Why can’t we live in peace?

[DawgBone]

The real question is: what is the most reasonable explanation for the existence of thousands of religions, each with specific and mutually contradictory metaphysical claims?

A distortion of the original truth created through the passing of time, place, and men's inherent bias against it.

[Stringswinger]

Yes, they were deists, not theists, which are distinctly different. Deists believe that a Deity created the universe, started it functioning, but is no longer actively involved in it, whereas theists believe that a Deity created the universe and continues to actively participate in the world’s activities and in human history. The latter idea is clearly at odds with the Christian conception of a benevolent God.

In addition to the Deists that I named, there were many American founders who were Theists. They were mostly Protestant Christians, but there were also some Catholics and Jews among them. Perhaps there were even some atheists, though I cannot recall any. Somehow, men who had different theological and philosophical differences were able to agree on a new way of governance that has now endured for 250 years. What they did was imperfect, as slavery was accepted and women were disenfranchised, but their system allowed for change and those wrongs were eventually made right. Perhaps the best thing they did was to allow for freedom of worship, or the right to not worship at all.

[Tal_175]

I think you mean "the commandments are written upon men's hearts".

I can see how humans living 2,000 years ago, without the cognitive tools or scientific frameworks of the modern intellect, and guided by mystic intuitions about the world, would attribute the agency of an anthropomorphic deity to natural forces they couldn’t explain. That’s exactly what you’d predict. But those beliefs no longer have explanatory utility. We already understand morality, biodiversity, and the structure of the natural world in ways that don’t require suspending belief in verifiable physical reality. The metaphysical claims of religions are simply carried forward through cultural familiarity, not because they offer the best explanations.

[Tal_175]

A distortion of the original truth created through the passing of time, place, and men's inherent bias against it.

Again there is no rigor in this claim. You are playing tennis without a net. What is the original truth? What is the first religion? How do you determine which one is true or any one of them is true?

The degree to which one believes a particular religion with particular claims is not justified by evidence. The belief exists because they find the vision of life where that belief is not true very destabilizing. Without such extraordinarily strong incentive, a rational mind would never reach the conclusion that X religion with all it's specifics is near 100% the reality. If that were the case, all religions would've converged to one. There is no Muslim physics, Jewish physics, Hindu physics. They all agree on the physics because it is based on refutable set of principles.

Religions have a psychological utility. I understand why a person would wish to protect their sense of community, coherence, identity, and safety by maintaining irrefutable beliefs that give them comfort. I find it problematic when they claim their particular religion is the only rational conclusion for existence.

[Marty Grass]

This thread surprises me and is interesting.

I served in the US Air Force (Space Force now) on bases with nukes. This had a lasting effect on me and likely those with whom I worked. We had drills and even some real alerts related to the Middle East. These often occured early at night, corresponding to a morning attack in the middle east. The alerts at that time were about the escalations building in the Middle East. We knew that if our major adversaries got hot, we'd be hit. I can tell you that this feels completely different when you are standing at attention with hundreds of your fellow airmen lined up next to runways with bombers and fighters idling on the ready. I can't explain, but it was profound and sad.

It is extraordinary hard and relentless to pursue peace. This is not a comment on any country. Rather, it is our species that is inclined to war.

Unrelated to that military duty, I became involved for research purposes on the October 7 concert attack and the follow up atrocities on both sides. It was part of the SafeHeart project. SafeHeart | Mental support for Nova survivors There are countless barbaric acts against humans by humans that have no military discipline, just plain savagery.

We are approaching 100 years with nukes as a planet but not there yet. Annie Jacobsen has a great way of presenting the technicalities and threats.

We have had several close calls, and I truly mean that. And there are the chemical and biological agents that get little discussion these days.

I don't know how we got on this topic. It brings to mind a quote attributed to Albert Einstein. "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones".

[charlieparker]

I would love to have a separate topic on religion and morality. I am personally moving from agnotisc and atheistic beliefs towards a belief in God for reasons which are fairly convincing to myself, consciousness and existence, etc. But I am a pluralist when it comes to religion. i do not believe the Bible is the word of God directly received but instead it is inspired by God.

As such we should interpret it in a non-literal fashion as some Christian sects do. I also think it is evident that many other societies have developed morality outside of Judeo-Christian traditions.

