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

As a Christian absurdist here is my take.
1. Judaism - no real historical evidence and implausible that a Supreme Being would single out one small group as the chosen people
2. Islam - surprisingly little or no contemporary evidence of either the Koran or Mohammed. Earliest Koran we have is incomplete and probably transcribed late in the 8th century. Earliest bio of Mohammed is written nearly 200 years after his supposed death. Notion that revelation is "closed" really contradicts the basic notion of a Supreme Being (if he can't make no revelations, he is not all powerful). All sorts of things that set off the bullshit meter.
3. Christianity - My theory. We are all created by the Supreme Being and in that sense are sons and daughters of God. Some of us - through wisdom, good works, insight, etc. - become closer and closer to God during our lives (Ghandi, MLK, Mother Theresa, etc.). Pretty good evidence that Jesus existed and very plausible that the gospels set forth the gist of his teachings in a reasonably accurate manner. Jesus Christ got the closest of all to God and was the "son of God" in a sense which we mortals cannot fully understand. The early Christians focused on his teachings and did not ruminate about whether or to what extent he was divine, exactly how the "trinity" was organized, etc. etc. - all of that came centuries later. They also did not believe that the New Testament - which did not even exist until the Church defined which books were included - was the word of God. The letters of St. Paul were understood to be letters written by a holy man and that was that. All the bullshit came later. If we emulate the early Christians, we are getting pretty close to the sweet spot of religious practice. Follow the Sermon on the Mount, follow the parables, don't claim to have a monopoly on the truth, love your enemies, turn the other cheek, give away your money to the poor, most of all - be humble about all of this stuff. I haven't found any organized religion which really hits this nail on the head.
 
None are remotely true to me. So I couldn’t choose. As far as practice goes I enjoy the way the sufis carry themselves
 
As a Christian absurdist here is my take.
1. Judaism - no real historical evidence and implausible that a Supreme Being would single out one small group as the chosen people

Doesn't Christianity and Islam also recognize Jews as the Chosen people?
 
Doesn't Christianity and Islam also recognize Jews as the Chosen people?

My absurdist version of Christianity does not. The fact that Jesus was Jewish is irrelevant. What made him the Son of God is his generosity, wisdom, insight, tolerance, mercy, etc.
 
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".
So from you post a perfectly or reasonably rational person is right and justified in rejecting deism given the failure of the arguments presented for deism and also a perfectly or reasonably rational person is right and justified in accepting deism given the arguments presented for deism.

If this is you position, which it appears to be from your post, then how can you claim that the arguments failure or success is not objective? If it fails to convince someone you say that this failure is not due to the arguments but due to the subjective mind of the person assessing them. Couldn't we also say that if someone is convinced by them then it is not a merit due to the arguments but due to the subjective mind of the person?

If you claim that arguments have no objective merits or demerits and that equally rational persons can be convinced or fail to be convinced by the same arguments and thus accept or reject the conclusion, then I have no problem.

It would all boil down to indoctrination and the such where one has a cause for a belief rather than a reason or reasons.

If one believes in deism and no arguments are objective (neither sound nor unsound but can be interpreted as one or the other subjectively) then this belief in deism is caused by factors external to the person.
 
So from you post a perfectly or reasonably rational person is right and justified in rejecting deism given the failure of the arguments presented for deism and also a perfectly or reasonably rational person is right and justified in accepting deism given the arguments presented for deism.

If this is you position, which it appears to be from your post, then how can you claim that the arguments failure or success is not objective? If it fails to convince someone you say that this failure is not due to the arguments but due to the subjective mind of the person assessing them. Couldn't we also say that if someone is convinced by them then it is not a merit due to the arguments but due to the subjective mind of the person?

If you claim that arguments have no objective merits or demerits and that equally rational persons can be convinced or fail to be convinced by the same arguments and thus accept or reject the conclusion, then I have no problem.

It would all boil down to indoctrination and the such where one has a cause for a belief rather than a reason or reasons.

If one believes in deism and no arguments are objective (neither sound nor unsound but can be interpreted as one or the other subjectively) then this belief in deism is caused by factors external to the person.

I think it's a case where the evidence is subjective. I'm honest with myself and I have no reason to willfully lie to myself, and I can look at these arguments and find them more plausible than not, that is, that it makes more sense that an intelligent being set the universe in motion.

Since I cannot look into the mind of anyone else, I have to assume that they, also being honest with themselves, look at these same arguments are find them unconvincing, and they posit that the universe makes more sense to have arisen out of chance, and that an intelligent being is not only unnecessary, but unlikely. I personally do not see how they come to accept this world view, but I accept that they do.

I'll add that it's not always the case that the deist or agnostic atheist is justified in their beliefs, however. Someone may believe (or not believe) simply because they were raised that way, or because they want it to be that way. I think it's a case where two honest people may look at the arguments and come away with different conclusions, but it's not clear to me that one person is necessarily wrong, given that I've seen honest people walk away with different world views.
 
