the more likely it will be based on ignorant superstitions. According to your logic, only a modern-day religion that purports to agree with what we now "know" to be true could possibly be the "most correct" one. This, however, conflicts with your other premise that the older a religion is, the more likely it is to be the "correct" one.

I don't think you can find an "old" religion that is also "scientically accurate" (unless you count those religions that have constantly changed their doctrines over the years to adapt to scientific advances). And if such a religion did exist at one time, it has long ago disappeared, which also doesn't say much for its being correct.

Regards,

Barry
__________________
Licensed Member of the Amalgamated Union of Philosophers, Sages, Luminaries, and Other Professional Thinking Persons.

"godzillatemple, I think I think as clearly as you...I just have trouble matching your clarity of expression." - Somnambulist

"Same here. It sounds so much BETTER when YOU think it!" - Kalhoun
#26
Old 08-06-2003, 08:16 AM
Member
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 41,708
Quote:
I believe that one way to determine this is by age: the older a religion is, particularly among religions that have suspiciously similar stories, the more likely it is to be the "correct" one.
Zog caveman religion oldest, so Zog caveman religion must be right one.

Worship sun. Eat sacred bugs. Smash ones from other side of hill.
__________________
After he finished his work on conditioning dogs, Ivan Petrovich Pavlov ambitiously tried his theories on angels, eventually training a flock of them to go and get their wings from a rack when signaled with a bell.
#27
Old 08-06-2003, 08:20 AM
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,417
Judaism is more likely than either Christianity or Islam. The idea that there is an omnipresent, omnipotent, infallible God is a nice idea. Maybe it's true. But the idea that this God later sends his son to change a bunch of what he said before is highly unlikely, considering that he should be unchanging. The idea that even after that, he still allowed huge mistakes, and sent another prophet to fix things, is simply unbelievable.

But actually, I think the most likely religion to be correct is whichever one you personally believe in. This is because if there is a God who wants you to believe in him, and helps you figure out which God to believe in, he can only be the God that you do in fact believe in. Therefore whichever God you believe in is most likely to exist.
#28
Old 08-06-2003, 08:32 AM
Charter Member
Charter Member
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Beervania
Posts: 53,510
It seems to me that the religion with the most plausible and possible god would be the most likely religion. A claim that your god can control the weather would be more plausible than a claim that your god created the Earth, which would be more plausible than a claim that your god created the universe.
#29
Old 08-06-2003, 08:44 AM
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Tel Aviv
Posts: 22,508
Quote:
Originally posted by Czarcasm
It seems to me that the religion with the most plausible and possible god would be the most likely religion. A claim that your god can control the weather would be more plausible than a claim that your god created the Earth, which would be more plausible than a claim that your god created the universe.
Well, my god can walk and chew gum at the same time.
#30
Old 08-06-2003, 08:46 AM
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 1,598
Quote:
Originally posted by Alessan
Well, my god can walk and chew gum at the same time.
Yes, but can he rub his belly and pat his head at the same time? And can he say "toy boat" 10 times in a row really fast?



Barry
__________________
Licensed Member of the Amalgamated Union of Philosophers, Sages, Luminaries, and Other Professional Thinking Persons.

"godzillatemple, I think I think as clearly as you...I just have trouble matching your clarity of expression." - Somnambulist

"Same here. It sounds so much BETTER when YOU think it!" - Kalhoun
#31
Old 08-06-2003, 09:00 AM
BANNED
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 3,122
Logically, we must conclude that the most probable god is one who doesn't exist.
#32
Old 08-06-2003, 10:23 AM
Guest
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 81,621
Quote:
Originally posted by Jonmarzie
[

And John Mace, you seem to make the point that since adults are older, and presumably wiser, they would make the better choices about religion. You have to remember though, that children didn't elect George W. Bush. Adults did.
And now that I think about it, didn't Jesus say something about "suffer the children.." or somesuch implying that they had the true wisdonm? So maybe we should go with the religion with most juvenile converts? This is just getting too confusing...

I like Jomo's answer. mu. or perhaps moo.
#33
Old 08-06-2003, 12:21 PM
BANNED
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Hell's Den
Posts: 7,443
Quote:
Which religion is most likely correct?


I've always looked at choosing a religion as akin to picking a sports team -- with factors such as place of birth, players, coaches, prior record, stadiums and even team colors figuring heavily into the choice.

With that in mind, I think the best way to answer the question would be to start some sort of professional Religious League, with the winner of the Championship match holding bragging rights (the coveted title of 'Most Correct') for a year.