[DawgBone]

Again there is no rigor in this claim. You are playing tennis without a net. What is the original truth? What is the first religion? How do you determine which one is true or any one of them is true?

The degree to which one believes a particular religion with particular claims is not justified by evidence. The belief exists because they find the vision of life where that belief is not true very destabilizing. Without such extraordinarily strong incentive, a rational mind would never reach the conclusion that X religion with all it's specifics is near 100% the reality. If that were the case, all religions would've converged to one. There is no Muslim physics, Jewish physics, Hindu physics. They all agree on the physics because it is based on refutable set of principles.

Religions have a psychological utility. I understand why a person would wish to protect their sense of community, coherence, identity, and safety by maintaining irrefutable beliefs that give them comfort. I find it problematic when they claim their particular religion is the only rational conclusion for existence.

The original truth is in your bible for the reading, backed by the testimony of saints and martyrs who died for it, and as scripture prophesied would happen, would spread it across the world. No other religion has accomplished that. So you choose to reject it based on what, specifically?

Like many others who think the scientific-technological explanation is rational, you're falling into the trap you accuse the religious of; that of psychological utility i.e it's convenient for your worldview and your inner person i.e it's a seemingly satisfactory explanation. You also take most of what you believe on faith all the same, since unless you are a quantum physics expert or learned scientist you don't have a complete grasp of the subject matter and even if you do, would realize that it still leaves you groping about in the darkness in a way, because math and science are in a constant state of flux. There is no solution to pi. What is "truth" today is discarded for a new theory tomorrow, so other than apparent modern material conveniences it offers nothing concrete.

As for utility, the actual Christian faith is the polar opposite of convenient, as is often the charge from the non-believer, for the mind, body, or life in general if one is to try to live it out fully but I suppose since most of us have a very westernized understanding of it then it does not seem that way to the average non believer. Yes, many claim adherence to it as a way of fitting in but such can also be said about modern logic, science, etc etc. People tend to blindly accept what they are taught and what they are told without doing a lot of digging for themselves.

[ruger9]

Again there is no rigor in this claim. You are playing tennis without a net. What is the original truth? What is the first religion? .

Setting aside the "which came first?" question for a moment... the "original truth" is the word of God. The "original truth" of Christianity is the teachings of Jesus Christ, Son of God. Which was built on the back of then-current Judaism, so some of the old testament still applies (like the Ten Commandments). Jefferson made his own bible, known as the Jefferson Bible, which had nothing BUT the actual words of Christ. I don't think it has to be that specific, as there is alot of very relative teachings in the rest of the Bible.

But I digress... using Christianity as an example, the original truth are the teachings of Jesus. Not necessarily what your bishop has to say about it. Or the pope. And there so are so many versions of the Christian bible now...protestants saw to that quite thoroughly- there's no way man hasn't tampered with it, or rendered a poor translation from the original languages.

So you may ask "well, but then what about xxxx religion?" Technically, as a Christian, you would have to declare them void. Because you MUST believe that to be a Christian. You can't be a Christian and believe some Hindu god is also valid. Judaism was the "original truth" which was superseded by Christianity.
-this is quite oversimplified; but it does not mean I see other religions as "bad" by default. Belief systems that bring good, bring good. But to religious people (people who believe in a "higher power", whatever that may be), a belief system does not rise to the level of divine.-

-and I'm only using Christianity because I am a Christian. A stoic Taoist Christian, but a Christian lol-

Getting into the Dead Sea scrolls, books removed from the Bible, the Ethiopian texts which are likely the ONLY COMPLETE New Testament texts in the entire world... all that is another very long thread.

Not sure if I answered your question, but I tried. I feel my answer was overly simplistic, but it's really more of a discussion than a forum post.

[James W]

Unrelated to that military duty, I became involved for research purposes on the October 7 concert attack and the follow up atrocities on both sides. It was part of the SafeHeart project. SafeHeart | Mental support for Nova survivors There are countless barbaric acts against humans by humans that have no military discipline, just plain savagery.

Not forgetting, of course, that there is no symmetry in 'both sides' in this case, to put it incredibly mildly. Bit of a massive disparity in fact.

[joe2758]

My religion is non-Christian in a Christian country. I would be interested to state my perspective here, but I have literally been laughed at multiple times, let alone weird looks when someone asks and I tell them. That fact is maybe interesting in itself.

