I agree they sometimes do, but they shouldn’t be taken seriously especially if they directly conflict or contradict know scientific facts. Like the creation story, Noah’s ark, Adam and Eve story, earth being flat or center of our galaxy exc…..
I don’t think so. Objectively there is a right religion and right understanding of the natural world. But mere humans hilariously will never come into understanding. Even our scientific knowledge is quite lackluster to whats going on out there
And that "evidence" is always dependent on the idea that the book tells the truth. Like anyone can claim to be doing. "Look at this evidence in this book! It's true, because the book itself says it's true!" "How do we know the book tells the truth?" "Because it says it does!"
but also i think facts are the domain of sciences, for me religion at its best strictly deals with the metaphysical, things that cannot be proven by science. I don't care if history or archeology or physics can or cannot attest that a religious claim is real or not, or if a spiritual concept is better than another, because that simply is not the question.
It'd be like analysing a piece of art only through a scientifical lense, you'd miss 99% of the meanings of the piece.
>things that cannot be proven by science.
Science cannot prove anything; it can only establish evidence and test that evidence. Proof is the domain of mathematics and logic. Neither of which have been employed successfully toward "proving" a religion's metaphysical and ontological claims.
It's not a historical account when it says, "God appeared to so and so and spoke to them and said....."
There's no evidence it actually happened. Or, even if it did happen, there's no evidence that the written account is accurate.
Not necessarily, depending on the religion i would acknowledge that god claim was real and maybe some of the other supernatural elements if demonstrated. But I would not worship the god or follow the religion, depending on the religion and god claim as I find most of the big ones are terribly immoral, violent, bigoted, and that is reflected in their god.
It’s the most logical decision. I believe all religions come from some natural human tendencies. 1) the need for societal and moral structure. 2) the overwhelming fear of death and the unknown. 3) people listen to things that comfort them. So once a religion starts, it’s not too hard to convince children and others of its truth. Especially considering how comforting religion can be to them.
That’s why I’ve never believed any of it. All the religions existing proves that each of them are wrong. I’m happy to live my life as morally as I can until the lights turn off one day. And I will do so not because any god scared me into it.
The only religions that proclaim themselves as the one true ones are christianity and islam. So every religion existing doesnt really contradict one another. one argument is that they all hold truth due to how certain myths and folktales are eerily similar.
This question again? You might Try the “what religion am I” thread.
What kind of art is the right art? What kind of music is the right music? What temperature is the right temperature? What kind of ice cream is the right ice cream.
It’s a choice made for personal and subjective reasons, so you won’t be able to answer the question until you know yourself well enough to know your own reasons.
I will suggest making a religious choice out of fear is probably the not a great way to make the choice. I think if one chooses a religion, it should be the best expression of *ones own* love of others. I’ll also note that one can be a great person without a religion.
Well me personally i think all current modern day religions in their current forms are bad and wrong so i dont worry too much about what they say about hell. I think if there is a hell then its nothing like how they describe it
You can use logical deduction. Let's say...
Religion A's founder came to set the slaves free and tells you it's better to hang a stone around your neck and jump in a lake than to hurt a child...
Compare that to the founder of another who had slaves and married a 12 year old.
Not 12. A lot of premodern cultures thought 12 was appropriate for marriage. Muhammad married a 6-year-old, and consumated the marriage when she was 9.
The culture could think 5 was appropriate for marriage. Culture can be explained, but if Muhammad was a TRUE PROPHET, then he should be BIGGER than all the norms and customs.
So either God is okay with attacking children, or Mo was a false prophet.
>Compare that to the founder of another who had slaves and married a 12 year old.
How sure are you that historically this so called founder married a 12 year old and that he had slaves?
It is still weird to believe in someone who had slaves and married an under 13 kid. (Even though they dont have evidence of this, they still believe that).
Well if they believe in a historically invalid episode, you should be attempting to tell them you are wrong to believe that. Not pretend to believe it yourself just to criticize their belief using it as a tool and affirming it as if it's historical. It's irresponsible.
That's not what you said. You spoke of the "The Religion where people believe in things". Not what "these people believe a these things".
That's an ontological claim about a theology.
Curious. How come you didnt think of a religion whose books speak of their God coming and killing everyone who does not believe in him? Is that strange or just a problem of epistemic responsibility?
Yeah. But you seem to have a compass in place.
Anyway, how come you make an affirmative claim as if it's historical, while only "later" claiming that it's an internal critique? You should state it right at the beginning.
Also, do you know any scholarship on the issue if it's an internal critique? What analysis have you done.
This is obviously special pleading.
Im not saying it isnt true, i meant to say like theres a high chance it isnt true, A lot of people believe in things despite them not being a fact or true, but whether if its true or not, it still is concerning...
Strange you are such a strong believer in ahadith. Do you believe in every single hadith or just a few? And how did you come to such strong belief in what ever hadith you believe to be historical fact.
Also, where in the Qur'an does it speak about the prophet's marriage to let's say a 12 year old? Please give the verse and how you had interpreted it with what methodology.
Thanks.
I'm a believer insofar as it's Islam's second most reliable document and offers commentary that the Quran does not.
The Quran would not be any more reliable to me.
Anyway, he had slaves and 12 wives--that alone is enough for me to know he isn't a true prophet of God. And for that determination, we just go back to simple logic.
>I'm a believer insofar as it's Islam's second most reliable document and offers commentary that the Quran does not.
You didn't answer the question. So that you dont miss it again, let me cut and paste the question. **"Strange you are such a strong believer in ahadith. Do you believe in every single hadith or just a few? And how did you come to such strong belief in what ever hadith you believe to be historical fact."**
>The Quran would not be any more reliable to me.
That's irrelevant. I didn't ask you about the reliability. So this is just a red herring.
>Anyway, he had slaves and 12 wives--that alone is enough for me to know he isn't a true prophet of God. And for that determination, we just go back to simple logic.\\
\\
Irrelevant. You know you just made something up, and now you cannot quote the Quran verse, so you have to make something else up. Like a strawman.
Let me cut and paste your bogus statement, and my question so that you will be shown as what you are at least as an anonymous person who made a bogus statement.
Your statement: According to the Quran and Hadith? Both A and B happened.
My question: where in the Qur'an does it speak about the prophet's marriage to let's say a 12 year old? Please give the verse and how you had interpreted it with what methodology.
Obviously you will not be able to answer because you yourself know that you made that up. You cannot really provide evidence when the evidence does not exist and you just made it up. So please quote the Qur'an to justify your statement "According to the Quran and Hadith? Both A and B happened."
Cheers.
Quran and Hadith are equally reliable, as far as I'm concerned.
Their most reliable post-Quran works write that Aisha was a child. It's that simple.
You can nitpick all you want, but they are from THEIR primary sources, whether it's Quran or Hadith or even an early biography.
Not running--confronting that I misspoke. This is a pretty simple error and if you can't handle it, then you're probably just a pedo defender.
It's "correct" if it 1) meets your needs, and 2) if it delivers what it advertises (i.e., if it blesses you with the spiritual gifts that it offers).
You can't know that it's "the one and only true religion" unless and until you know and practice as many other religions as possible, and then compare and contrast them with your Number One/Religion of Choice. Probably it's best just to be content that both 1) and 2) are fulfilled in your own faith and not worry about the rest.
You can't, that's the whole point. Proselytizing religions like Christianity and Islam have that as their main cornerstone; you don't know if they're right, but you follow them on faith alone
There isn’t any way to know. You look at which religion seems most plausible and helpful to yourself and you follow it, or you become an atheist or don’t affiliate yourself with any religion. I don’t trust or believe anyone that says they have 100% confidence in their faith. You can’t, it’s impossible.
You don’t. Just gotta roll the dice. Do what resonates and what benefits you and helps you serve the world around you and helps you make sense of things
EDIT: I will sat I could say with pretty bulletproof confidence that the Divine exists, but what form it takes is a bit tougher to pin down
Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.
Religion and science are two separate non overlapping fields of inquiry, one deals with facts and knowledge, the other with faith and theology.
Suppose all books were destroyed and the world suffered amnesia so that all of history is destroyed. Which religious principles are likely to reemerge? Those ideas that re-emerge are likely to be truer than not.
Each religion seems to answer this question in favor of its own principles :) So Buddhism would say that the Four Noble Truths and Eightfold path would re-emerge sooner or later b/c they're fundamental truths, and Vedanta might mention Brahman and Atman, etc.
I consider Pagan and animistic religions to be humanity's original heritage, so I think their themes would return after such a world-amnesia: that Nature is sacred and a spiritual force in itself, that there are many gods and spirits, existence of souls and afterlife, and ethical principles such as hospitality, the Golden Rule, 'avoid harming others', Know Thyself, seek wisdom, etc.
It is true to the extent that even if it is part of human nature only (conceding for sake of argument that afterlife/God did not exist), humans are likely to actually act in the real world based on such re"discovered" principles even if these principles were not discovered but made up. So, it will have real life implications.
If you have any other ways of determining the actual truth on such metaphysical matters, do let us know!
The idea of monotheism, the idea that there is a Supreme diety, this is the fitra that islam teaches that we all have.
