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

[electricfuneral]

scientology

 

[splendica]

Christianity, to answer the TS' question.

 

[meauneau]

They are all equally repugnant and poisonous to humanity.

 

[Michaelangelo]

needs more Mormonism

 

[Michaelangelo]

Considering the relationship between god and Santa its not a stretch. That and Im just doing it for shits and giggles.

and Santa is an anagram for Satan

checks out

 

[7437]

If I had to, I could fly to the North Pole and prove that Santa doesn't live there. That's something we could verify. We could set up a camera and see if Santa comes down the chimney, again, it's something we can verify. We also know that Santa was based on Saint Nicholas and that he is a fictional character who can't visit 7 billion homes in one night. We all know that Santa doesn't exist, but we don't know that God doesn't exist, which is a central point in this whole evidence debate- God acts as an explanation to the universe, which sets him apart from the run-of-the-mill leprechaun whose existence doesn't hinge on anything. It's the flaw in Russell's Teapot.

Naw, santas magic keeps you from seeing him.

 

[7437]

Right, but you're getting dangerously close to arguing for God when you keep granting a magical being more and more powers, which is kind of the point- we can't know that a God doesn't exist. To suggest that one needs to be agnostic towards Santa Clause in order to be consistent here is a mistake, even for the atheist, and acknowleding that fact shouldn't endanger your atheistic position.

Negative. Santa and God have the exact same evidence.

You cant prove magic doesbt exist. But believing in it is retarded.

 

[dontsnitch]

The problem is that all of the same arguments you are objecting to here are used by theists in support of their god belief.

Belief is not justified until there can be a demonstration of truth. There has never in our history been that demonstration for a god.

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.

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.

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.

 

[milliniar]

Mormanism, maybe baha'i

 

[dontsnitch]

Negative. Santa and God have the exact same evidence.

You cant prove magic doesbt exist. But believing in it is retarded.

I think you're making a mistake here. There is no need to claim there is a non-zero chance that Santa exists just to maintain that a belief in God is not justified.

 

[wonderbread]

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’m a Jew.

 

[ultramanhyata]

start from what we have, and then work logically and scientifically back towards the beginning, and thats what you get. There is no evidence of magic being real, you have to start from the premise of magic being real and then look for evidence.

But we consider it an empirical fact that life cannot arise from non-living matter.

Such abiogenesis cannot even be achieved under tight, laboratory controls and with directed, intelligent actions.

But, hey, since life is all around us we have to assume that it just arose through a chance confluence of events and materials in a warm puddle somewhere.

Because the idea that some sort of undiscovered, supranormal phenomena exists in the universe is just nutty.

 

[7437]

But we consider it an empirical fact that life cannot arise from non-living matter.

Such abiogenesis cannot even be achieved under tight, laboratory controls and with directed, intelligent actions.

But, hey, since life is all around us we have to assume that it just arose through a chance confluence of events and materials in a warm puddle somewhere.

Because the idea that some sort of undiscovered, supranormal phenomena exists in the universe is just nutty.

No, that is not an empirical fact. Its is pretty far from that, considering we KNOW life exists.

Now we get to try to determine mechanism. Would you like unknown chemical reaction? Or Magic?. Im going with unknown ( yet) reaction.

 

[ShadBo]

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.

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.

The deist in me

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?

God works as an explanation of reality

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.

 

[ultramanhyata]

No, that is not an empirical fact. Its is pretty far from that, considering we KNOW life exists.

Circular reasoning.

Spontaneous generation was scientifically disproven as far back as Pasteur's swan necked flask.

Imagine if I made the claim that grass clippings and water could cure cancer. You ask me to show you an example of a patient whose cancer was cured with grass clippings and water. I reply that no one has been cured yet - but only because I'm still working on the exact formulation of clippings to water.

You should rightly call me a snake oil salesman.

Yet that's essentially the game the mainstream scientific community is currently playing with abiogenesis.

 

[7437]

Circular reasoning.

Spontaneous generation was scientifically disproven as far back as Pasteur's swan necked flask.

Imagine if I made the claim that grass clippings and water could cure cancer. You ask me to show you an example of a patient whose cancer was cured with grass clippings and water. I reply that no one has been cured yet - but only because I'm still working on the exact formulation of clippings to water.

You should rightly call me a snake oil salesman.

Yet that's essentially the game the mainstream scientific community is currently playing with abiogenesis.

Your meaphor would need a person to actually be cured though. We know life exists. Theists and non theists both agree that life came from non living matter.

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

 

[JonnyRingo84]

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?

this is an odd question to ask, since you seem to understand that all 3 of these religions worship the same god. therefore, most atheists would not think any of them are likely to be true.

however

id say judaism. the fewer prophets, the more believable imo.

 

[Konster]

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.

 

[Konster]

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.

 

[JosephDredd]

i think not so much really. one can find religion crazy and still think some less crazy or more logical than others. i trying to get intellectual talk going but some people reply and not even give a damn answer i mean WTF why even post in this thread then? Can you answer maybe?

@squeezewax is right: you don't know what atheists are. This like asking which is more logical: eating shit I found on the street or eating shit I prepared myself and that I know contains no harmful chemicals.

You might get a real discussion if you ask which religion does the least harm / is closest to being beneficial.