Why religious people should renounce their faith

[meauneau]

If you believe in a religion because you were born into it, because you accept the testimony of the those who claim to have witnessed the miracles for said religion, because it makes sense to you, because you feel something in your heart that assures you of the truth of your religion, etc, then, if there are reasons that undercut the evidence on which you base your belief, you should thus renounce your faith and become agnostic.

The reasons are these: given the diversity of religions in the world today, the fact that the majority of people are born into their religion; their claims that they have miracles witnessed by people of such and such character which validates them; that it makes sense to their followers, who experience something spiritual which assures them of their religion, and so on, then it follows that all of them cannot be true. These religions, at least the major ones, are exclusivist. Either all are false, or only one is true and the rest false.

Since all the believers of this kind base their belief on the same or similar grounds and the fact that their beliefs are mutually inconsistent, then it follows that there is no reason for them to rationally accept their religion as true. All these religions claim to have the truth on their side on the same or similar grounds; on these grounds alone we cannot determine the truth of any of these religions. This is like 20 witnesses in a courtroom each of whom was denounced as a liar by the other 19; so who do we trust?

Furthermore, each of these religions has the same a priori intrinsic probability, neither has an a priori advantage over the other and the reasons mentioned as ground for the belief do not increase the intrinsic probability of any of these religion. Therefore the only rational position in this case is one of agnosticism.

Until you have other reasons apart from the ones mentioned above you should remain agnostic and suspend judgement, that is until you acquire evidence to make up your mind rationally for the position the evidence point to.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

After making the golden presumption, which is: You/I am capable of reason, you need to use metaphysics to first determine if the Independent Fact (IF) is sentient or not i.e. is the IF Nature or God? Once you've concluded that the IF is sentient and created Nature, you can cross off a whole bunch of religious options -- pantheism, dualism, polytheism, religions like Mormonism where God emerged within nature. Once you've narrowed the IF down to a single, sentient Being, you have to metaphysically discover what characteristics He must have, starting with the question of positive aseity vs privative aseity. Does God exist as one Person (as religions like Judaism and Islam teach) or must he be a unity of at least two Persons (as orthodox Christian teaches)?

I think theists have often been too quick to embrace the 'faith vs reason' paradigm, and to that extent we're partly to blame for nonbelievers thinking faith means making an arbitrary exception to our standards of skepticism.

 

[sangreporsangre]

It would be awesome if Muslims would renounce their faith, everyone else can just stay how they are. I'm not reading that OP btw.

 

[jmag]

I don't get why you include personal experience as a reason to withdraw. And I see no reason anyway to renounce if something is useful, even though imperfect. Languages are diverse and imperfect though useful. Religions are imperfect but refer to an ideal and if people find them useful, what's the problem? (excluding religious violence or undue politicizing)

 

[Pixelated Porn]

If you believe in a religion because you were born into it, because you accept the testimony of the those who claim to have witnessed the miracles for said religion, because it makes sense to you, because you feel something in your heart that assures you of the truth of your religion, etc, then, if there are reasons that undercut the evidence on which you base your belief, you should thus renounce your faith and become agnostic.

The reasons are these: given the diversity of religions in the world today, the fact that the majority of people are born into their religion; their claims that they have miracles witnessed by people of such and such character which validates them; that it makes sense to their followers, who experience something spiritual which assures them of their religion, and so on, then it follows that all of them cannot be true. These religions, at least the major ones, are exclusivist. Either all are false, or only one is true and the rest false.

Since all the believers of this kind base their belief on the same or similar grounds and the fact that their beliefs are mutually inconsistent, then it follows that there is no reason for them to rationally accept their religion as true. All these religions claim to have the truth on their side on the same or similar grounds; on these grounds alone we cannot determine the truth of any of these religions. This is like 20 witnesses in a courtroom each of whom was denounced as a liar by the other 19; so who do we trust?

Furthermore, each of these religions has the same a priori intrinsic probability, neither has an a priori advantage over the other and the reasons mentioned as ground for the belief do not increase the intrinsic probability of any of these religion. Therefore the only rational position in this case is one of agnosticism.