The possibilities are almost endless, from marketing the tourney to the events themselves -- professional Bible Thumping, Koran Indoctrination, Talmud Toss, Gita Lift, Book of Mormon Relays, etc. Heck, I'm betting Adidas and Nike would fall all over themselves to design the different outfits, as would the major networks for exclusive TV rights.
#34
Old 08-06-2003, 12:32 PM
Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 41,779
Quote:
Originally posted by godzillatemple


I don't think you can find an "old" religion that is also "scientically accurate" (unless you count those religions that have constantly changed their doctrines over the years to adapt to scientific advances). And if such a religion did exist at one time, it has long ago disappeared, which also doesn't say much for its being correct.
Well, the trivial answer is none. I think Rucksinator's point is good - if we knew of an ancient religion that got scientific facts correct, obviously correct, that would be a powerful argument that it is right (or else evidence of contacts with ETs.) By obviously correct I do not mean the typical fundamentalist argument of "it rains, the flood story says it rains, so the Bible must be true."

That there is no such religion is one big reason I'm an atheist. I never bought the argument that god couldn't tell the truth because it was too complicated. Getting the story right is not much harder than getting it wrong, and anyway some of the procedures in Leviticus are as complicated as any computer instruction manual.
#35
Old 08-06-2003, 01:15 PM
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 1,598
Of course, another way of looking at it would be to say that whichever religion makes the least number of claims that can be falsified is therefore, by default, the one that is "most correct." Therefore, logically, the religion that makes no claims whatsoever would by necessity be the most correct religion. And, since a religion that makes no claims is not actually a religion, no religion can therefore be "most correct."

quod erat demonstrandum



Barry
__________________
Licensed Member of the Amalgamated Union of Philosophers, Sages, Luminaries, and Other Professional Thinking Persons.

"godzillatemple, I think I think as clearly as you...I just have trouble matching your clarity of expression." - Somnambulist

"Same here. It sounds so much BETTER when YOU think it!" - Kalhoun
#36
Old 08-06-2003, 01:25 PM
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 1,598
Of course, another way of looking at it would be to say that whichever religion makes the least number of claims that can be falsified is therefore, by default, the one that is "most correct." Therefore, logically, the religion that makes no claims whatsoever would by necessity be the most correct religion. And, since a religion that makes no claims is not actually a religion, no religion can therefore be "most correct."

quod erat demonstrandum



Barry
__________________
Licensed Member of the Amalgamated Union of Philosophers, Sages, Luminaries, and Other Professional Thinking Persons.

"godzillatemple, I think I think as clearly as you...I just have trouble matching your clarity of expression." - Somnambulist

"Same here. It sounds so much BETTER when YOU think it!" - Kalhoun
#37
Old 08-06-2003, 01:29 PM
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 1,598
damn hamsters made me double-post, grumble, grumble, grumble....
#38
Old 08-06-2003, 02:03 PM
Guest
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,795
Quote:
Originally posted by TVAA
Why is "being good to my fellow man" a universal truth?
You mean it isnt??

Damn I gotta start killing more stupid people!
#39
Old 08-06-2003, 03:05 PM
Charter Member
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 44,049
If the oldest religion is the best, then clearly we should all emulate the Cro-Magnons who saw animated spirits in the clouds, or something like that.

The "reality" is, as likely as not, so far beyond our comprehension abilities that it's silly to consider any human religion as truer than another. Meanwhile, any doctrine that encourages us all to respect each other is "best".
#40
Old 08-06-2003, 04:33 PM
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Maui
Posts: 828
the answer is obvious. All organized religions are wrong. Can anyone deny that this is true?

b.
#41
Old 08-06-2003, 04:44 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 561
all organized religions are unfortunately correct - but have been corrupted and perverted by man. Each religion at it's core teaches love, forgiveness, and kindness. Ask a B'hai, or a follower of Maher Baba, and they will confirm that all the avatars of past religions are all incarnations of the same god, come down at different times and places, giving humanity a push in the right direction. Answer this, assuming there is a god, how could the majority of the world (from any perspective) be worshipping a false god? God would have to be pretty powerless to allow such a thing. So it comes down to this. Either all religions are true. Or they are all false. Your choice.
#42
Old 08-06-2003, 06:10 PM
Guest
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 1,852
Quote:
Originally posted by godzillatemple
Why? If your initial premise is flawed, then the rest of the argument isn't likely to make much sense. I could, for example, start an argument off by saying, "first, let's assume that anybody who believes in God is a child molestor...." Sure, we could have all sorts of interesting discussions based on that premise, but unless I can prove the original premise is true it's all rather pointless.
I don't think that it's unrational to make an assumption for the purposes of historical discussion. That's how hypothetical situations work.