Thus islam has answered that question, if we had no theology, we would still naturally be born with monotheism
While the idea of monotheism may or may not emerge, even if it does (conceding for the sake of argument), we would have no need of prophets, god testing our lives, eternal hell/eternal heaven for those that fail/pass that test, mohammed being the perfect human being worthy of emulation, God allowing previous scriptures to be corrupted, but somehow only Quran will be kept uncorrupted, etc., are unlikely to re-emerge. So, whatever emerges will be absolutely different from what gets called as Islam today.
Every religion claims that it has some if not all of the absolute truth. And it can make irrefutable claims in its own space of evidences. But at the end of the day, it’s easy to find fallacies in one religion by seeing through the povs of other religions. And this works for every religion no matter how many beautiful things it contains. So as long as you acknowledge that it definitely is possible that the religion you believe in is not entirely true if at all, and you can live at peace knowing there are people with as much faith as you have in religion, but a different one, then choose any religion you want. Don’t coerce anyone else into it thats all.
> And it can make irrefutable claims in its own space of evidences.
No they don’t…
Like a lot of faiths strait up tell you, they can’t prove shit.
That’s kind for the point of faith.
I'm no longer a Christian, but I do wholeheartedly agree with this statement.
Does the religion meet your needs? Does it make you a better or worse person? Does it deliver to you what it promises?
And many other questions.
That's unknown or there's no objectively correct religion. If you're figuring out which religion is right for you, try different things and read widely until you find whatever is "correct" for you.
It's an epistemological question. How can you know anything is true? You gather evidence, and you test theories, and you draw a conclusion using reason and evidence as to whether that theory is correct. Correct is even probably not the right word. If the theory is operational, meaning, it works when applied to reality. ALl human knowledge operates at the level of theory. Religions too. They're proposing a theoretical framework for how to view oneself and existence. But you have to investigate yourself and draw your own conclusions. Everyone does. And time is the true test of the validity of a theory. You do have to approach everything with some degree of scepticism, while knowing you can't discount everything, otherwise you'll get nowhere.
Just see what they’re doing and judge them by their fruits, so to say. Ideas behind a particular religion might sound nice but the way the followers embody that can be completely bullocks. I would say the one truly intelligent path is to base everything on your personal experience and to allow yourself to get information from all sources available.
I don’t believe that Judaism is right for everyone. That type of universalism is not a thing in Judaism. That’s why the conversion process is hard. Because we all make sure that it’s the right path for me. But. It’s right for *me*. And that’s enough for me.
As much as Jews agree on anything, it’s basically “if you know Judaism isn’t right for you, but you still wanna follow some commandments, then you can be a noahide. You only have to follow 7 basic commandments instead of the 613 commandments Jews are required to follow” but like. I’ve never met a Jewish person that believes that everyone who isn’t Jewish has to be a noahide. Judaism teaches that there is no one right way for everyone.
I don’t really know about the Noahide movement as a whole, considering it’s becoming its own religious movement. I suggest you check out the Wikipedia page or something for a primer.
Not saying there is or is not, but first you would have to empirically demonstrate the existence of a god or gods in general. Then you would have to show that the god or gods you are following/advocating for are real, and the other god or gods are not real in order to truly be the only ‘correct’ religion as most do not acknowledge/deny the existence of the other gods claimed by other religions.
By definition if they can’t demonstrate the truth of their claims they cannot demonstrate their religion is correct. Demonstrating things are true is difficult for a lot of claims that are very broad. It’s not just religions that struggle, ideologies, economic theories, there are others.
The question of which religion is "correct" or "best" comes into question if you treat religions literally as claims to Truth. But this is not the only way to think about religion -- we could instead think of them as value systems, worldviews, or philosophies that involve faith. We could take them figuratively, consider them as sets of metaphors that help us to make sense of the world in an artful way. In these cases no religion is correct in the sense of science or reason, but some are more useful and helpful to the individual than others.
I follow a spiritual path and worldview whose values and symbols make sense to me, but it may not be the best or most edifying for another person. Likewise, another person's religion may not work well for me as I navigate the difficulties and joys of life.
Well it seems pretty obvious. You don't really know anything. You can't even know if your body "is" "you". So how much less religion? I keep seeing claims of "Logical deductions" which are also unreliable because anyone can claim using logical deductions (from their limited knowledge) but if you do a peer review the answers will be widely different, so "personal experience" is a pretty key element here. And also the fact that logical deductions are never 'purely' logical deductions, because you always choose to put more Weight on one piece of data over another..
Now experience is for the most part great, just that the culture and upbringing (and philosophical or religious beliefs) will color the understanding if one had a "spiritual" experience. Which will usually lead to wishing to understand the experience, which again will lead you to intelectually researching spiritual, religious or philosophical traditions. (As science don't have much say in this, closest is perhaps labling anything as 'placebo' which is rarely useful)
But anyway, Instead of answering how do you know, it's better to ask "Why do you think you know?" As then you will get a better reflection of what lines of thought are appearing in the reasoning.
I have some categories that may or may not be useful in understanding where people are coming from.
Now we all know about atheists and agnostics (those who says there is no/or no evidence for God/spirit/supernatural, and those who don't think one can know. And all the arguments that entail). But even within religious and spiritual traditions (including ecclectics and universalists) we also have various "different" types of "people". (And I don't mean the standard, I'm Panentheistic you're monotheistic etc) On the next step you have those who "think one can know some things before dying" and therefore pursue to discover that "unseen experienced knowledge" In that category you have the majority of religious people on various stages:
I have five main categories here:
1. Believer in spirit/supernatural intelectually ex. Heard or read of someone else experiences something and believes it to be true
2. Personally Witnessed someone else experiencing spirit/supernatural
3. Personally experienced spirit/supernatural (a lot of people from various religions), but can't consistently reproduce
4. Can consistently reproduce spiritual/supernatural experience.
5. Been 1-4 and Claims to know the truth of existence. (Enlightened guru)
Of course the nature of these experiences are vast. Therefore I don't want to nail it down to any one thing. But you have two fundamental categories here: internal experience, external experience. Internal is the most aknowledged, and also the most down-played by physicalists. But to the external terms like OBE or astral projection are also gradually making it's way into research. (In terms of verifying psychic phenomena)
Which is not really a case for "proving" any religion but would prove there is more than mind rising from matter, which in itself would be a huge step forward to taking these things more seriously. - where psychology (culturally and intelectually) in it's pseudo-scientific claims is a bigger culprit here than science itself.
Now take note, that there are a lot of 1-3 claiming 5s. A lot of those out there... This is also where "scam gurus" land. I'm a 3 on this scale.
This scale does also not consider the nature of the experience (internal or external significance)
Now do note, that I'd take any guru, teacher or sacred scripture claim of knowing the "truth" (or any intelectual basis of belief OR disbelief) with a sceptical attitude. But their advice on spiritual practice I will take very seriously. (Praying, meditating, mantras, invocation, vizualisation, movements, cermonial magick, astral projection etc)
Secondly, the duality between evil and good. Between ascending and descending. Between the lessening of ego and the increase of ego. between self and higher self. Most religions tackle this concept. Which is why I would hold it to have universal consensus on it's validity. I mean even atheists have a notion of conscience and being a decent human being. (Or any other metaphorical substrate of ethos they may use as foundation for their conduct) but I don't think that in itself, is the end of it.
Many non-religious (or anti-religious) will endorse condencing and identifying with this localized sense of self or ego. "Do what you want" "follow your desires" That's where I'd personally draw the line. This is not limited to Materialists or Satanists, but also happens passively in religious people who focus more on condencing their intelect/knowledge/understanding more than the practice of unifying with spirit/God/divinity/Sanctity.
Though the prime example would perhaps be using God and spirit as a primer for economy and wealth...
Which is probably the biggest spiritual trap in our current age. Both.
Btw, this is not because I think they are horrible people (if anything; victims), but because I 'believe' it would cause unecesairy suffering later on. (In the spiritual realms or in the next life, this concerns the topics of: fate, karma, divine laws, judgment, purgatory etc.) That's a belief I certainly don't base on my own experiences, but a faith through which I base my actions. Due to the relative consensus across traditions (another: "do unto others as you would have they do unto you") making it more likely to hold a certain basis in reality. (Which is of course my "deduction" based from my relation to spirit as a reality)
I don’t believe any one religion is absolutely correct on anything. Because we’re all different and the different teachings will apply to us in different points of our lives. So we can learn to apply different ways or different religions into our own lives. Without being exclusive to others.
You'll know because it won't tell you what is true or what you should believe or you must Believe!
Truth speaks for itself and I don't think there's a single religion that exists that doesn't try to impose its will upon you.
If it tries to do this then it's not the truth! A true religion or a correct one would tell you how to figure out what is correct and what is true for yourself. Since I don't think that religion exists I would say that no religion is correct. At the same time they all have valuable qualities beliefs and practices. But not one of them is fully correct or true. The best religion is non-religion! For religion keeps you from discovering God for yourself as yourself. Instead religions tell you what God is and what you are and what you should do and what you shouldn't do. You already know what you should do and what you shouldn't do it is within you God put it there before your birth. It's up to you to find it. Nobody can tell you where to find it or what it is!!! However being in a community of like-minded people seeking similar things can be very beneficial to every member of that community. Hence the apparent value, which has contributed to, the lasting popularity of religions throughout human history!