Until you have other reasons apart from the ones mentioned above you should remain agnostic and suspend judgement, that is until you acquire evidence to make up your mind rationally for the position the evidence point to.

People should renounce that democracy is good if they were born into it.
People should renounce that murder and rape and stealing and cheating in bad if they were born into it.
Everything you did not come to by pure reason of your own you should disregard and not do.
This includes going to school before you are an adult. Whose choice should it be anyway.


I just destroyed your dumb as fuck post.
Like don't even bother dancing anywhere I MIGHT show up because I will fucking dance back and then it is on and you GOT NOTHING FOR ME, DUDER.

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

After making the golden presumption, which is: You/I am capable of reason, you need to use metaphysics to first determine if the Independent Fact (IF) is sentient or not i.e. is the IF Nature or God? Once you've concluded that the IF is sentient and created Nature, you can cross off a whole bunch of religious options -- pantheism, dualism, polytheism, religions like Mormonism where God emerged within nature. Once you've narrowed the IF down to a single, sentient Being, you have to metaphysically discover what characteristics He must have, starting with the question of positive aseity vs privative aseity. Does God exist as one Person (as religions like Judaism and Islam teach) or must he be a unity of at least two Persons (as orthodox Christian teaches)?

I think theists have often been too quick to embrace the 'faith vs reason' paradigm, and to that extent we're partly to blame for nonbelievers thinking faith means making an arbitrary exception to our standards of skepticism.

Yes, it is presupposed that we both can use reason, unless you're a Van Tillian, which is another debate all together. Your next proposition is incorrect, it's:

a) I don't know
b) Nature
c) Something other than the Natural
d) Supernatural being with sentience
e) Supernatural being with sentience that interacts with people
... Further steps

'A' is the most basic answer that doesn't require any further explanation
'B' is a step above and requires that one believe that Nature is infinite
'C' is another step above that requires that one believe there is something other than what they can test for that is infinite.
'D' is another step above that requires that one believe that this supernatural cause in an actual being
'E' is another step above that requires that one believe that this supernatural cause in an actual being that possesses anthropomorphic characteristics
... Anything above this requires more steps of belief

I am currently in between 'A' and 'B', anything above 'A' requires much more faith.

 

[TeTe]

I was raised by atheists and became a Buddhist at 23 when I got sober. It has worked quite well for me.

So no, I won't renounce my faith.

 

[Seano]

No one should denounce their beliefs because of pressure from society. Its none of your business what I believe. Live your own life, stop being so scared and/or hateful.

 

[KBE6EKCTAH_CCP]

I'm not reading that OP btw.

Came here to post this.

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

I was raised by atheists and became a Buddhist at 23 when I got sober. It has worked quite well for me.

So no, I won't renounce my faith.

Buddhism is kinda cool, except for the Zen Kamikaze guys, they were pretty nuts.

 

[HockeyBjj]

 

[Deleted member 159002]

Yes, it is presupposed that we both can use reason, unless you're a Van Tillian, which is another debate all together. Your next proposition is incorrect, it's:

a) I don't know
b) Nature
c) Something other than the Natural

As far as the IF is concerned, it is either Nature or "Something other than the Natural" (i.e. God).

d) Supernatural being with sentience

That is something to be deduced after concluding that the IF is supernatural.

e) Supernatural being with sentience that interacts with people

That is something to be deduced after concluding that the IF is sentient.

 

[Denter]

If you believe in a religion because you were born into it, because you accept the testimony of the those who claim to have witnessed the miracles for said religion, because it makes sense to you, because you feel something in your heart that assures you of the truth of your religion, etc, then, if there are reasons that undercut the evidence on which you base your belief, you should thus renounce your faith and become agnostic.

The reasons are these: given the diversity of religions in the world today, the fact that the majority of people are born into their religion; their claims that they have miracles witnessed by people of such and such character which validates them; that it makes sense to their followers, who experience something spiritual which assures them of their religion, and so on, then it follows that all of them cannot be true. These religions, at least the major ones, are exclusivist. Either all are false, or only one is true and the rest false.