[Tal_175]

The original truth is in your bible for the reading, backed by the testimony of saints and martyrs who died for it, and as scripture prophesied would happen, would spread it across the world. No other religion has accomplished that. So you choose to reject it based on what, specifically?

Yeah, these are the sort of claims every religion makes, aren't they? Every follower believes their religion is the only true one backed up by indisputable historical evidence. Muslims, Jewish, Hindu and many smaller religions that continue to pop up here and there make these claims. Yet they never stand the test of scientific scrutiny let alone meet the standards of what other religions consider valid. Otherwise why religious scholars around the world disagree when they dedicate their lives to finding God or people like Alex O'Conner leave religion. Of course there is some historical evidence to every religion's stories and the characters in these stories but that doesn't prove the supernatural and metaphysical claims. Even today these characters arise and reach massive popularity:
Bageshwar Dham Sarkar: The Indian guru making headlines over '''miracle''' cures
Obviously this guy exists. So what? If someone like him can move millions in the 21. century and convince that he can do miracles, I have no doubt others were able to do that in the past. The bar was a lot lower. People already believed in miracles and resurrection and what not back then. So they were already there.

Like many others who think the scientific-technological explanation is rational, you're falling into the trap you accuse the religious of; that of psychological utility i.e it's convenient for your worldview and your inner person i.e it's a seemingly satisfactory explanation. You also take most of what you believe on faith all the same, since unless you are a quantum physics expert or learned scientist you don't have a complete grasp of the subject matter and even if you do, would realize that it still leaves you groping about in the darkness in a way, because math and science are in a constant state of flux. There is no solution to pi. What is "truth" today is discarded for a new theory tomorrow, so other than apparent modern material conveniences it offers nothing concrete.

I want to believe that God exists and there is life after death more than anything. So my belief has not convenient utility to me. I wish I could believe things just becuase I need to believe.

As for utility, the actual Christian faith is the polar opposite of convenient, as is often the charge from the non-believer, for the mind, body, or life in general if one is to try to live it out fully but I suppose since most of us have a very westernized understanding of it then it does not seem that way to the average non believer. Yes, many claim adherence to it as a way of fitting in but such can also be said about modern logic, science, etc etc. People tend to blindly accept what they are taught and what they are told without doing a lot of digging for themselves.

It is convenient in the sense that you'd much prefer a vision of life where Christianity is true than other wise. Like if it someone convinced you now that Christianity isn't true, you wouldn't go "phew, that takes a lot of load off my shoulders", instead you'd be deeply lost, I presume?

[Stevebol]

Gun control and Gaza have the capacity to heat this thread up to the point that it disappears. Perhaps, some of you guys want to see Dirk nuke this thread? If that happens, my thanks to all who have contributed to an interesting philosophical discussion without resorting to politics.

Iran isn't going to have nuclear weapons. End of story.

[woodpecker]

a dement orange should not even have acess to a golf club. very end of story.

[GuyBoden]

Wars and peace are a distraction, from the real problem.

How warm does "Global Warming" need to get before we make dramatic changes?

[DawgBone]

Yeah, these are the sort of claims every religion makes, aren't they? Every follower believes their religion is the only true one backed up by indisputable historical evidence. Muslims, Jewish, Hindu and many smaller religions that continue to pop up here and there make these claims. Yet they never stand the test of scientific scrutiny let alone meet the standards of what other religions consider valid. Otherwise why religious scholars around the world disagree or people like Alex O'Conner leave religion. Of course there is some historical evidence to every religion's stories and the characters in these stories but that doesn't prove the supernatural and metaphysical claims. Even today these characters arise and reach massive popularity:
Bageshwar Dham Sarkar: The Indian guru making headlines over '''miracle''' cures
Obviously this guy exists. So what? If someone like him can move millions in the 21. century and convince that he can do miracles, I have no doubt others were able to do that in the past. The bar was a lot lower. People already believed in miracles and resurrection and what not back then. So they were already there.


I want to believe that God exists and there is life after death more than anything. So my belief has not convenient utility to me. I wish I could believe things just becuase I need to believe.



It is convenient in the sense that you'd much prefer a vision of life where Christianity is true than other wise. Like if it someone convinced you now that Christianity isn't true, you wouldn't go "phew, that takes a lot of load off my shoulders", instead you'd be deeply lost, I presume?