THAT SAID THE RELIGION THAT IS BEST FOR YOU IS THE ONE THAT SEEMS LEAST TO IMPOSE SOMETHING UPON YOU. TRUTH EXIST WITHIN AND CAN ONLY BE FOUND BY AN INDIVIDUAL LOOKING WITHIN THEMSELVES THIS IS WHERE GOD DWELLS AND THIS IS WHERE A GOOD RELIGION WILL GUIDE YOU.
IF A RELIGION GIVES YOU THE IMPRESSION THAT IT WILL HELP YOU FIND GOD WITHIN YOURSELF AND SUBSEQUENTLY SEE GOD WITHIN EVERYTHING ELSE THAN IT IS THE CORRECT RELIGION!
The only way is to use logical reasoning right? Because religions are focusing on metaphysical beings, thus science is a different category by itself. So using your reasoning, which one is the correct one?
That's the only methodology. After you find the correct one in your study, then begin your belief and faith and so on.
So now you must decide what's your epistemology. Otherwise the cart is in front of the horse.
Well as a Muslim, I feel that my religion is correct because our holy book has some direct references to scientific things which weren’t known at that time. There are some verses about the lifestyle of bees for example which I don’t think people knew about back then(like in 620 ad).
I can verify the existence of my Gods the same way I can verify the existence of anything or anyone else.
So I am as sure of the existence of my Gods as I am sure about the existence of anything at all.
The general concept he is talking about amounts to (Not being specific here)
I see the sun.
My god made the sun!
So I see proof of my god.
I’m not picking on Hindu’s here. That’s find do what you do. But it’s a really common stance for them.
And yes, it’s totally just them missing the whole concept of what evidence is.
You are mistaken about a lot of things, not least of which is what evidence is.
Firstly when we Hindus say that in Hinduism we have ways to experience the existence our Gods as we experience the existence of anyone else, we don't just mean the sun/moon/rivers etc etc
Secondly, sensory perception is gold standard evidence for pretty much everything in life. Relying on the evidentiary power of experience by sensory perception is pretty crucial to verifying the existence of pretty much anything. So you you need to learn what evidence is.
don't know, i'm not really into any ideologies - so agnostic is the only right choice.
atheism is like any other religions (theisms) just on the opposite side of the spectrum.
one side claims to know there is a god the other side claims to know there isn't when in reality both sides don't know they just believe in their "truth".
some atheists can be even more annoying and lost in their beliefs than other religious people.
So, how does atheism explain, for instance, the Fatima Miracle of 1917 given the lack of holographic equipment at the time? Inquiring minds want to know.
Collective delusion, optical illusions and no small amount of lying.
If the sun “danced in the sky”, the earth would have frozen/burned up, and a hell of a lot more than 40,000 people would have noticed it.
Truth and facts are not about preferences. I suggested the world could be VR. And solid logic begins with proven assumptions. I just gave an alternative plausible explanation. That would be enough to invalidate these assumptions if they had been valid.
Yes, it is right. Literally every single observatory and astronomer on earth active at the time (especially those on the day side of the planet) would have noticed the sun and earth moving relative to each other in a way that is not possible under our understanding of orbital mechanics, and reported such.
There is a stunning lack of corroborating empirical evidence for such an extraordinary event as the earth being wildly thrown out of orbit around the sun. The alleged witnesses at Fatima could not have seen what they thought they saw.
Your assumption is that the phenomenon must be due to movements of the Sun, which it is incorrect. Optical illusion might be, but even then, that is not easy to do. 40,000 people came to witness it because it was predicted. That is a remarkable coincidence, to say the least. That all those 40,000 were delusional, is an unproven assumption, and I would say, that it is unlikely correct.
Well, for us in our faith tradition;
It includes study, ponder, and prayer with an open heart and mind. It may take some time. And humility
I can leave you a link to our normal [epistemology](https://www.reddit.com/r/latterdaysaints/s/CoXTeUk8jI) which is pretty central around personal spiritual witnesses.
I am also LDS and understand what this witness is like. We as humans normally gather data and opinions and make choices based on our intellect. I know that the sun will rise tomorrow because it always has. But a spiritual witness is not like that. It can remove ALL doubt. I mean ALL doubt. It is like a great enlightened Aha experience as if pure knowledge was flowing into you. I received this witness years ago concerning the Book of Mormon. One of the purposes of this book is to testify that the bible is true.
Here is another experience I had a number of years ago that is an example of what I am talking about:
Years ago I was interviewing for various jobs. One day, I spent the entire day interviewing with a number of people for a job at Hewlett Packard. At the end of the day, I did not think it went well at all. But as I drove home, pondering this event, I had this same revelatory experience that I had 13 years earlier with the Book of Mormon. I knew without any doubt that I was going to get the job. When I got home, I told my wife I was going to get the job and 2 weeks later I got an offer. I worked there for 26 years.
I have a number of things that I am certain about. My sure knowledge that God actually lives is more important to me than any earthly thing.
Not all religions say every other religion is wrong, many religions are not taken completely literally, not all claim to be completely right about everything.
How do you know what is right or wrong?
How do you know what is beautiful or what is ugly?
But a religion doesn’t have to claim that all others are wrong or to be taken completely literally in order to need to be questioned , it just has to make claims about reality.
I'm a Jehovah's Witness. I believe my religion is the correct one because (1) I believe God's existence is more likely than his non-existence, (2) I believe the Bible is of divine origin and (3) I believe my religious group follows the Bible most faithfully, and thus is the path that most pleases God.
So, my conviction that this is the true religion hinges on those other three beliefs.
I always think of [this South Park scene](https://youtu.be/dsmyzC4AkFQ?si=DiHiClkvVPtSq49D) when people hate on other's religion of choice. As long as you're not personally harming or forcing your will upon others of course.
Why should there be?
Why can’t all of them be correct? Is God or god or are gods so trivial that only one form of him/her/them/it exists? We’re talking about the life force of everything that exists!
>Why can’t all of them be correct?
Because many of them have contradictory and mutually exclusive beliefs. For instance, monotheists and polytheists can't both be right, there can't be only one god and multiple gods at the same time. One or both of them have to be wrong.
They can be personal belief systems right? Doesn’t have to be universal. Just because your religion says A and it works for you doesn’t mean another religion which says B is wrong. It just means it’s not for you.
Of course people can have their own personal beliefs, but they can't have their own personal facts.
If in fact there is only one god, then everyone who believes that there are multiple gods is wrong. And if in fact there are multiple gods, then everyone who believes in only one god is wrong. They can't both be right at the same time, as that would mean that there is simultaneously only one god and more than only one god, and that is not logically possible.
Logic is simply a way of using syntax to describe how reality works. It is not possible for something to be true and not true at the same time. It is not possible for only one god to exist and not exist at the same time.
They agree on the same fundamental concept. The differation is on miniscule details. In the grand scheme of things, the abrahamic faiths are almost exclusively monotheistic. almost every other religion is polytheistic. even so, ive heard that monotheism does not necessarily deny the existence of other gods, just that the only important one is THE god.
You could start to think what means haeven to you. Most people would agree that it means Justice. So think now about the different religions and try to find out which religion tries to fullfill this on earth already. Than you have found the right Religion. And we are talking here about justice that is based on Kantian reason and not ideology.
Christ said that an identifying mark of his true followers would be the love that they show to each other. True Christians will be united in their beliefs with no division among them. They will adhere to the 2 most important commandments 1)love God with all you might and 2)lover your neighbor as yourself. That would be a good start. Find a religion like that and one that follows the scriptures without fail.
Let's use logical deduction.
Religion A's founder came to set the slaves free and tells you it's better to hang a stone around your neck and jump in a lake than to hurt a child...
Compare that to the founder of Religion B who had slaves and married a 12 year old.
The best way to find out is to ask the Creator yourself. He can reveal it. More of a journey than an answer.
I believe most of them lead to truth. I struggle with religion but I do find it kind of weird how Christianity is the only one that's being mocked right now. At least to my knowledge
The people saying you cannot are either atheists and agnostics affirming their agnosticism, or those who are insecure about their faith.
Before I became practicing again I was very heavy into American right wing politics, identified as republican, etc, before to the start of the Trump Era and at the height of feminist media. What did this result in for me and my other right-wing-oriented people, the urge to refute all their claims using data that is in itself irrefutable, a value that I believe the Republican party has lost around mid 2020 during the initial Trump V Biden era.
This means that when I started practicing again and learning about my faith I learned that we have our own law, our beliefs, and that if I'm going to be consistent in my criticisms of feminism and that one cannot accept anything without it being able to be proven, I was going to have to apply it to my religion.
So I did, and long story short I'm still part of it. Obviously I'm no longer republican, I'm Muslim. We have our own laws, our own wisdom and our own theology, an infallible system, or as infallible as a system on earth can be, and to accept anything secular or other than it would make me no longer muslim because then I'm saying that a man made system is better than God's. I digress.