Since all the believers of this kind base their belief on the same or similar grounds and the fact that their beliefs are mutually inconsistent, then it follows that there is no reason for them to rationally accept their religion as true. All these religions claim to have the truth on their side on the same or similar grounds; on these grounds alone we cannot determine the truth of any of these religions. This is like 20 witnesses in a courtroom each of whom was denounced as a liar by the other 19; so who do we trust?

Furthermore, each of these religions has the same a priori intrinsic probability, neither has an a priori advantage over the other and the reasons mentioned as ground for the belief do not increase the intrinsic probability of any of these religion. Therefore the only rational position in this case is one of agnosticism.

Until you have other reasons apart from the ones mentioned above you should remain agnostic and suspend judgement, that is until you acquire evidence to make up your mind rationally for the position the evidence point to.

This is stupid, but have you considered that various religions might all be true to some degree?

 

[TeTe]

Buddhism is kinda cool, except for the Zen Kamikaze guys, they were pretty nuts.

They weren't so Zen

 

[luckyshot]

I think it would be cool if people would just stop being assholes about their religion.
It's amazing when people have shitty attitudes toward life and other people because of their religion.
I mean, isn't religion supposed to fix that?

 

[Pixelated Porn]

This is stupid, but have you considered that various religions might all be true to some degree?

what is funny is that the posters with the most blindest faith I have ever seen are ATHEISTS. They can never give a reason for their beliefs which is God does not exist and the supernatural does not exist. At best they regurgle some post for some other loser. In fact, most atheists are really agnostics but being agnostic is not douchbag enough for them.

 

[Pixelated Porn]

I think it would be cool if people would just stop being assholes about their religion.
It's amazing when people have shitty attitudes toward life and other people because of their religion.
I mean, isn't religion supposed to fix that?

yeah, I mean look at the atheists just letting everyone else be like Mao, Stalin, Hitler, and Pol Pot.....oh wait......they killed 10s of millions of people.

 

[RockstarChris]

If you believe in a religion because you were born into it, because you accept the testimony of the those who claim to have witnessed the miracles for said religion, because it makes sense to you, because you feel something in your heart that assures you of the truth of your religion, etc, then, if there are reasons that undercut the evidence on which you base your belief, you should thus renounce your faith and become agnostic.

The reasons are these: given the diversity of religions in the world today, the fact that the majority of people are born into their religion; their claims that they have miracles witnessed by people of such and such character which validates them; that it makes sense to their followers, who experience something spiritual which assures them of their religion, and so on, then it follows that all of them cannot be true. These religions, at least the major ones, are exclusivist. Either all are false, or only one is true and the rest false.

Since all the believers of this kind base their belief on the same or similar grounds and the fact that their beliefs are mutually inconsistent, then it follows that there is no reason for them to rationally accept their religion as true. All these religions claim to have the truth on their side on the same or similar grounds; on these grounds alone we cannot determine the truth of any of these religions. This is like 20 witnesses in a courtroom each of whom was denounced as a liar by the other 19; so who do we trust?

Furthermore, each of these religions has the same a priori intrinsic probability, neither has an a priori advantage over the other and the reasons mentioned as ground for the belief do not increase the intrinsic probability of any of these religion. Therefore the only rational position in this case is one of agnosticism.

Until you have other reasons apart from the ones mentioned above you should remain agnostic and suspend judgement, that is until you acquire evidence to make up your mind rationally for the position the evidence point to.

So you believe that when you die you just disappear. Do us a favor and expedite this transition.

 

[RockstarChris]

I think it would be cool if people would just stop being assholes about their religion.
It's amazing when people have shitty attitudes toward life and other people because of their religion.
I mean, isn't religion supposed to fix that?

Im not even religious but it pisses me off when people attack people that are.

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

As far as the IF is concerned, it is either Nature or "Something other than the Natural" (i.e. God).

I'll grant that, before that IF question we must ask ourselves if there is sufficient evidence (reasonable doubt) to determine if that IF question can be answered.