Question for agnostic, atheists theists,. Which Abrahamic religion you think most likey be true?

[JosephDredd]

Two things- I don't mind the spirit of the objection in the Santa example, but to specifically stick to Santa is to strawman your own position since we know, with epistemic knowledge, that Santa doesn't exist. If I were to steelman said position, I would offer Russell's Teapot instead, as the spirit of the objection remain intact but we're not positing a being which we already know doesn't exist.

Santa can be traced back to a real person who did Santa-like things. You can't say that about God.

The deist in me disagrees with your last sentence. God works as an explanation of reality, which is why it differs from other mystical beings, he's a necessary being in that regard. The leprechaun, or Santa, offers nothing. I think simply espousing the belief that God works best as an explanation for the universe than not is perfectly justified. The theist in me disagrees simply by virtue of my own experiences. If I personally believe that it is more plausible that God exists, simply based on what I've experienced, I don't see how you can dispute that. You may believe I'm mistaken, but to conclude that I'm wrong is in some ways to make the same mistake you're accusing me of- belief without cause.

This is like saying that Superman must, by necessity, be the strongest otherwise he wouldn't be "super" -- he'd just be pretty damn great. It sounds like you're saying God is a necessary being in the explanation of reality because it's right there in his name: "God".

There is no reason to think God is more likely to be the creator of the universe than Superman except that people believe it to be true. Giving one mystical explanation of reality credibility above all others is very illogical.

I think a better stance is for you is to claim you do not believe in God because you have seen no evidence, I have no problem with that stance, not that God cannot exist because no one has seen evidence, you can't know that.

But you can say it is illogical and fallacious thinking to believe in God because there has been no scientific evidence.

Also, re: Elon Musk's simulation claims -- a belief like that has a clear basis in reality since we, ourselves, are capable of creating autonomous beings in simulations. It's something we can do already and the complexity of simulations can grow to such a level that it's a logical hypothesis to wonder if we, ourselves, are simulations.

Even though science has created life in a lab and we've proven beings can create life where there was none before, it also goes to prove that life can be created spontaneously / without a god. But we have yet to prove that simulations can be created spontaneously, so if Musk is correct then he may believe in a godly creator after all.

 

[dontsnitch]

Santa can be traced back to a real person who did Santa-like things. You can't say that about God.



This is like saying that Superman must, by necessity, be the strongest otherwise he wouldn't be "super" -- he'd just be pretty damn great. It sounds like you're saying God is a necessary being in the explanation of reality because it's right there in his name: "God".

There is no reason to think God is more likely to be the creator of the universe than Superman except that people believe it to be true. Giving one mystical explanation of reality credibility above all others is very illogical.



But you can say it is illogical and fallacious thinking to believe in God because there has been no scientific evidence.

Also, re: Elon Musk's simulation claims -- a belief like that has a clear basis in reality since we, ourselves, are capable of creating autonomous beings in simulations. It's something we can do already and the complexity of simulations can grow to such a level that it's a logical hypothesis to wonder if we, ourselves, are simulations.

Even though science has created life in a lab and we've proven beings can create life where there was none before, it also goes to prove that life can be created spontaneously / without a god. But we have yet to prove that simulations can be created spontaneously, so if Musk is correct then he may believe in a godly creator after all.

There's no sense in arguing about deism being rational or not, there is nothing really to argue about, you either agree or disagree, but the simulation claim is an interesting place to stop.

Is it your claim that the belief that we are in a simulation is a justified belief?

To push this further, is it a justified belief to believe that we are in a simulation but the programmer is outside of it?

Do you see how this closely resembles deism?

 

[dontsnitch]

I agree with you here for the most part. I am just trying to point out that all of the objections you have to the Santa example are the same objections I have for similar arguments used to address the various issues with our ability to detect God to any degree of accuracy. When someone suggests that we haven't found Santa's lair because it it has a cloak field generated by machine built by the eldest Elf in his workshop, you don't find that convincing.

Appealing to magic or miracle, which share the same definition by the way, is the only way theists can explain how a god is capable of doing anything.




Deism is a strange position. Believing in a god that does not interact with reality in any way. What evidence could there possibly be that could justify a belief in this type of god?



Of course it does. Whether or not something 'works' as an explanation is independent of whether or not it's true.