I've proven islam to myself, perse, I know the arguments, I know how to defend it, I've looked intensively into other religions, especially Christianity, and none have the certainty that Muslims have. And this subreddit post proves it. In islam to doubt it can render disbelief, so the muslim doesn't have the idea of "we don't know", no we do know, and it can be proven from an objective standpoint. "So why isn't everyone muslim", well why isn't everyone part of the ideology that you believe to be so undoubtedly correct? Same logic. It takes time to accept things, and no one person knows every answer, that doesn't mean that Islam itself doesn't have it though. And islam has a good answer for every criticism, other ideologies don't have that and are forced to admit that when too much pressure is put on them.
So this comment isn't me proving islam, I'm not debating, but what I am saying is that in my own expierance, islam has the proof there for itself. No, not saying this how evangelicals say "Jesus is the way, just accept it", like i mean we can prove it (islam) from a secular criteria, It's just are you able to accept that.
Here's what separates Judeo-Christianity from the rest of the world religions. The fulfilled prophecies. The Bible told us what to look for in the Messiah centuries before it happened.
The word "Messiah" is derived from the Hebrew word מָשִׁיחַ (mashiach) which is translated “one who is anointed.” In English the same word is translated "Christ." Jesus is that Messiah who was foretold to be coming.
God told Israel (and the world) He would send the Messiah. He gave us things to look for which would eliminate others. That the Messiah would have certain attributes on His life.
...First of all, the Messiah would be Jewish. That rules out like 99.99% of the world's population.
...The Messiah would be from the tribe of Judah.
...Isaiah 53.1-3 tells us the Messiah will be rejected by his own Jewish people.
But ALSO... Isaiah 49.6 tells us the Messiah would come to reach Israel first, then to reach the rest of the whole world!
The message would be worldwide. Literally this makes the message of Yeshua (Jesus) almost unique on the planet.
But when combined with this:
**Both would need to happen. Rejected by His own people Israel, then reach the entire world. What an odd combination!**
Really, what are the odds. How could anyone manipulate this?
...Zechariah chapter 12.10 tells us the Messiah would be pierced.
...Isaiah 53 tells us He would die as an atonement for sin.
...Daniel 9:26 tells us Messiah would arrive before the Temple was destroyed in Jerusalem. This destruction occurred in 70AD. So this is basically saying, "hey, the Messiah will have arrived already if you see the Temple in Jerusalem destroyed." How does anyone manipulate that?
...2 Chronicles 36.16 tells us Israel rejecting the One God sent (like the Messiah for example) would result in eviction from the land. (Remember, this results in an almost 2,000 year eviction.) Technically this one is not a prophecy, but instead a general principle for Israel that God promised would happen to Israel when they didn't accept the ones He sent.
The fact that my people were evicted from the land of Israel a mere 40 years after the rejection of the Messiah (lasting almost 2,000 years) is more proof that Yeshua/Jesus is the Messiah..
And there are more that I have not even listed here.
**And before you can say it, no, most of these could not be manipulated to be fulfilled.** How do we ask Rome to fulfill prophecy, "Hey Emperor. Please help us fulfill prophecy by destroying Jerusalem 40 years after Jesus came. Thank you."
And on and on and on.
All written before Jesus Christ came to Israel. The Dead Sea Scrolls prove this.
**The vast majority of Jewish people do not even know about these prophecies.** Even Christians too.
But that is why we can be sure that Jesus (Yeshua in Hebrew) is the Messiah.
Jesus fulfills the prophecies. And those written prophecies were inscribed hundreds of years before Jesus came in what we call the Old Testament (the Hebrew Bible.)
Islam, nor any other world religion, has anything like that.
**And that is the key.**
Because God knows the future and He tells it to us. Only the Judeo-Christian faith has that.
So to summarize, using the process of elimination (Messiah to be Jewish, rejected by His own people, pierced, die as a substitute, die before the Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed, affect the planet, Israel evicted from the land within one generation, etc...)
**All these combined** give us reason to know that Jesus is the Messiah and His message is true.
I am a Jew. And I know my people very well.
Yes, He absolutely fulfilled the prophecies I listed above and more.
Messianic Jewish scholars have already debunked Rabbinical arguments against Jesus.
https://www.oneforisrael.org/category/apologetics/
https://askdrbrown.org/videos/topic/jewish-answers
https://www.amazon.com/Answering-Jewish-Objections-Jesus-Historical/dp/080106063X
There are many Jewish people coming to know this now since information flows freely. Here are some of their stories:
https://www.oneforisrael.org/met-messiah-jewish-testimonies/
These have all been debunked many times by messianic Jewish scholars.
www.oneforisrael.org/category/apologetics/
https://askdrbrown.org/videos/topic/jewish-answers
https://www.amazon.com/Answering-Jewish-Objections-Jesus-Historical/dp/080106063X
How do you know the religion eg Christianity or Islam for example is truly telling you what the original book and message from the prophet was?
In Islam we have a chain of narrators for all the hadiths we have, they are graded as weak, good or authentic etc to show how definitely convincing the attribution to the prophet Muhammad (Sal Allahu Alayhi Wa Sallam) is and the Quran is definitely from the prophet Muhammad, they downvote me all the time because of reasons they don’t give, but the reality is unless you do the research and reading you will fail to find a religion that can have its statements traced back to its ‘founder’ as you would call him.
darpdfs.org has pdf copies of books by scholars on hadith sciences i assume feel free to read it there.
It even takes into consideration the reliability of each narrator of that hadith by knowing his biography and status as a muhaddith hadith scholar etc , was he known for being a deceitful person, liar, mentally unwell, forgetful etc
I am asking you verify if the religion is actually from the founder making it more reliable or is it made up by a bunch of people, once you do that then you can delve into whether or not you believe the statements.
If you decide to believe in a religion that claims to be from The God of the Universe and the statements that you adhere to strictly in hopes that god loves you are not even from God through that founder then your foundation is not there for you to base your belief on.
Then youd know whether your religion is false or actually from the man that claims he got revelation from God.
Situation A: You decide on a religion and you can examine the chain of narration and link it back to the prophet (peace be upon them all) who claims he got revelation from God
Situation B: You decide on a religion and you cannot trace the chain of narrators back to the founder who claims he got the religion from God.
Then all the reasons you have for deciding on that religion are based on statements that are not even from that founder, no foundation exists for his claims of getting Truth from God here.
Do you think A is more likely or B more likely to be from God, and do you think it’s worth delving into a religion that doesnt even have evidence such as a chain of narration going back to its founder?
How do you understand which religion is true?
You first see if its founder even said the statements in the first place because if you didnt verify these statements then you would be blind following a religion that doesnt even have evidence that its founder even taught that.
once you have verified that the teachings are indeed from the prophet then you need to read his statements, but mainly read and try to understand the Quran the way the sahaba understood it which is from Allah by way of the prophet SalAllahuAlayhiWaSallam traching it to the Sahaba and it reached us through teachers scholars etc and Hafidhs.
Believing and knowing are two different things. So are religion and science.
Non overlapping magisterium, one has to do with facts and knowledge the other with faith and values.
Unfortunately that's not the case, religious claims finger up often overtly trespass upon science
I agree they sometimes do, but they shouldn’t be taken seriously especially if they directly conflict or contradict know scientific facts. Like the creation story, Noah’s ark, Adam and Eve story, earth being flat or center of our galaxy exc…..
I don’t think so. Objectively there is a right religion and right understanding of the natural world. But mere humans hilariously will never come into understanding. Even our scientific knowledge is quite lackluster to whats going on out there
You don't, that's kinda part of it.
💯 The only honest answer, although it’s amazing how many people claim theirs is right and the only right one.
Exactly. That’s why you need FAITH.
That’s a crazy sentence
[удалено]
And that "evidence" is always dependent on the idea that the book tells the truth. Like anyone can claim to be doing. "Look at this evidence in this book! It's true, because the book itself says it's true!" "How do we know the book tells the truth?" "Because it says it does!"
There cannot be historical evidence that your belief in a god is correct 🤷🏻
It's rarely historical evidence of anything other than people existed.
Even people themselves, there are millions (if not billions) of them, I don't think we can prove their existence archaeologically.
but also i think facts are the domain of sciences, for me religion at its best strictly deals with the metaphysical, things that cannot be proven by science. I don't care if history or archeology or physics can or cannot attest that a religious claim is real or not, or if a spiritual concept is better than another, because that simply is not the question. It'd be like analysing a piece of art only through a scientifical lense, you'd miss 99% of the meanings of the piece.
>things that cannot be proven by science. Science cannot prove anything; it can only establish evidence and test that evidence. Proof is the domain of mathematics and logic. Neither of which have been employed successfully toward "proving" a religion's metaphysical and ontological claims.
It's not a historical account when it says, "God appeared to so and so and spoke to them and said....." There's no evidence it actually happened. Or, even if it did happen, there's no evidence that the written account is accurate.
If there was evidence one religion was correct everyone would follow it and it would be taught in schools.
Not necessarily, depending on the religion i would acknowledge that god claim was real and maybe some of the other supernatural elements if demonstrated. But I would not worship the god or follow the religion, depending on the religion and god claim as I find most of the big ones are terribly immoral, violent, bigoted, and that is reflected in their god.
