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

[Fawlty]

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.

Oh shit. He got that stigmata on his forehead too.

 

[ultramanhyata]

Your meaphor would need a person to actually be cured though. We know life exists.

Again, circular reasoning.

Theists and non theists both agree that life came from non living matter.

Not even remotely true.

So again, you get to choose between an unknown chemical reaction, and magic. There is not another option.

The idea that life "arose" from prehistoric, non-living, terrestrial matter is simply a supposition that serves your paradigm. It is not an established fact that demands we must only work backwards from that conclusion.

 

[splendica]

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.


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



Why? Are you not religious?

I said Christianity is most likely to be true.

 

[all caps]

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

Dude. Really bad comparison.

 

[TheLastEmperorReurns]

Isn't Judaism the base religion of the Abrahamic religions (in the sense that Christianity, Islam, and the smaller Abrahamic communities trace their origins to Judaism)?

 

[Fawlty]

Dude. Really bad comparison.

Check the likes. It's a good comparison.

 

[Bald1]

Not even remotely true.
......

If life didn't spring forth from a non organic source, then where did the first spark come from? Just curious, is all.

 

[irish_thug]

None of them.

 

[ndwolfwood]

If life didn't spring forth from a non organic source, then where did the first spark come from? Just curious, is all.

Space lightning...

...Not joking

 

[dontsnitch]

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



I never said that.



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.

Thanks for the clarification, though I would point out that Musk believes that we are living in a simulation, so it's more than a hypothesis to him. It would be the equivalent of being a Defacto Theist in Dawkins' belief chart, in that he strongly believes it but he's not epistemically certain.

And to clear things up, I think if you're generous to me you'll grant that I've been focusing on deism when speaking about a general God, despite the thread being about the three big faiths.

 

[dontsnitch]

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.

What's been duplicated in the lab? Our testing only goes back so far, and not before the Big Bang. To subscribe to deism is to say that this entire process is more likely to be started by an intelligent being rather than by chance.

 

[dontsnitch]

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.

I don't see the problem with reconciling these. God and evolution aren't mutually exclusive.

 

[skold]

None, they are practically the same

 

[Trotsky]

In terms of historical accuracy:

1. Islam (its depiction of Muhammad if fairly mortal and the events have been reconciled against recorded history)
2. Judaism (it's Christianity without the additional historical inconsistencies of the New Testament, which is pretty blatantly a collection of loosely governed accounts)
3. Christianity (it's the same lore as Judaism plus additional miracles, healing, rising from the dead, and prognostications of doom; also stories of Jesus don't appear until a century after his lifetime)


In terms of what I find to be morally/ethically agreeable and consistent with a all-powerful deity:

1a. Christianity (Judaism + arguable revocation of some of the OT's more objectionable mandates + lots of populist, pro-poor, anti-rich collectivist rhetoric, but also - (no) hell)
1b. Judaism (Christianity - salvation revocations, but also + no hell)
2. Islam

 

[dontsnitch]

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.

I think that's right, if you look at the arguments and find them unconvincing, you would be right to reject deism. What I argue is that they aren't objectively unconvincing, and for he who accepts it, he is justified. The only thing I would add to the list of arguments you've listed is a moral one.

Have you ever read any Plantinga? He boils it down to deism being axiomatic, or a "basic belief".

 

[Trotsky]

I think that's right, if you look at the argument and find them unconvincing, you would be right to reject deism. What I argue is that they aren't objectively unconvincing, and for he who accepts it, he is justified.

Within the framework of modern scientific knowledge (age of the planet, impossibility of worldwide flooding, incapability of serpents to speak human language), they are objectively unconvincing, yes?

Remove all analytical context, such as science, and virtually no story ever is "objectively unconvincing" and How the Grinch Stole Christmas assumes the same historical footing as the accounts of Herodotus.

 

[dontsnitch]

Within the framework of modern scientific knowledge (age of the planet, impossibility of worldwide flooding, incapability of serpents to speak human language), they are objectively unconvincing, yes?

Remove all analytical context, such as science, and virtually no story ever is "objectively unconvincing" and How the Grinch Stole Christmas assumes the same historical footing as the accounts of Herodotus.

Those are not the arguments he listed, we are talking about deism, not a literal interpretation of the Torah.

 

[JosephDredd]

What's been duplicated in the lab? Our testing only goes back so far, and not before the Big Bang. To subscribe to deism is to say that this entire process is more likely to be started by an intelligent being rather than by chance.

I told you what's been recreated in the lab: we've created life in laboratories and recreated the conditions immediately after the big bang. Those are pretty significant developments in the understanding of creation.

 

[all caps]

Check the likes. It's a good comparison.

Likes from a bunch of pro wrestling haters mean nothing to me

 

[dontsnitch]

I told you what's been recreated in the lab: we've created life in laboratories and recreated the conditions immediately after the big bang. Those are pretty significant developments in the understanding of creation.

Fine, but that creation in the lab is not ex nihilo. We cannot go back before the big bang, because according to science, there was no before the big bang. Time itself started at the big bang.