"What specifically causes you to disbelieve the Christian religion?" No other religion has spread across the world so completely. Not Islam, not Hinduism, not Buddhism. So how does one square that with the prophecy that stated it would do so? You're redirecting by posting a link to some hindu teacher that nobody here has heard of, yet almost everyone has heard of Jesus Christ because the story was held up by the 12 apostles, all but one who died a martyr for the faith, the 70 disciples, many of who died for the faith, and a long chain of additional saints an martyrs who carried it to faraway places without the aid of the internet or published newspapers.

I could dive deeper into some specific stories but if you didn't believe what was written in the bible, why would you believe what was written later by those within the church?

As for your last sentence, I'd be deeply lost and it would also be a load off my shoulders because there is a cross to bear. If one believes they've found the truth, then there is no departing without serious repercussions to one's inner being. If I could share what I endured over the last great lent, I would, but it is a personal experience that a non-believer would assign to me as something of my own invention rather than of the spiritual realm. To you it is an outward observance for old time's sake, to me it is an absolute inner necessity now. I would recommend looking eastward into orthodoxy for your answers since you seem very sincere in your search. In that case, at the right time, the Lord will deliver what you seek.

[AllanAllen]

"What specifically causes you to disbelieve the Christian religion?" No other religion has spread across the world so completely. Not Islam,

This is bad data analysis. 2.6 billion Christians to 2.1 billion followers of Islam.

28.8% vs 25.6% of the population is not a blowout by any means.

You can believe in whatever you want, but data is data.

[DawgBone]

This is bad data analysis. 2.6 billion Christians to 2.1 billion followers of Islam.

28.8% vs 25.6% of the population is not a blowout by any means.

You can believe in whatever you want, but data is data.

Yeah data is data. Even Islam acknowledges Christ as a prophet, they just deny he is the son of God, 700 years later when it was founded by a dude who married a six year old child and then used the sword when he was unable to sway enough new converts using intellectual arguments. It is quite apparent that Islam is a mashup of pagan arabic religion, orthodox christianity, with some jewish kosher food laws tossed in for good measure. Many of the early conversions were accomplished by conquest and resulting jizya tax levied against non muslims. I fully expect it to become the dominant religion in the near future.

[Tal_175]

"What specifically causes you to disbelieve the Christian religion?" No other religion has spread across the world so completely. Not Islam, not Hinduism, not Buddhism.

It is spread due to colonialization. That doesn't make its metaphysical claims true. Again we understand religion as a sociological phenomena. None of that is unpredictable yet does nothing to prove its truth claims.

So how does one square that with the prophecy that stated it would do so? You're redirecting by posting a link to some hindu teacher that nobody here has heard of, yet almost everyone has heard of Jesus Christ because the story was held up by the 12 apostles, all but one who died a martyr for the faith, the 70 disciples, many of who died for the faith, and a long chain of additional saints an martyrs who carried it to faraway places without the aid of the internet or published newspapers.

Nobody has heard of (see the quote below)? He didn't have 2000 years to spread the religion, more like a couple of years but it gives as insights into the sociology of region.
"His social media following has risen rapidly to reach 7.5 million - with 3.4 million followers on Facebook, 3.9 million YouTube subscribers, 300,000 followers on Instagram and 72,000 on Twitter. Some of his most popular videos have been watched between three and 10 million times."

As for your last sentence, I'd be deeply lost and it would also be a load off my shoulders because there is a cross to bear. If one believes they've found the truth, then there is no departing without serious repercussions to one's inner being. If I could share what I endured over the last great lent, I would, but it is a personal experience that a non-believer would assign to me as something of my own invention rather than of the spiritual realm. To you it is an outward observance for old time's sake, to me it is an absolute inner necessity now. I would recommend looking eastward into orthodoxy for your answers since you seem very sincere in your search. In that case, at the right time, the Lord will deliver what you seek.

I am not in search any more than you are. I don't expect to convince you that Christianity is a human invention. I do think my arguments have much higher bar of rigor than yours which do not go beyond irrefutable arguments and wishes. I've met many truly good humans who were religious. I don't think religion is bad or it causes evil. I believe it to be human concept so it manifest it self in one way or another.