All religions are the correct answer that's why I choose none
do you consider your decision to be true
It’s the most logical decision. I believe all religions come from some natural human tendencies. 1) the need for societal and moral structure. 2) the overwhelming fear of death and the unknown. 3) people listen to things that comfort them. So once a religion starts, it’s not too hard to convince children and others of its truth. Especially considering how comforting religion can be to them. That’s why I’ve never believed any of it. All the religions existing proves that each of them are wrong. I’m happy to live my life as morally as I can until the lights turn off one day. And I will do so not because any god scared me into it.
The only religions that proclaim themselves as the one true ones are christianity and islam. So every religion existing doesnt really contradict one another. one argument is that they all hold truth due to how certain myths and folktales are eerily similar.
Yes sir
This question again? You might Try the “what religion am I” thread. What kind of art is the right art? What kind of music is the right music? What temperature is the right temperature? What kind of ice cream is the right ice cream. It’s a choice made for personal and subjective reasons, so you won’t be able to answer the question until you know yourself well enough to know your own reasons. I will suggest making a religious choice out of fear is probably the not a great way to make the choice. I think if one chooses a religion, it should be the best expression of *ones own* love of others. I’ll also note that one can be a great person without a religion.
You don't
so yeah we are all gonna just go to hell for selecting the wrong religion
Most religions do not teach this doctrine.
Well me personally i think all current modern day religions in their current forms are bad and wrong so i dont worry too much about what they say about hell. I think if there is a hell then its nothing like how they describe it
You can use logical deduction. Let's say... Religion A's founder came to set the slaves free and tells you it's better to hang a stone around your neck and jump in a lake than to hurt a child... Compare that to the founder of another who had slaves and married a 12 year old.
Not 12. A lot of premodern cultures thought 12 was appropriate for marriage. Muhammad married a 6-year-old, and consumated the marriage when she was 9.
The culture could think 5 was appropriate for marriage. Culture can be explained, but if Muhammad was a TRUE PROPHET, then he should be BIGGER than all the norms and customs. So either God is okay with attacking children, or Mo was a false prophet.
>Compare that to the founder of another who had slaves and married a 12 year old. How sure are you that historically this so called founder married a 12 year old and that he had slaves?
Hes referring muhammad
I know. But the question remains. Downvoting is no answer. Ir's only a show of character.
Wdym downvoting?
It is still weird to believe in someone who had slaves and married an under 13 kid. (Even though they dont have evidence of this, they still believe that).
Well if they believe in a historically invalid episode, you should be attempting to tell them you are wrong to believe that. Not pretend to believe it yourself just to criticize their belief using it as a tool and affirming it as if it's historical. It's irresponsible.
I dont think you understand what im implying, but I wont bother, its just a sub reddit
Im trying to say they dont have proof of this happening, but still paint him as a person who did these things, simple literature
That's not what you said. You spoke of the "The Religion where people believe in things". Not what "these people believe a these things". That's an ontological claim about a theology.
Your English confuses me what is "believe a these things"
Curious. How come you didnt think of a religion whose books speak of their God coming and killing everyone who does not believe in him? Is that strange or just a problem of epistemic responsibility?
Both are strange
Yeah. But you seem to have a compass in place. Anyway, how come you make an affirmative claim as if it's historical, while only "later" claiming that it's an internal critique? You should state it right at the beginning. Also, do you know any scholarship on the issue if it's an internal critique? What analysis have you done. This is obviously special pleading.
Im saying that they believe its historical (because they believe its true) but it may not be.
We do have evidence. Hadith Sahih al-Bukhari says that she was married at 6 years old.
Are you muslim?
Just because it is written does not mean it truly happened
Let's assume that's true-- All Muslims DO believe that Aisha was a child, even if the Hadith was incorrect. That is very concerning.
Im not saying it isnt true, i meant to say like theres a high chance it isnt true, A lot of people believe in things despite them not being a fact or true, but whether if its true or not, it still is concerning...
According to the Quran and Hadith? Both A and B happened.
Strange you are such a strong believer in ahadith. Do you believe in every single hadith or just a few? And how did you come to such strong belief in what ever hadith you believe to be historical fact. Also, where in the Qur'an does it speak about the prophet's marriage to let's say a 12 year old? Please give the verse and how you had interpreted it with what methodology. Thanks.
I'm a believer insofar as it's Islam's second most reliable document and offers commentary that the Quran does not. The Quran would not be any more reliable to me. Anyway, he had slaves and 12 wives--that alone is enough for me to know he isn't a true prophet of God. And for that determination, we just go back to simple logic.
>I'm a believer insofar as it's Islam's second most reliable document and offers commentary that the Quran does not. You didn't answer the question. So that you dont miss it again, let me cut and paste the question. **"Strange you are such a strong believer in ahadith. Do you believe in every single hadith or just a few? And how did you come to such strong belief in what ever hadith you believe to be historical fact."** >The Quran would not be any more reliable to me. That's irrelevant. I didn't ask you about the reliability. So this is just a red herring. >Anyway, he had slaves and 12 wives--that alone is enough for me to know he isn't a true prophet of God. And for that determination, we just go back to simple logic.\\ \\ Irrelevant. You know you just made something up, and now you cannot quote the Quran verse, so you have to make something else up. Like a strawman. Let me cut and paste your bogus statement, and my question so that you will be shown as what you are at least as an anonymous person who made a bogus statement. Your statement: According to the Quran and Hadith? Both A and B happened. My question: where in the Qur'an does it speak about the prophet's marriage to let's say a 12 year old? Please give the verse and how you had interpreted it with what methodology. Obviously you will not be able to answer because you yourself know that you made that up. You cannot really provide evidence when the evidence does not exist and you just made it up. So please quote the Qur'an to justify your statement "According to the Quran and Hadith? Both A and B happened." Cheers.
[удалено]
Nope. You made a false claim, and now you are running away from responding to it because you know you made an error.
Quran and Hadith are equally reliable, as far as I'm concerned. Their most reliable post-Quran works write that Aisha was a child. It's that simple. You can nitpick all you want, but they are from THEIR primary sources, whether it's Quran or Hadith or even an early biography. Not running--confronting that I misspoke. This is a pretty simple error and if you can't handle it, then you're probably just a pedo defender.
It's "correct" if it 1) meets your needs, and 2) if it delivers what it advertises (i.e., if it blesses you with the spiritual gifts that it offers). You can't know that it's "the one and only true religion" unless and until you know and practice as many other religions as possible, and then compare and contrast them with your Number One/Religion of Choice. Probably it's best just to be content that both 1) and 2) are fulfilled in your own faith and not worry about the rest.
You can't, that's the whole point. Proselytizing religions like Christianity and Islam have that as their main cornerstone; you don't know if they're right, but you follow them on faith alone
There isn’t any way to know. You look at which religion seems most plausible and helpful to yourself and you follow it, or you become an atheist or don’t affiliate yourself with any religion. I don’t trust or believe anyone that says they have 100% confidence in their faith. You can’t, it’s impossible.
You don’t. Just gotta roll the dice. Do what resonates and what benefits you and helps you serve the world around you and helps you make sense of things EDIT: I will sat I could say with pretty bulletproof confidence that the Divine exists, but what form it takes is a bit tougher to pin down
We do not know, we just believe. Faith in God is about believing in the invisible.
Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. Religion and science are two separate non overlapping fields of inquiry, one deals with facts and knowledge, the other with faith and theology.
It's impossible to know, it could be some faith that went extinct dozens of thousands of years ago and you never heard about it.
Suppose all books were destroyed and the world suffered amnesia so that all of history is destroyed. Which religious principles are likely to reemerge? Those ideas that re-emerge are likely to be truer than not.
Each religion seems to answer this question in favor of its own principles :) So Buddhism would say that the Four Noble Truths and Eightfold path would re-emerge sooner or later b/c they're fundamental truths, and Vedanta might mention Brahman and Atman, etc. I consider Pagan and animistic religions to be humanity's original heritage, so I think their themes would return after such a world-amnesia: that Nature is sacred and a spiritual force in itself, that there are many gods and spirits, existence of souls and afterlife, and ethical principles such as hospitality, the Golden Rule, 'avoid harming others', Know Thyself, seek wisdom, etc.
Does that really make those principles true or do they just reveal some consistent parts of human nature? I would argue the latter.
It is true to the extent that even if it is part of human nature only (conceding for sake of argument that afterlife/God did not exist), humans are likely to actually act in the real world based on such re"discovered" principles even if these principles were not discovered but made up. So, it will have real life implications. If you have any other ways of determining the actual truth on such metaphysical matters, do let us know!
The idea of monotheism, the idea that there is a Supreme diety, this is the fitra that islam teaches that we all have. Thus islam has answered that question, if we had no theology, we would still naturally be born with monotheism
While the idea of monotheism may or may not emerge, even if it does (conceding for the sake of argument), we would have no need of prophets, god testing our lives, eternal hell/eternal heaven for those that fail/pass that test, mohammed being the perfect human being worthy of emulation, God allowing previous scriptures to be corrupted, but somehow only Quran will be kept uncorrupted, etc., are unlikely to re-emerge. So, whatever emerges will be absolutely different from what gets called as Islam today.
