Is It True That Religions Believe....

[David Sklansky]

Before I lay out my reasons for not being religious, I want to avoid muddying the waters with objections from religious scholars who say that I don't know the true precepts of some specific religion. I say that doesn't matter because I disbelieve more general precepts that I am sure most religions believe, especially Muslims, Christians and Jews. And it is many of these general precepts I will argue aginst when I get around to it.

So I ask the scholars to tell me which, if any, of the following six things is not part of their religions's beliefs.

1. There is only one God and he is more or less omnipotent except possibly for having an inability to change the laws of logic.

2. He created the Universe and the laws of physics.

3. He can and does intercede in what goes on rather than always letting the laws of physics take their natural course.

4. He listens to prayers and sometimes uses the #3 above power to answer them.

5. He sometimes uses his omnipotence to make existence after death happen in various ways of his choosing.

6. He does not use the above powers to help, hurt, reward, punish, make happy or sad, animals, conscious robots, or non human life on this planet or others even if they are intellectually capable of understanding. He considers humans superior to all else and his only true flock.


I'll be surprised if scholars disagree that the above reflects their religion"s beliefs except perhaps for number six.

Notice there was no mention of Jesus or God's interest in punishing non believers. That is an irrelevant side issue that need not be brought up.

[uw_madtown]

Given the wide and vast differences among the many Christian denominations (let alone among individual believers) I can guarantee you that there are Christians who believe only the first and second statements. Even those, I'm not sure about. I'm sure I could find exceptions for them as well.

I highly respect your intelligence, both in how you've applied it to game theory and gambling and in how you've applied it to various life problems. And as was comically noted on the WPT forum, you're fully aware of your intelligence and thus have an ego. I'd say that ego in regards to poker theory is about the right size, given how indisputable it is, IMO, that your thoughts are almost always correct.

However, I can't say I'm not a bit disheartened that you'd apply this intelligence AND ego to the area of religion without having some degree of education in the area. I don't have a doctorate in Religious Studies, but I am minoring in it. I'm also a Protestant Christian. And the one thing I can tell you about religion is that the more you try to define "religion" or any specific religion, the less you're able to do so.

There are Christians who don't believe that Christ was the son of God, for example.

There are Jews who don't believe the Torah is anything more than a book of stories to learn from.

There are so many variations that to try and pick out a core concept that ALL ______ believe is a ridiculous task.

[RydenStoompala]

What could possibly be added to your list, given the way you've worded the six precepts, that would make you more inclined to avoid religion. You are going to "lay out" something else? All six conditions exist in Catholic theology, except that #1 would not have the condition of excluding logic. I have to go bother a theological scholar friend on this. I doubt he's picking up thesis topics in a poker forum.

[garyc8]

I don't recall David (or anyone else) criticizing anyone for reading a book of parables and fables, or pondering the origins of the universe, etc.
I think the criticism here is of wild, unprovable claims being offered as fact.

[David Sklansky]

There are Christians who don't believe that Christ was the son of God, for example.

There are Jews who don't believe the Torah is anything more than a book of stories to learn from.

There are so many variations that to try and pick out a core concept that ALL ______ believe is a ridiculous task.




The above kind of posts drive me crazy. It is the IDEAS that I want to argue against. If a specific religion or a person who says he is a member of a specific religion also disbelieves that idea then there is no further argument. Some people seem to be implying that I have a problem with say Christians because of a side reason, (like abortion or whatever) and am trying to attack them by claiming they are dumb to believe in heaven and hell. Nonsense. There is no hidden agenda here.

[The once and future king]

Buddhism = no for all questions.

Buddhism = No God and No soul.

Buddhism is about gaining direct spiritual insight/experience through meditation.

Yes there are transcendental beliefs such as Dharma, karma and reincarnation. However one can suspend belief in all of these things and still be a buddhist. It dosnt work like christianity et all were you have to take the words of the Bible as Gods truth on blind faith.

All mystical elements have complex explanations that basicaly revolve around matter and energy and are not just set forth in the didactic prounoucments one sees in Christianity et al.

If one does not accept these explanations or has intelectual reservations (this is actualy encouraged) the most likely response from your teacher is that they will just tell you to keep practising.

A Buddhist teacher will care much more about your practise and that you are doing it properly, than what your intelectual beliefs are.

[Piz0wn0reD!!!!!!]

Hinduism is the 3rd largest religion in the world. #1-6 are not part of it (unless he means they). Of course that religion is pretty nuts in terms of logic.

[chezlaw]

Hi David

1-5 seem pretty common theological ideas - don't know about 6, and I for one am ridiculously interested in this subject.

Why not just assume that 1-6 are indeed the core of many religious ideas and lets all have a discussion that forbids arguments of the form 'X must be true because {insert religious text here} says so' or 'X must be true because I believe it to be true'. Lets not worry if some or even many religions do not include 1-6 we can always deal with them later.

Hopefully those who just want to quote from a book can wait for any conclusion on the general question before they throw in their specific beliefs.

Can we exclude changing the laws of logic from 1 as it makes reasoning a bit tricky? If we reach a conclusion without it then we can always try adding this superpower back in.

Perhaps Saint Daryn will agree to moderate.


chez

[garyc8]

[ QUOTE ]
a discussion that forbids arguments of the form 'X must be true because {insert religious text here} says so' or 'X must be true because I believe it to be true'

[/ QUOTE ]
The rules of logical reasoning and argument forbid such arguments as they are inherently invalid.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
a discussion that forbids arguments of the form 'X must be true because {insert religious text here} says so' or 'X must be true because I believe it to be true'

[/ QUOTE ]
The rules of logical reasoning and argument forbid such arguments as they are inherently invalid.

[/ QUOTE ]

Previous threads indicate that people want to argue this way, isn't it easier to forbid them for the purposes of the discussion rather than to try to pursade people they are not valid methods of argument.

chez