christ-on-a-stick

Hi fatherphil, Did you explore *any* other belief system? There's a big difference between "exploring every single belief system known to man" and making an honest attempt to investigate, say, at least a few other major truth-claiming religions instead of settling on (literally) the first one you pick up.

Marruk

The original question was why you rejected Hinduism. So please get back on topic. Who cares what atheists/agnostics think about Hinduism, Why did you reject it. I think this is a great subject and I am truely curious as I would suspect many other atheists/agnostics are as well.

Biff the unclean

This is a great topic.
It has always seemed strange to me that so many Xians have a self imposed ignorance about comparative religion. When you tell them that Christian stories were originally stories of Mithra and Dionysus they will insist that they aren't. Yet I have never met one who has read these mythologies. Further than that; I have never even been able to entice a Xian to read them even after I've made the claim that the Jesus stories are a match.
The Hindu religion is dismissed out of hand. How can you say that you 'found what you were looking for' in Jesus when you don't even know who Ganesha is? Despite claims to the contrary, I don't see any evidence that any Xian here did any "looking" at all.
It would seem that the only way to prevent doubt seeping in is to completely block any contrary information from entering your brain.

christ-on-a-stick

The direction of this thread has caused me to ponder the whole issue of "respect" for people's beliefs, which comes up once in a while.

I've always said that there is a difference between respecting someone's right to their beliefs and respecting the beliefs themselves.

That being said, while I respect theists' right to believe as they wish, I do not and cannot respect beliefs that are arrived at without critical analysis and rational scrutiny.

I do respect the *honesty* of those here (such as wildernesse and fatherphil) who admit that their choice of belief systems did not include these things.

Rhea

Ahhh. SO Christianity became true only long after Christ's death. It wasn't true before that. AS is clear by the fact that it wasn't well known.

Roman Pantheism was true a while ago, but it's not true any more.

And it's absolutley, undeniably true that Coke is better than Pepsi.


Truth by marketing.
I confess. I'm not convinced.

cpickett

By that we also have geographical truths, in India, Christianity is wrong, because knowledge of it is overshadowed by Hinduism. In Iraq they both are wrong, because the right choice is Muslim, and depending on which part of Iraq....

Whew glad that is cleared up, where is Atheism better known, I'll move!

Pyrrho

You appear to be saying that what is true is whatever anyone believes is true, as long as it "works" for them. In that case, atheism, agnosticism, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism, Animism, Islam, Judaism, and every variation of each of these, as well as every other religion that anyone has ever believed that "worked" for them are all equally true. Do you really believe that?

If it worked for me, would the belief that "2 + 2 = 4.0001" be true as well? Certainly, whenever I have made anything out of wood, that belief would work as well as the belief that "2 + 2 = 4"; I cannot cut with the precision needed to make two boards 0.0001 inches different in length (nor can I measure such a difference with anything I would use for measuring the length of a board). So, from what you are saying, "2 + 2 = 4.0001" is true. You don't really believe that, do you?

Pyrrho

You are committing the fallacy known as argumentum ad populum. Furthermore, how well known a particular religion is entirely dependent upon where in the world one is. If one lives in a predominantly Catholic country, the Catholic religion will be the most well known. In a predominantly Hindu country, the Hindu religion will be the most well known. Additionally, most people in the world are not Christians, so even if your poor reasoning were correct, it would only go to show that Christianity is false.

So you imagine that the people who post here are representative of the world's population? You do realize that Internet connections are not common in certain parts of the world, don't you? You do realize that the majority of the people in the world are not native speakers of English, don't you?

Your "reason" is among the most silly I have ever seen.

wildernesse

Why wouldn't I? Like your wood example, I most likely do not have the ability to parse or measure the amount of absolute truth (if such a thing exists) contained within all belief systems to the utmost degree. As far as absolute-ness goes, I most likely will never know and can never absolutely know--but I can know what is closest for me.

And, actually, I don't see all beliefs as equally "true" for me. Christianity is the truest for me that it can get at this point (and may well continue forever as such). I'm only myself, though.


--tibac

Biff the unclean

I'm like Pyrrho, when I hear the word "True" my mind says "fact."
But you, tibac, seem to think something else. So what does the word "true" mean when you are using it here? How do you check to know if something is true or not so that you know these degrees of trueness? How "true" is Hinduism and how do you know?