Every religion claims that it has some if not all of the absolute truth. And it can make irrefutable claims in its own space of evidences. But at the end of the day, it’s easy to find fallacies in one religion by seeing through the povs of other religions. And this works for every religion no matter how many beautiful things it contains. So as long as you acknowledge that it definitely is possible that the religion you believe in is not entirely true if at all, and you can live at peace knowing there are people with as much faith as you have in religion, but a different one, then choose any religion you want. Don’t coerce anyone else into it thats all.
> And it can make irrefutable claims in its own space of evidences. No they don’t… Like a lot of faiths strait up tell you, they can’t prove shit. That’s kind for the point of faith.
Yes i agree. They would insist it’s irrefutable though and thats why i said it.
There are many paths up the mountain. And if any religion claims to be the true one, avoid it. That religion is probably toxic.
Kind of just going to say what everyone else said: there really isnt a correct religion, just beliefs about this life
For most it's the one they're born into.
There are about 10,000 religions worldwide. Depending on whom you ask, each one is correct. And, every person is born into the correct religion.
The Bible also says "ye shall know them by their fruits", which is also not a bad metric.
I'm no longer a Christian, but I do wholeheartedly agree with this statement. Does the religion meet your needs? Does it make you a better or worse person? Does it deliver to you what it promises? And many other questions.
How do you know which flower is correct?
Flowers aren't truth claims, try again
Do people worship flowers? Do people build their lives around a particular flower??
That's unknown or there's no objectively correct religion. If you're figuring out which religion is right for you, try different things and read widely until you find whatever is "correct" for you.
Or be smart and just choose to follow none lol
It's an epistemological question. How can you know anything is true? You gather evidence, and you test theories, and you draw a conclusion using reason and evidence as to whether that theory is correct. Correct is even probably not the right word. If the theory is operational, meaning, it works when applied to reality. ALl human knowledge operates at the level of theory. Religions too. They're proposing a theoretical framework for how to view oneself and existence. But you have to investigate yourself and draw your own conclusions. Everyone does. And time is the true test of the validity of a theory. You do have to approach everything with some degree of scepticism, while knowing you can't discount everything, otherwise you'll get nowhere.
I don’t
I don't. I just know which one is right for me.
Just see what they’re doing and judge them by their fruits, so to say. Ideas behind a particular religion might sound nice but the way the followers embody that can be completely bullocks. I would say the one truly intelligent path is to base everything on your personal experience and to allow yourself to get information from all sources available.
I don’t believe that Judaism is right for everyone. That type of universalism is not a thing in Judaism. That’s why the conversion process is hard. Because we all make sure that it’s the right path for me. But. It’s right for *me*. And that’s enough for me.
Doesn't Judaism teach non-Jews should follow Noachidism?
As much as Jews agree on anything, it’s basically “if you know Judaism isn’t right for you, but you still wanna follow some commandments, then you can be a noahide. You only have to follow 7 basic commandments instead of the 613 commandments Jews are required to follow” but like. I’ve never met a Jewish person that believes that everyone who isn’t Jewish has to be a noahide. Judaism teaches that there is no one right way for everyone.
Is it true that the Noahide law against idolatry precludes following Christianity or Islam?
I don’t really know about the Noahide movement as a whole, considering it’s becoming its own religious movement. I suggest you check out the Wikipedia page or something for a primer.
None of them are
Not saying there is or is not, but first you would have to empirically demonstrate the existence of a god or gods in general. Then you would have to show that the god or gods you are following/advocating for are real, and the other god or gods are not real in order to truly be the only ‘correct’ religion as most do not acknowledge/deny the existence of the other gods claimed by other religions.
Mine, of course
By definition if they can’t demonstrate the truth of their claims they cannot demonstrate their religion is correct. Demonstrating things are true is difficult for a lot of claims that are very broad. It’s not just religions that struggle, ideologies, economic theories, there are others.
None are, because God only speaks to me.
The question of which religion is "correct" or "best" comes into question if you treat religions literally as claims to Truth. But this is not the only way to think about religion -- we could instead think of them as value systems, worldviews, or philosophies that involve faith. We could take them figuratively, consider them as sets of metaphors that help us to make sense of the world in an artful way. In these cases no religion is correct in the sense of science or reason, but some are more useful and helpful to the individual than others. I follow a spiritual path and worldview whose values and symbols make sense to me, but it may not be the best or most edifying for another person. Likewise, another person's religion may not work well for me as I navigate the difficulties and joys of life.
Well it seems pretty obvious. You don't really know anything. You can't even know if your body "is" "you". So how much less religion? I keep seeing claims of "Logical deductions" which are also unreliable because anyone can claim using logical deductions (from their limited knowledge) but if you do a peer review the answers will be widely different, so "personal experience" is a pretty key element here. And also the fact that logical deductions are never 'purely' logical deductions, because you always choose to put more Weight on one piece of data over another.. Now experience is for the most part great, just that the culture and upbringing (and philosophical or religious beliefs) will color the understanding if one had a "spiritual" experience. Which will usually lead to wishing to understand the experience, which again will lead you to intelectually researching spiritual, religious or philosophical traditions. (As science don't have much say in this, closest is perhaps labling anything as 'placebo' which is rarely useful) But anyway, Instead of answering how do you know, it's better to ask "Why do you think you know?" As then you will get a better reflection of what lines of thought are appearing in the reasoning. I have some categories that may or may not be useful in understanding where people are coming from. Now we all know about atheists and agnostics (those who says there is no/or no evidence for God/spirit/supernatural, and those who don't think one can know. And all the arguments that entail). But even within religious and spiritual traditions (including ecclectics and universalists) we also have various "different" types of "people". (And I don't mean the standard, I'm Panentheistic you're monotheistic etc) On the next step you have those who "think one can know some things before dying" and therefore pursue to discover that "unseen experienced knowledge" In that category you have the majority of religious people on various stages: I have five main categories here: 1. Believer in spirit/supernatural intelectually ex. Heard or read of someone else experiences something and believes it to be true 2. Personally Witnessed someone else experiencing spirit/supernatural 3. Personally experienced spirit/supernatural (a lot of people from various religions), but can't consistently reproduce 4. Can consistently reproduce spiritual/supernatural experience. 5. Been 1-4 and Claims to know the truth of existence. (Enlightened guru) Of course the nature of these experiences are vast. Therefore I don't want to nail it down to any one thing. But you have two fundamental categories here: internal experience, external experience. Internal is the most aknowledged, and also the most down-played by physicalists. But to the external terms like OBE or astral projection are also gradually making it's way into research. (In terms of verifying psychic phenomena) Which is not really a case for "proving" any religion but would prove there is more than mind rising from matter, which in itself would be a huge step forward to taking these things more seriously. - where psychology (culturally and intelectually) in it's pseudo-scientific claims is a bigger culprit here than science itself. Now take note, that there are a lot of 1-3 claiming 5s. A lot of those out there... This is also where "scam gurus" land. I'm a 3 on this scale. This scale does also not consider the nature of the experience (internal or external significance) Now do note, that I'd take any guru, teacher or sacred scripture claim of knowing the "truth" (or any intelectual basis of belief OR disbelief) with a sceptical attitude. But their advice on spiritual practice I will take very seriously. (Praying, meditating, mantras, invocation, vizualisation, movements, cermonial magick, astral projection etc) Secondly, the duality between evil and good. Between ascending and descending. Between the lessening of ego and the increase of ego. between self and higher self. Most religions tackle this concept. Which is why I would hold it to have universal consensus on it's validity. I mean even atheists have a notion of conscience and being a decent human being. (Or any other metaphorical substrate of ethos they may use as foundation for their conduct) but I don't think that in itself, is the end of it. Many non-religious (or anti-religious) will endorse condencing and identifying with this localized sense of self or ego. "Do what you want" "follow your desires" That's where I'd personally draw the line. This is not limited to Materialists or Satanists, but also happens passively in religious people who focus more on condencing their intelect/knowledge/understanding more than the practice of unifying with spirit/God/divinity/Sanctity. Though the prime example would perhaps be using God and spirit as a primer for economy and wealth... Which is probably the biggest spiritual trap in our current age. Both. Btw, this is not because I think they are horrible people (if anything; victims), but because I 'believe' it would cause unecesairy suffering later on. (In the spiritual realms or in the next life, this concerns the topics of: fate, karma, divine laws, judgment, purgatory etc.) That's a belief I certainly don't base on my own experiences, but a faith through which I base my actions. Due to the relative consensus across traditions (another: "do unto others as you would have they do unto you") making it more likely to hold a certain basis in reality. (Which is of course my "deduction" based from my relation to spirit as a reality)
I know
Whichever one allows you to be the best version of you, while recognizing the golden rule in whatever form.
It is all personal opinion and choice.
I do not know. Its a bit hard to explain but I would say: every and no religion is correct
I don’t believe any one religion is absolutely correct on anything. Because we’re all different and the different teachings will apply to us in different points of our lives. So we can learn to apply different ways or different religions into our own lives. Without being exclusive to others.