But I have to say, when I debate religious people my conviction of the following only gets stronger:

The degree to which one believes a particular religion with particular claims is not justified by evidence. The belief exists because they find the vision of life where that belief is not true very destabilizing. Without such extraordinarily strong incentive, a rational mind would never reach the conclusion that X religion with all it's specifics is near 100% the reality.

[DawgBone]

It is spread due to colonialization. That doesn't make its metaphysical claims true. Again we understand religion as a sociological phenomena. None of that is unpredictable yet does nothing to prove its truth claims.

Nobody has heard of (see the quote below)? He didn't have 2000 years to spread the religion, more like a couple of years but it gives as insights into the sociology of region.
"His social media following has risen rapidly to reach 7.5 million - with 3.4 million followers on Facebook, 3.9 million YouTube subscribers, 300,000 followers on Instagram and 72,000 on Twitter. Some of his most popular videos have been watched between three and 10 million times."


I am not in search any more than you are. I don't expect to convince you that Christianity is a human invention. I do think my arguments have much higher bar of rigor than yours which do not go beyond irrefutable arguments and wishes. I've met many truly good humans who were religious. I don't think religion is bad or it causes evil. First of all, I believe it to be human concept so it manifest it self in one way or another.

But I have to say, when I debate religious people my conviction of the following only gets stronger:

The degree to which one believes a particular religion with particular claims is not justified by evidence. The belief exists because they find the vision of life where that belief is not true very destabilizing. Without such extraordinarily strong incentive, a rational mind would never reach the conclusion that X religion with all it's specifics is near 100% the reality.

Except Christian history shows it was not spread into the middle east and all of europe by colonialization at all so the only place that claim would hold any water is in the new world. It's beginning to sound more like you are repeating talking points from a secular western classroom, which don't have actual basis in history, more than something you've investigated and determined for yourself.

This discussion has run it's course anyways and I have festival events to prepare for. Catch you later.

[Stringswinger]

Except Christian history shows it was not spread into the middle east and all of europe by colonialization at all so the only place that claim would hold any water is in the new world. It's beginning to sound more like you are repeating talking points from a secular western classroom, which don't have actual basis in history, more than something you've investigated and determined for yourself.

This discussion has run it's course anyways and I have festival events to prepare for. Catch you later.

Christianity was often spread by the sword rather than by free will persuasion in Europe. And quite a few Christians have died at the hands of other Christians, often for just disagreeing on the right brand of Christianity to follow.

I am pretty sure that Jesus of Nazareth would be pretty disappointed in a lot of what has been done in his name.

[Tal_175]

Except Christian history shows it was not spread into the middle east and all of europe by colonialization at all so the only place that claim would hold any water is in the new world. It's beginning to sound more like you are repeating talking points from a secular western classroom, which don't have actual basis in history, more than something you've investigated and determined for yourself.

This discussion has run it's course anyways and I have festival events to prepare for. Catch you later.

I am not claiming that colonization was good or bad. It has nothing to do with the "woke ideology" you seem to be alluding to. You said "No other religion has spread across the world so completely.". Americas, parts of Africa, and East Asia were introduced to Christianity due to colonization. That's not disputed by anyone. But now you are changing goal posts and talking only about middle east and europe.

No offence but you have not formed a single rigorous argument in this discussion. I am not convinced you know what qualifies as an argument. Perhaps religion is an emotional relationship to you and you are not used to interrogating your assumptions with precision. I don't think many religious people do. It seems to involve a different kind of thought pattern.

[mr. beaumont]

You know who was pretty "woke?" That Jesus guy.

[Rob MacKillop]

This is all your fault, Mark!

Beautiful playing, and dare I say peaceful too. Let it be the beginning and end of this thread...

[AllanAllen]

Yeah data is data. Even Islam acknowledges Christ as a prophet, they just deny he is the son of God, 700 years later when it was founded by a dude who married a six year old child and then used the sword when he was unable to sway enough new converts using intellectual arguments. It is quite apparent that Islam is a mashup of pagan arabic religion, orthodox christianity, with some jewish kosher food laws tossed in for good measure. Many of the early conversions were accomplished by conquest and resulting jizya tax levied against non muslims. I fully expect it to become the dominant religion in the near future.

I don't really know about all the theology, just talking about the number of followers.

[Rob MacKillop]

Let it be the beginning and end of this thread...

Apparently not.