I only care if things are true.

You are saying that because one can conceive of this 'being' and label it God, and give it all of the attributes it needs to be an explanation of reality, that it makes it 'more likely' or 'more plausible' to you that it's true.

This is a critical error in your thinking. Bold italic underlined doesn't provide enough emphasis for how flawed this type of thinking is. I hate to use the word literally twice in one post, but this is literally why people were ok with 'god' explaining lightning, the weather, and everything else that goes bump in the night.

You are appealing to an unknown to explain the unknown.

Spoiler

I could also dust off some hard atheist arguments and argue something like: Mormonism, Jehova's Witnesses, Scientology, and all of these much younger religions demonstrate exactly how the cult of Moses or the cult of Jesus could have begun.

But that is treading too close to a shift of the burden of proof for me, and I don't think you need me to be so charitable, so I'll just stick with my normal weak/soft atheist arguments.

I don't have much to respond to you with here, but I don't want to be rude.

I fundamentally disagree with your notions of deism, but there's no sense in going in circles here. I see it as axiomatic. If you believe that a creator is more plausible than mere chance, you'll subscribe to deism. If you don't, then you won't, and consequently, you'll also reject deism. I respect that. What I don't particularly like is the argument that because you have not seen evidence for God, that it must follow that no one has.

 

[luckyshot]

As a pragmatist, you have to acknowledge that all three have proven to be psychologically effective ways of coping with existence. So, they are all “true” in that sense.

Christianity is the richest and most resonant of the three, I think, and I would therefore call it the most true.

Others would feel differently, obviously.

 

[JosephDredd]

There's no sense in arguing about deism being rational or not, there is nothing really to argue about, you either agree or disagree, but the simulation claim is an interesting place to stop.

Is it your claim that the belief that we are in a simulation is a justified belief?

No. But it would be a hypothesis rooted in reality, rational thought and scientific experimentation.

To push this further, is it a justified belief to believe that we are in a simulation but the programmer is outside of it?

I never said that.

Do you see how this closely resembles deism?

Yes, which is why i finished by pointing out what I did about musk / deism.

But let me ask something for clarification: have you strictly been talking about deism this entire time? We're in a thread about Abrahamic religions, so I assumed you were talking about Abrahamic religions at a few portions of your writings. The reason I replied is because we've proven in laboratory settings that simulations are real, life can be created with scientific processes and the big bang can be recreated with scientific processes: nothing in regards to creation has been been recreated anywhere using biblical processes. Therefor, some hypotheses are much, much more rooted in rational thought than others.

 

[JosephDredd]

There's no sense in arguing about deism being rational or not, there is nothing really to argue about,

Also, this isn't true: if deism is one of several possible explanations about the creation of the universe it has to be treated as less rational than major scientific hypotheses because the creationary mechanisms of those hypotheses have been duplicated in laboratory settings and no religion's creation myth have been recreated.

So unless you are able to recreate a deist's creation mechanisms, it is a much less rational belief than scientific hypotheses.

 

[TheGreatA]

I would say Judaism is the most pragmatic, Christianity is the most idealist, and Islam has the most resolution of all three.

As for historical truthfulness, I think it is generally agreed that Muhammed existed, while the existence of Jesus or Moses is more difficult to prove, leading to many people seeing them as myths rather than historical people. That is partly why I would say that Islam resonates more strongly in the modern day, than the other two, to the fundamental extent.

 

[Chappi]

None of course, there is not a single reason to believe in a god.

 

[forum poster]

This is kind of a shitty question, like asking somebody which pro wrestler they think is really fighting for reals.

That's not a shitty question at all. Google a wrestler named New Jack. He has a reputation for beating the fuck out of wrestler's for real if he thinks they aren't 'selling it' enough for his liking.

 

[Rusk]

Judaism of course.

 

[forum poster]

To answer the question. I think Islam would be the most likely to be true, even though it's clearly the worst religion in this day and age. There's better documentation of Mohammad than jesus. Jesus's teachings were way more in line with what an ethical prophet should be, though. The thing that makes Islam way more convincing is that it's still in the dark ages to an extent and they have way more people that literally believe. That kind of unshakable faith is way more convincing to followers.