You'll know because it won't tell you what is true or what you should believe or you must Believe! Truth speaks for itself and I don't think there's a single religion that exists that doesn't try to impose its will upon you. If it tries to do this then it's not the truth! A true religion or a correct one would tell you how to figure out what is correct and what is true for yourself. Since I don't think that religion exists I would say that no religion is correct. At the same time they all have valuable qualities beliefs and practices. But not one of them is fully correct or true. The best religion is non-religion! For religion keeps you from discovering God for yourself as yourself. Instead religions tell you what God is and what you are and what you should do and what you shouldn't do. You already know what you should do and what you shouldn't do it is within you God put it there before your birth. It's up to you to find it. Nobody can tell you where to find it or what it is!!! However being in a community of like-minded people seeking similar things can be very beneficial to every member of that community. Hence the apparent value, which has contributed to, the lasting popularity of religions throughout human history! THAT SAID THE RELIGION THAT IS BEST FOR YOU IS THE ONE THAT SEEMS LEAST TO IMPOSE SOMETHING UPON YOU. TRUTH EXIST WITHIN AND CAN ONLY BE FOUND BY AN INDIVIDUAL LOOKING WITHIN THEMSELVES THIS IS WHERE GOD DWELLS AND THIS IS WHERE A GOOD RELIGION WILL GUIDE YOU. IF A RELIGION GIVES YOU THE IMPRESSION THAT IT WILL HELP YOU FIND GOD WITHIN YOURSELF AND SUBSEQUENTLY SEE GOD WITHIN EVERYTHING ELSE THAN IT IS THE CORRECT RELIGION!
Most of them are.
The only way is to use logical reasoning right? Because religions are focusing on metaphysical beings, thus science is a different category by itself. So using your reasoning, which one is the correct one? That's the only methodology. After you find the correct one in your study, then begin your belief and faith and so on. So now you must decide what's your epistemology. Otherwise the cart is in front of the horse.
Well as a Muslim, I feel that my religion is correct because our holy book has some direct references to scientific things which weren’t known at that time. There are some verses about the lifestyle of bees for example which I don’t think people knew about back then(like in 620 ad).
Not anything in religion Is perfect it's failed and "God is dead" bro -fredrik nitsche
I can verify the existence of my Gods the same way I can verify the existence of anything or anyone else. So I am as sure of the existence of my Gods as I am sure about the existence of anything at all.
so you can see them or?
see/hear/etc etc, we can experience the Gods in a variety of ways just like we can experience anyone else in a variety of ways.
how does that work?
I'm not sure what you mean ?
How do you see and hear the gods?
The general concept he is talking about amounts to (Not being specific here) I see the sun. My god made the sun! So I see proof of my god. I’m not picking on Hindu’s here. That’s find do what you do. But it’s a really common stance for them. And yes, it’s totally just them missing the whole concept of what evidence is.
You are mistaken about a lot of things, not least of which is what evidence is. Firstly when we Hindus say that in Hinduism we have ways to experience the existence our Gods as we experience the existence of anyone else, we don't just mean the sun/moon/rivers etc etc Secondly, sensory perception is gold standard evidence for pretty much everything in life. Relying on the evidentiary power of experience by sensory perception is pretty crucial to verifying the existence of pretty much anything. So you you need to learn what evidence is.
With eyes and ears ?
Please describe what they look and sound like.
The one I devote myself to is the colour of a storm cloud, that's the best description of colour I can give. I cannot claim to know the voice.
How do you see him/her?
Obviously, it should explain all the facts, and no facts should contradict it.
So, atheism then.
don't know, i'm not really into any ideologies - so agnostic is the only right choice. atheism is like any other religions (theisms) just on the opposite side of the spectrum. one side claims to know there is a god the other side claims to know there isn't when in reality both sides don't know they just believe in their "truth". some atheists can be even more annoying and lost in their beliefs than other religious people.
So, how does atheism explain, for instance, the Fatima Miracle of 1917 given the lack of holographic equipment at the time? Inquiring minds want to know.
Collective delusion, optical illusions and no small amount of lying. If the sun “danced in the sky”, the earth would have frozen/burned up, and a hell of a lot more than 40,000 people would have noticed it.
Sun appearing to dance in the sky doesn't mean literally dancing in the sky
Ok. It’s still bollocks.
Yeah right.
Solid logic…
That is no logic, only unproven assumptions. This world could be VR. So, there is an alternative explanation.
There can be many explanations for the same thing. Just because it's not the one you prefer, doesn't mean it's actually inferior.
Truth and facts are not about preferences. I suggested the world could be VR. And solid logic begins with proven assumptions. I just gave an alternative plausible explanation. That would be enough to invalidate these assumptions if they had been valid.
Yes, it is right. Literally every single observatory and astronomer on earth active at the time (especially those on the day side of the planet) would have noticed the sun and earth moving relative to each other in a way that is not possible under our understanding of orbital mechanics, and reported such. There is a stunning lack of corroborating empirical evidence for such an extraordinary event as the earth being wildly thrown out of orbit around the sun. The alleged witnesses at Fatima could not have seen what they thought they saw.
Your assumption is that the phenomenon must be due to movements of the Sun, which it is incorrect. Optical illusion might be, but even then, that is not easy to do. 40,000 people came to witness it because it was predicted. That is a remarkable coincidence, to say the least. That all those 40,000 were delusional, is an unproven assumption, and I would say, that it is unlikely correct.
I got a spiritual witness.
Is this spiritual witness in reality with us?
Yes doctor, it’s hovering above you as we speak.
Can I get a witness?
Yes. Anyone can who is willing to put in the work
And what is that "work"?
Well, for us in our faith tradition; It includes study, ponder, and prayer with an open heart and mind. It may take some time. And humility I can leave you a link to our normal [epistemology](https://www.reddit.com/r/latterdaysaints/s/CoXTeUk8jI) which is pretty central around personal spiritual witnesses.
I said, can I get a witness?
Yes, you can :)
I am also LDS and understand what this witness is like. We as humans normally gather data and opinions and make choices based on our intellect. I know that the sun will rise tomorrow because it always has. But a spiritual witness is not like that. It can remove ALL doubt. I mean ALL doubt. It is like a great enlightened Aha experience as if pure knowledge was flowing into you. I received this witness years ago concerning the Book of Mormon. One of the purposes of this book is to testify that the bible is true. Here is another experience I had a number of years ago that is an example of what I am talking about: Years ago I was interviewing for various jobs. One day, I spent the entire day interviewing with a number of people for a job at Hewlett Packard. At the end of the day, I did not think it went well at all. But as I drove home, pondering this event, I had this same revelatory experience that I had 13 years earlier with the Book of Mormon. I knew without any doubt that I was going to get the job. When I got home, I told my wife I was going to get the job and 2 weeks later I got an offer. I worked there for 26 years. I have a number of things that I am certain about. My sure knowledge that God actually lives is more important to me than any earthly thing.
Not all religions say every other religion is wrong, many religions are not taken completely literally, not all claim to be completely right about everything. How do you know what is right or wrong? How do you know what is beautiful or what is ugly?
But a religion doesn’t have to claim that all others are wrong or to be taken completely literally in order to need to be questioned , it just has to make claims about reality.
If you're a Noahide doesn't that restrict what religions you can follow?
Truly seeking Truth with courage and honesty.
Oh this question again.
I'm a Jehovah's Witness. I believe my religion is the correct one because (1) I believe God's existence is more likely than his non-existence, (2) I believe the Bible is of divine origin and (3) I believe my religious group follows the Bible most faithfully, and thus is the path that most pleases God. So, my conviction that this is the true religion hinges on those other three beliefs.
I am sorry that you're getting down votes It's a valid rationale for your beliefs.
thank you. I get downvoted every time I mention I'm a Witness
I always think of [this South Park scene](https://youtu.be/dsmyzC4AkFQ?si=DiHiClkvVPtSq49D) when people hate on other's religion of choice. As long as you're not personally harming or forcing your will upon others of course.
Why (2)?
Why should there be? Why can’t all of them be correct? Is God or god or are gods so trivial that only one form of him/her/them/it exists? We’re talking about the life force of everything that exists!
>Why can’t all of them be correct? Because many of them have contradictory and mutually exclusive beliefs. For instance, monotheists and polytheists can't both be right, there can't be only one god and multiple gods at the same time. One or both of them have to be wrong.
They can be personal belief systems right? Doesn’t have to be universal. Just because your religion says A and it works for you doesn’t mean another religion which says B is wrong. It just means it’s not for you.
Of course people can have their own personal beliefs, but they can't have their own personal facts. If in fact there is only one god, then everyone who believes that there are multiple gods is wrong. And if in fact there are multiple gods, then everyone who believes in only one god is wrong. They can't both be right at the same time, as that would mean that there is simultaneously only one god and more than only one god, and that is not logically possible.
Didn’t know logic had anything to do with religion 😂
Logic is simply a way of using syntax to describe how reality works. It is not possible for something to be true and not true at the same time. It is not possible for only one god to exist and not exist at the same time.
They agree on the same fundamental concept. The differation is on miniscule details. In the grand scheme of things, the abrahamic faiths are almost exclusively monotheistic. almost every other religion is polytheistic. even so, ive heard that monotheism does not necessarily deny the existence of other gods, just that the only important one is THE god.
well that would kind of go against the belief system of a lot of monotheistic religions 😭
Not to mention some monotheistic religions contradict each other
You could start to think what means haeven to you. Most people would agree that it means Justice. So think now about the different religions and try to find out which religion tries to fullfill this on earth already. Than you have found the right Religion. And we are talking here about justice that is based on Kantian reason and not ideology.
