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

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.

I'm just saying we've gotten more answers about creation... and performed it ourselves in very fundamental, primordial ways... than by following the teachings of any deist. Not once has science been held back by the lack of belief in God.

We're discovering the mechanisms of creation and not one of them suggests that the correct path is deism.

In fact, we've learned so much about our world that we know there are parts of our brain that create religious delusions when stimulated, we know that mankind has a tendency to lapse into superstition and madness when relying on his baser reflexes and we know that the human mind has the power to shape ourselves in accordance with our beliefs... so the human mind can perfectly replicate evidence divine intervention.

The more we learn about the world and the more we learn about the human internal wiring that defaults to religious delusions, the less likely it seems that deism is the truth.
 
Probably Alevi Shia Islam or Swedenborgian Christianity.
 
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!

I’m agnostic and your insults mean absolutely nothing. I’ve made many important decisions and commitments in my life that I based on past facts, experiences, and history.

Let me know when in history someone came back from the dead to let everyone know what’s on the other side. Until then, you can shove your baseless insults up your ass.
 
I'm a theist but I'm answering anyway, come at me.

Statistically, I think Judaism is most likely correct out of the three (if one had to be correct). Christianity and Islam build on Judaism, so in that sense, for Christianity or Islam to be correct, Judaism has to be correct, as they both build on the Torah. So in Christianity, Abraham has to exist, but so does Christ. In Islam, Abraham has to exist, but so does Mohammad. If I had to choose one in the dark, I'd choose Judaism for that reason, as there is simply less to believe.

Though as a Christian, Judaism doesn't make much sense to me without Christ, but that's another conversation.

Yesterday I watched some videos about how Jews really feel about Judaism. They swear up and down that THEY are the “chosen ones” simply due to “being born in Israel". Any way you cut it, that just seemed very smug with a side of tunnel vision.
 
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?

Christianity, because Jesus was a economic progressive.

I might say Islam, if the whole culture wasn't stuck in the 8th century. I like that they still see loaning money at interest as sin.
 
Put like that I think none of them are true.

I think all three are kind of same recepie tailored for different cultures.
 
I'm just saying we've gotten more answers about creation... and performed it ourselves in very fundamental, primordial ways... than by following the teachings of any deist. Not once has science been held back by the lack of belief in God.

We're discovering the mechanisms of creation and not one of them suggests that the correct path is deism.

In fact, we've learned so much about our world that we know there are parts of our brain that create religious delusions when stimulated, we know that mankind has a tendency to lapse into superstition and madness when relying on his baser reflexes and we know that the human mind has the power to shape ourselves in accordance with our beliefs... so the human mind can perfectly replicate evidence divine intervention.

The more we learn about the world and the more we learn about the human internal wiring that defaults to religious delusions, the less likely it seems that deism is the truth.

Damn that's a lot of Atheistic cringe.

 
In what way it is True? True that their God created all the crap here and all that spritual magic holy spirit of ALah thing.

Or true in the sense that the prophets did really exist in history like Jesus and Mohamad are really people who preach about God and stuff?

If its about all that spriti super power thing I just think they are all equally ridiculous, Historically speaking meh I think Mohamad makes more sense that dude is a total jerk.
 
If life didn't spring forth from a non organic source, then where did the first spark come from? Just curious, is all.

What I labeled "not even remotely true" was the poster's claim that all theists believe life originated from non-life.
 
Life existing, right now, is circular reasoning? youve never seen life? or maybe..... been alive personally?

Come on...

It's circular reasoning to state that life on earth must have evolved from non-living, terrestrial matter based on the observation that life exists on earth.

It's the kind of weak reasoning that led to the theory of spontaneous generation: "Hey, yesterday there was just a pile of dirty rags in this barn. But today the rags are full of baby mice. Dirty rags must produce mice through some chemical process we have yet to understand!"
 
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.

Empirical fact? I've not heard that, what do you consider life?
 
Come on...

It's circular reasoning to state that life on earth must have evolved from non-living, terrestrial matter based on the observation that life exists on earth.

It's the kind of weak reasoning that led to the theory of spontaneous generation: "Hey, yesterday there was just a pile of dirty rags in this barn. But today the rags are full of baby mice. Dirty rags must produce mice through some chemical process we have yet to understand!"
Big whoop, a technicality. He's postulating that life's origin here is self-evident, and you should ignore the unimportant fallacy in the particular way that he stated it.

Let's follow life all the way back down the known tree! Oh look, steam vents in the ocean have the oldest fossils. Hmm...maybe we're onto something.
 
Come on...

It's circular reasoning to state that life on earth must have evolved from non-living, terrestrial matter based on the observation that life exists on earth.

It's the kind of weak reasoning that led to the theory of spontaneous generation: "Hey, yesterday there was just a pile of dirty rags in this barn. But today the rags are full of baby mice. Dirty rags must produce mice through some chemical process we have yet to understand!"

We have life now. Glad you agree. So either life always existed, or it came from somewhere. If there is a 3rd possibility, i am all ears.
 
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?

Interesting question. I would pick Judaism. They believe there is a God, but they believe in less of the other stuff that I don't believe, e.g. sons of God or prophets.
 
Empirical fact? I've not heard that, what do you consider life?

I guess off the top of my head based on memory, a body composed of cells, ability to grow, to reproduce, to use energy, to metabolize food.
 
We have life now. Glad you agree. So either life always existed, or it came from somewhere. If there is a 3rd possibility, i am all ears.

Yes, either life always existed or it came from somewhere. It was your insistence that it had to have come from non-living matter via a chemical process that I took issue with.
 
Yes, either life always existed or it came from somewhere. It was your insistence that it had to have come from non-living matter via a chemical process that I took issue with.

Which part of that statement do you not think is obviously true? The part where it comes from non living matter? Or the conversion through a chemical process.
 
Back
Top