Quote:
Originally posted by godzillatemple

Well, some religions teach that the fullness of his plan was revealed in detail to Adam and Eve, and that everything kind of went downhill from there.
And if it can't be shown that Adam ever mentioned being told that the earth was round (and that he didn't pass that information down the chain to Moses), then I think that that puts a bad light on Judiasm's claim to the "most likely correct" title. Any other claimants?


Quote:
Originally posted by godzillatemple
So, according to this theory, whatever religion that was practiced by the ancient Sumerians is most likely the "correct" one. Pity nobody follows that particular religion any more.

You also forgot option #3, which is that both religions contain stories to explain a very real, non-miraculous event. The fact that two religions describe a "great flood" can possibly be used as evidence that there was, in fact, such a flood. It doesn't mean, however, that the cause and/or moral lessons ascribed to the flood are valid.
The fact that one religion repeats the same story later means that it has less of a claim to the afore mentioned crown. Please keep in mind that the title of this thread is not "which religion is correct". We're looking for the [theistic, for the purposes of this debate] religion that's most likely to be correct.


Quote:
Originally posted by godzillatemple

As I stated before, the older a religion is, the more likely it will be based on ignorant superstitions. According to your logic, only a modern-day religion that purports to agree with what we now "know" to be true could possibly be the "most correct" one. This, however, conflicts with your other premise that the older a religion is, the more likely it is to be the "correct" one.

I don't think you can find an "old" religion that is also "scientically accurate" (unless you count those religions that have constantly changed their doctrines over the years to adapt to scientific advances). And if such a religion did exist at one time, it has long ago disappeared, which also doesn't say much for its being correct.

Regards,

Barry
I think that a religion whose texts stated 7,000 years ago that the earth is round has a better claim to the title (I'm working on making the title belt right now) than another whose texts stated 1,000 years ago that the earth travels around the sun (instead of vice-versa).

Also, I don't think that the number of followers is much of an indication, or that a religion no longer having any followers necessarily disqualifies it. Otherwise, a religion's lack of tolerence for other religions would be indicative of it's truthfullness, which I don't think is the case. (i.e. If muslems killed all the Mormons, would that make Islam any more likely to be "(the most) correct"?)
#43
Old 08-06-2003, 06:21 PM
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 1,598
Quote:
Originally posted by Rucksinator
I think that a religion whose texts stated 7,000 years ago that the earth is round has a better claim to the title.
Sorry, I must have missed something. Which religion was it whose texts stated this? Are we talking about real religions here, or hypothetical religions that don't actually exist but would be correct if they did?

If the latter, I've got to go with the religion that explained quantum mechanics in detail 10,000 years ago....

Barry
__________________
Licensed Member of the Amalgamated Union of Philosophers, Sages, Luminaries, and Other Professional Thinking Persons.

"godzillatemple, I think I think as clearly as you...I just have trouble matching your clarity of expression." - Somnambulist

"Same here. It sounds so much BETTER when YOU think it!" - Kalhoun
#44
Old 08-06-2003, 06:42 PM
BANNED
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 3,122
I think an ancient religion that explained the Grand Unified Theory would have to take the cake... if the theory worked out, who cares if the religion was right? I'd join up anyway, just for kicks.
#45
Old 08-06-2003, 06:42 PM
Guest
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 762
Quote:
Originally posted by Jonmarzie
In my biased world, Christianity is the correct one. C.S. Lewis's book, [u]Mere Christianity has something to say on the subject as well. It's something like since Christianity is the world religion that makes the least sense, it is the most likely not to be made up by people.

And John Mace, you seem to make the point that since adults are older, and presumably wiser, they would make the better choices about religion. You have to remember though, that children didn't elect George W. Bush. Adults did. [/B]
Neither did.

Dyanetics is an even less sensible religion than Christianity, and yet we know for a fact that it was made up by humans.

Religion most likely to be correct? - Strong atheism.
#46
Old 08-06-2003, 08:55 PM
Guest
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The 2nd corner
Posts: 3,020
Zoastrianism.
#47
Old 08-06-2003, 09:55 PM
Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Douglas, Isle of Man
Posts: 18,214
Religon: rednotblueity.

main belief of rednotblueity: "it is the law that red is not the same colour as blue"
#48
Old 08-07-2003, 12:48 AM
Guest
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 1,852
Quote:
Originally posted by godzillatemple
Sorry, I must have missed something. Which religion was it whose texts stated this? Are we talking about real religions here, or hypothetical religions that don't actually exist but would be correct if they did?