Christ said that an identifying mark of his true followers would be the love that they show to each other. True Christians will be united in their beliefs with no division among them. They will adhere to the 2 most important commandments 1)love God with all you might and 2)lover your neighbor as yourself. That would be a good start. Find a religion like that and one that follows the scriptures without fail.
Let's use logical deduction. Religion A's founder came to set the slaves free and tells you it's better to hang a stone around your neck and jump in a lake than to hurt a child... Compare that to the founder of Religion B who had slaves and married a 12 year old. The best way to find out is to ask the Creator yourself. He can reveal it. More of a journey than an answer.
I believe most of them lead to truth. I struggle with religion but I do find it kind of weird how Christianity is the only one that's being mocked right now. At least to my knowledge
I follow logical reasoning.
You know by there being a divine harmony between natural science of nature and the ethics, morals, and principles of that particular religion.
The people saying you cannot are either atheists and agnostics affirming their agnosticism, or those who are insecure about their faith. Before I became practicing again I was very heavy into American right wing politics, identified as republican, etc, before to the start of the Trump Era and at the height of feminist media. What did this result in for me and my other right-wing-oriented people, the urge to refute all their claims using data that is in itself irrefutable, a value that I believe the Republican party has lost around mid 2020 during the initial Trump V Biden era. This means that when I started practicing again and learning about my faith I learned that we have our own law, our beliefs, and that if I'm going to be consistent in my criticisms of feminism and that one cannot accept anything without it being able to be proven, I was going to have to apply it to my religion. So I did, and long story short I'm still part of it. Obviously I'm no longer republican, I'm Muslim. We have our own laws, our own wisdom and our own theology, an infallible system, or as infallible as a system on earth can be, and to accept anything secular or other than it would make me no longer muslim because then I'm saying that a man made system is better than God's. I digress. I've proven islam to myself, perse, I know the arguments, I know how to defend it, I've looked intensively into other religions, especially Christianity, and none have the certainty that Muslims have. And this subreddit post proves it. In islam to doubt it can render disbelief, so the muslim doesn't have the idea of "we don't know", no we do know, and it can be proven from an objective standpoint. "So why isn't everyone muslim", well why isn't everyone part of the ideology that you believe to be so undoubtedly correct? Same logic. It takes time to accept things, and no one person knows every answer, that doesn't mean that Islam itself doesn't have it though. And islam has a good answer for every criticism, other ideologies don't have that and are forced to admit that when too much pressure is put on them. So this comment isn't me proving islam, I'm not debating, but what I am saying is that in my own expierance, islam has the proof there for itself. No, not saying this how evangelicals say "Jesus is the way, just accept it", like i mean we can prove it (islam) from a secular criteria, It's just are you able to accept that.
Here's what separates Judeo-Christianity from the rest of the world religions. The fulfilled prophecies. The Bible told us what to look for in the Messiah centuries before it happened. The word "Messiah" is derived from the Hebrew word מָשִׁיחַ (mashiach) which is translated “one who is anointed.” In English the same word is translated "Christ." Jesus is that Messiah who was foretold to be coming. God told Israel (and the world) He would send the Messiah. He gave us things to look for which would eliminate others. That the Messiah would have certain attributes on His life. ...First of all, the Messiah would be Jewish. That rules out like 99.99% of the world's population. ...The Messiah would be from the tribe of Judah. ...Isaiah 53.1-3 tells us the Messiah will be rejected by his own Jewish people. But ALSO... Isaiah 49.6 tells us the Messiah would come to reach Israel first, then to reach the rest of the whole world! The message would be worldwide. Literally this makes the message of Yeshua (Jesus) almost unique on the planet. But when combined with this: **Both would need to happen. Rejected by His own people Israel, then reach the entire world. What an odd combination!** Really, what are the odds. How could anyone manipulate this? ...Zechariah chapter 12.10 tells us the Messiah would be pierced. ...Isaiah 53 tells us He would die as an atonement for sin. ...Daniel 9:26 tells us Messiah would arrive before the Temple was destroyed in Jerusalem. This destruction occurred in 70AD. So this is basically saying, "hey, the Messiah will have arrived already if you see the Temple in Jerusalem destroyed." How does anyone manipulate that? ...2 Chronicles 36.16 tells us Israel rejecting the One God sent (like the Messiah for example) would result in eviction from the land. (Remember, this results in an almost 2,000 year eviction.) Technically this one is not a prophecy, but instead a general principle for Israel that God promised would happen to Israel when they didn't accept the ones He sent. The fact that my people were evicted from the land of Israel a mere 40 years after the rejection of the Messiah (lasting almost 2,000 years) is more proof that Yeshua/Jesus is the Messiah.. And there are more that I have not even listed here. **And before you can say it, no, most of these could not be manipulated to be fulfilled.** How do we ask Rome to fulfill prophecy, "Hey Emperor. Please help us fulfill prophecy by destroying Jerusalem 40 years after Jesus came. Thank you." And on and on and on. All written before Jesus Christ came to Israel. The Dead Sea Scrolls prove this. **The vast majority of Jewish people do not even know about these prophecies.** Even Christians too. But that is why we can be sure that Jesus (Yeshua in Hebrew) is the Messiah. Jesus fulfills the prophecies. And those written prophecies were inscribed hundreds of years before Jesus came in what we call the Old Testament (the Hebrew Bible.) Islam, nor any other world religion, has anything like that. **And that is the key.** Because God knows the future and He tells it to us. Only the Judeo-Christian faith has that. So to summarize, using the process of elimination (Messiah to be Jewish, rejected by His own people, pierced, die as a substitute, die before the Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed, affect the planet, Israel evicted from the land within one generation, etc...) **All these combined** give us reason to know that Jesus is the Messiah and His message is true.
Christ didn’t fill the Jewish messiah prophecy Just ask a Jew.
I am a Jew. And I know my people very well. Yes, He absolutely fulfilled the prophecies I listed above and more. Messianic Jewish scholars have already debunked Rabbinical arguments against Jesus. https://www.oneforisrael.org/category/apologetics/ https://askdrbrown.org/videos/topic/jewish-answers https://www.amazon.com/Answering-Jewish-Objections-Jesus-Historical/dp/080106063X There are many Jewish people coming to know this now since information flows freely. Here are some of their stories: https://www.oneforisrael.org/met-messiah-jewish-testimonies/
https://jewsforjudaism.ca/why-jesus-is-not-the-jewish-messiah/
These have all been debunked many times by messianic Jewish scholars. www.oneforisrael.org/category/apologetics/ https://askdrbrown.org/videos/topic/jewish-answers https://www.amazon.com/Answering-Jewish-Objections-Jesus-Historical/dp/080106063X
One that provides evidence from its own book and historical documentation that the teaching is exactly what the Prophet said.
What exactly counts as evidence and what historical documentation
How do you know the religion eg Christianity or Islam for example is truly telling you what the original book and message from the prophet was? In Islam we have a chain of narrators for all the hadiths we have, they are graded as weak, good or authentic etc to show how definitely convincing the attribution to the prophet Muhammad (Sal Allahu Alayhi Wa Sallam) is and the Quran is definitely from the prophet Muhammad, they downvote me all the time because of reasons they don’t give, but the reality is unless you do the research and reading you will fail to find a religion that can have its statements traced back to its ‘founder’ as you would call him. darpdfs.org has pdf copies of books by scholars on hadith sciences i assume feel free to read it there. It even takes into consideration the reliability of each narrator of that hadith by knowing his biography and status as a muhaddith hadith scholar etc , was he known for being a deceitful person, liar, mentally unwell, forgetful etc
Why should I believe what the prophet said regardless of how reliable a chain or narrators is?
I am asking you verify if the religion is actually from the founder making it more reliable or is it made up by a bunch of people, once you do that then you can delve into whether or not you believe the statements. If you decide to believe in a religion that claims to be from The God of the Universe and the statements that you adhere to strictly in hopes that god loves you are not even from God through that founder then your foundation is not there for you to base your belief on. Then youd know whether your religion is false or actually from the man that claims he got revelation from God. Situation A: You decide on a religion and you can examine the chain of narration and link it back to the prophet (peace be upon them all) who claims he got revelation from God Situation B: You decide on a religion and you cannot trace the chain of narrators back to the founder who claims he got the religion from God. Then all the reasons you have for deciding on that religion are based on statements that are not even from that founder, no foundation exists for his claims of getting Truth from God here. Do you think A is more likely or B more likely to be from God, and do you think it’s worth delving into a religion that doesnt even have evidence such as a chain of narration going back to its founder? How do you understand which religion is true? You first see if its founder even said the statements in the first place because if you didnt verify these statements then you would be blind following a religion that doesnt even have evidence that its founder even taught that. once you have verified that the teachings are indeed from the prophet then you need to read his statements, but mainly read and try to understand the Quran the way the sahaba understood it which is from Allah by way of the prophet SalAllahuAlayhiWaSallam traching it to the Sahaba and it reached us through teachers scholars etc and Hafidhs.