 

[LEGS MAHONEY]

Eh, weren't Islam and Christianity essentially off shoots of Judaism? The further away you stray from the original source of something the more corrupted and bastardized it will become through change via language. cultures, misinterpretation etc,etc.

 

[forum poster]

I don't have much to respond to you with here, but I don't want to be rude.

I fundamentally disagree with your notions of deism, but there's no sense in going in circles here. I see it as axiomatic. If you believe that a creator is more plausible than mere chance, you'll subscribe to deism. If you don't, then you won't, and consequently, you'll also reject deism. I respect that. What I don't particularly like is the argument that because you have not seen evidence for God, that it must follow that no one has.

How do you reconcile a belief in an afterlife with evolution? I'm presuming you believe in evolution and that life came from a single cell organisms on earth?

I'm basically an agnostic atheist who has about 0.0000001 faith in an afterlife myself. I'd believe in an afterlife about as much as I'd believe in an ant afterlife. I wouldn't rule it out completely but it seems like a long stretch.

 

[meauneau]

I don't have much to respond to you with here, but I don't want to be rude.

I fundamentally disagree with your notions of deism, but there's no sense in going in circles here. I see it as axiomatic. If you believe that a creator is more plausible than mere chance, you'll subscribe to deism. If you don't, then you won't, and consequently, you'll also reject deism. I respect that. What I don't particularly like is the argument that because you have not seen evidence for God, that it must follow that no one has.

What would make one believe that a creator or creators is more plausible than mere chance? I would guess it would be some aegument from the many available such as the cosmological, ontological or teleological arguments. Or even minor evidential and aubjective arguments, right? Could there be any other thing?

Now, what if one has examined all these arguments (evidence) and found them flawed and unconvincing. Then it follows that these arguments are not evidence. Therefore it follows that if the arguments that were examined are the strongest presented, then no one has evidence (arguments) for God.

 

[DM1982]

Islam
Judaism
Christianity

Which one you think if you had to choose is most likely be true or correct? Must chose one.

Only want non believers in these religions and Gods. It interesting because from secular western view point the God of all 3 those religions is insane, childish and cruel. I want know what you think you would choose if you had. Obviously religious people not welcome as they have a bias already.


Personally I like that jews not force convert people and not have hell. But I think Islam let men have 4 wives and harem in heaven is cool. Also Muhammad was a war lord which is alpha. If I had choose I be a hypocritical Catholic like they all is or I would be a Shia or sufí Muslim. Is not khabib sufí?

They're all as equally unlikely as one another.

They're all based on some sort of spiritual plane of existence, which I don't see any evidence it exists or how anyone alive can perceive this, so it's not possible to chose one - all are 'mathematically/scientifically' impossible.

You may as well ask which is more likely, Santa Claus or Harry Potter.

Spoiler

In answer to that Harry Potter

 

[DamasR]

i think that a long time ago a bunch of goatherders in a desert decided that they were gods chosen people and 3500years later people still believe them.

 

[Seaside]

Not all Christian dominations forcibly convert people. Armenian Apostolic and Coptic Christians for a few examples. When a non Jew marries a Jew they HAVE to convert to Judaism, that’s forcible IMO.

Are you not a Christian? I remember you say you is Armenian Christian. So you have a built in bias. So your opinion on it is bias. That not true orthodox jew not even accept intermarriage. Only liberal jew do and they no convert.

Also Judaism would definitely be the last resort if I was held at gun point to convert to any other three because they have some nasty pedo shit they do which is called oral suction circumcision. Google it, shit is nasty.

I did they not all do it. It like claim all Muslims support something when they not.

Christianity, to answer the TS' question.

Why? Are you not religious?

 

[Juventud]

Fuck that.
10 people can't even keep a chinese wispers story straight and we're much more intelligent than they were in the dirt ages. I don't believe any silly story written hundreds of years ago by some hobo high on opium.

If anything is worth following it would be something very simplistic like Buddhism or others. A religion that stays out of others peoples shit and/or lets you be yourself without societal restrictions.

This is kind of a shitty question, like asking somebody which pro wrestler they think is really fighting for reals.

But Shamrock talks to me in my prayers. Fake news.

 

[Goatenstein]

This question is as idiotic as the religions themselves.

 

[Teen Wolf]

None. It’s that simple.