If the latter, I've got to go with the religion that explained quantum mechanics in detail 10,000 years ago....

Barry
That's what I'm trying to find out! Seriously though, I was just using this as an example of why age (along with demonstrating some scientific accuracy) would tend to give a religion more credence. Perhaps I should have asked this in GQ, but I assummed that it would get into a debate.
#49
Old 08-07-2003, 07:00 AM
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Maui
Posts: 828
"all organized religions are unfortunately correct - but have been corrupted and perverted by man. Each religion at it's core teaches love, forgiveness, and kindness".

So do many philosophies and theories of life teach us to be real nice to one another . What have the above four things got to do with Religion?

"Ask a B'hai, or a follower of Maher Baba, and they will confirm that all the avatars of past religions are all incarnations of the same god, come down at different times and places, giving humanity a push in the right direction".

So does that make it true?

"Answer this, assuming there is a god,"

To answer this question, I have to assume that there is a God?

"how could the majority of the world (from any perspective) be worshipping a false god?"

Well that's what what they're doing. You ask me to tell you why? I could, but not in this post.

Look, maybe there is a God, but your arguments do not lead one to think in that direction.

"God would have to be pretty powerless to allow such a thing."

God: powerful, powerless. Al this is from the imagination.

One has to be pretty weird to postulate in the first place a Supreme Being who is separate from all the other beings.

"So it comes down to this. Either all religions are true. Or they are all false. Your choice."

They are all a load of horse pucky with the principal aim of preserving the life of their own organization and nothing more.

This does not speak to whether there is a Supreme Being or not, whether a spiritual life is better than a non-spiritual life, whether there is life after the death of the human biological machine, just speaks to the topic: to wit, all religions are horse pucky,

b.
#50
Old 08-07-2003, 07:16 AM
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 1,598
Quote:
Originally posted by Rucksinator
That's what I'm trying to find out! Seriously though, I was just using this as an example of why age (along with demonstrating some scientific accuracy) would tend to give a religion more credence. Perhaps I should have asked this in GQ, but I assummed that it would get into a debate.
Ah. I thought perhaps you had a specific religion in mind that you were planning on offering up as "the most correct" religion based on what was decided in this thread.

In that case, the only answer to your question is that no religions are "correct." Some are less correct than others, but they are all basically misinformed attempts to explain the universe by reference to supernatural events. As I stated earlier, the only "correct" religion would therefore be whichever religion made no claims about the universe whatesoever, but it would be hard to classify this as actually being a religion if it made no claims.

I still think you'd be better served looking for the religion that has the most beneficial teachings, that helps people feel the most comfort and leads them to do the most good works.

Regards,

Barry
__________________
Licensed Member of the Amalgamated Union of Philosophers, Sages, Luminaries, and Other Professional Thinking Persons.

"godzillatemple, I think I think as clearly as you...I just have trouble matching your clarity of expression." - Somnambulist

"Same here. It sounds so much BETTER when YOU think it!" - Kalhoun
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:10 PM.

Copyright © 2017
Best Topics: 1890 trains buddhism martial arts corked hat craigslist personals archive dry humor examples z zzz az gay best man admiral halsey song brass to galvanized highway food signs hummer i5 engine yellow jacket repellents mapqiest cp hero management games driveway mesh isopropanol vs ethanol the sultan's palace codeine otc canada 300lb man mailbox baseball moby scientology trane xl1400 troubleshooting gg allin's daughter lingerie modeling portland ferengi lifespan el guero translation nyquil overdose symptoms silly rymes clint eastwood voice frau bl?cher translation visable bra misfire repair cost hershey bar ounces heartbeat ear drum lotrimin vs lamisil chinese restaurant tea lime in the coconut commercial parks and rec blu ray temporary beard dye white woman wearing man's shirt can i put drano in my dishwasher cost of a chimney liner youtube tim conway elephant story tree on property line who is responsible permanent press dryer cycle are lobsters related to insects how much are trainers at planet fitness easy to swallow multivitamin why were the viet cong called charlie what do big snowflakes mean can t live without you original artist keep calm font similar how long does it take a soda to get cold in the fridge what are physical attributes afro pick in hair what does cf mean in legal citations olive drab vs od green stanley tookie williams on the gong show should you refrigerate soy sauce this why we can't have nice things a&r man safety razor blades cvs a way for the government to raise money can i make my own checks what is an objective opinion what kind of oil and vinegar for subs how to enter and exit a kayak