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.

No.. according to the equations of General Relativity, t=0 causes infinities. Quantum Mechanics can see past the big bang and does not have the same limitations. I know we've had this conversation a few times so I'm not sure why you're still stating that.
 
Last edited:
Again, circular reasoning.



Not even remotely true.



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.


Life existing, right now, is circular reasoning? youve never seen life? or maybe..... been alive personally?
 
No.. according to the equations of General Relativity, t=0 causes infinities. Quantum Mechanics can see past the big bang and does not have the same limitations. I know we've had this conversation a few times so I'm not sure why you're still stating that.

That doesn't make sense though. T=0 is nonsensical to us, we can't "see past" it, because it doesn't exist, there is literally nothing before it because the concept of "before" doesn't even apply. We can only look at events after the singularity.

To say that we can recreate anything in the lab that mirrors this likewise doesn't make sense, because something already exists, so it can't be ex nihilo, even if that something is just time.
 
That doesn't make sense though. T=0 is nonsensical to us, we can't "see past" it, because it doesn't exist, there is literally nothing before it because the concept of "before" doesn't even apply. We can only look at events after the singularity.

To say that we can recreate anything in the lab that mirrors this likewise doesn't make sense, because something already exists, so it can't be ex nihilo, even if that something is just time.

Does God exist outside of space and time?
 
That doesn't make sense though. T=0 is nonsensical to us, we can't "see past" it, because it doesn't exist, there is literally nothing before it because the concept of "before" doesn't even apply. We can only look at events after the singularity.

To say that we can recreate anything in the lab that mirrors this likewise doesn't make sense, because something already exists, so it can't be ex nihilo, even if that something is just time.

The singularity (if there was one) wasn't actually zero, the equations of GR treated it as such and QM doesn't. There is no such thing as ex nihilo as something always existed, like a meteastable false vacuum. Where there is time, there is space.
 
Last edited:
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?


I think they are all equally stupid fucking religions. It's clear as day that we evolved through some natural process with no supernatural bullshit attached. Two thousand years ago all there was around were retarded and superstitious humans who didn't even understand that bacteria existed.

So people who thought that catching a disease was a curse of some sort created these elaborate stories on how to act and what happens when you die.


And I absolutely look down on rational adults who believe in religion over science. It's truly pathetic that otherwise rational people would choose to entertain this nonsense. So I'm sorry if you're religious, because i no longer respect you as an adult. That's especially true if you deny scientific discovery like evolution to support your crackpot ideology.
 
The singularity (if there was one) wasn't actually zero, the equations of GR treated it as such and QM doesn't. There is no such thing as ex nihilo as something always existed, like a meteastable false vacuum. Where there is time, there is space.

Right, and this is where we get to there being turtles all the way down, since there was always something.
 
This is kind of a shitty question, like asking somebody which pro wrestler they think is really fighting for reals.

Brock!!!

543d831f9c6e4901-600x400.gif




SS-21.gif




tumblr_ocaj6arxci1u1ljrzo1_540.gif
 
Right, and this is where we get to there being turtles all the way down, since there was always something.

Eternal space-time in some form is correct, time didn't begin at the big bang and science doesn't say it did... at least not any more.

Edit: I guess it depends on how time is defined, if one believes time is emergent and a description of the relationship between events, then it requires space + events. Space could exist without time if there were absolutely no events.
 
Last edited:
I've always been an atheist, so myself and others are not going to think which is the most likely religion to be true, are we?
Do you understand what an atheist is? An atheist doesn't think this one or that one is probably true, wouldn't actually be an atheist then!

As for agnostics i can't stand them. How can someone not be sure if god exists or not? Sitting on the fence and gutless, make a commitment, it's easy!
The opposite side of the coin that confirms the human desire to be black and white in thought.

You know the truth bro! But seriously, all you're really doing is taking a narrow (albeit ridiculous) view (modern abrahamic religion) that is a misinterpretation of an ancient HUMAN document (that is trying to make sense of a brutal reality) and pushing back against it. Bravo, you're not a total idiot. You're also not exactly looking at the idea through a nuanced lens.

If you are agnostic about the existence of the literal translation of the modern understanding of the abrahamic good, ok, I'm gonna say you aren't that bright...or perhaps just not looking at it through a critical lens. That is a very narrow understanding of God though.
 
Whatever religion would give me the most time off of work for religious holidays.
 
The idea that the entire truth of the universe was magically revealed to a primitive, nomadic, superstitious, xenophobic, belligerent tribe that wandered the middle eastern deserts thousands of years ago is completely batshit crazy to me.

Anyway, what I’ve always found funny, concerning this abrahamic God, is that in the Torah/Old Testament he is this angry, spiteful, revengeful character, always ready to wipe out cities, nations or humanity as a whole, always eager to ask for bizarre proofs of loyalty from random people... while the New Testament God is some hippy who loves and accepts and forgives all. Wtf, make up your minds
 
Back
Top