Navigation

The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.

Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help improve critical thinking. Buy a Laptop -- Apple

Brian Sapient on Twitter

Brian Sapient

Celebrity Atheists

List of atheist sites

Ask the atheist

Antiques and Art

The Grand Theory of All Religions

Posted on: July 18, 2014 - 8:25pm

digitalbeachbum

Posts: 4895

Joined: 2007-10-15

Offline

The Grand Theory of All Religions

All religions are based on faith.

All religions cancel out the faith of all other religions and vice versa.

All religions are false.

The theory is based on the statement "All religions are either false or they are true".

This statement came to me when I was debating with myself which religion was true and which one was false. You might remember a while back I was trying to learn better debating skills. One or actually several of you said for me to take the side of my opponent. When I did this the truth then came to me instantly.

Since all religions are based on faith of their "creator", it makes them opinions. One or more religions cancel out all other religious faiths and vice versa. If all religions are true then they cancel all other faiths.

Therefore all religions are false.

My form might be off, but I think I did a good job of conveying the meaning.

Posted on: August 7, 2014 - 6:58am #51

digitalbeachbum

Posts: 4895

Joined: 2007-10-15

Offline

All religions have followers

All religions have followers who have a belief, opinion or faith of said religion

For every belief, opinion or faith of a religion there is an counter-belief from a different religion

All beliefs, opinions or faiths that have a counter-belief, opinion or faith are nullified.

Posted on: August 7, 2014 - 8:18am #52

iwbiek

Posts: 4298

Joined: 2008-03-23

Offline

digitalbeachbum wrote:iwbiek

digitalbeachbum wrote:

iwbiek wrote:
digitalbeachbum wrote:
Is it not the goal of their teachings to reach Nirvana?

yes, but this goes back to what i was saying before. the "faith" of the buddhist in the eightfold path is more like the "faith" of the patient that the prescribed treatment will cure his illness than the faith of the christian in the efficacy of christ's sacrifice. the buddha does not dictate like a prophet--his appearance and character prove he has attained nirvana. "proved" not in the context of western empiricism, surely, but proved in the context of ancient indian thought. as i'm sure you know, the buddhist scriptures compare the buddha to a physician probably more than anything else.
I know what you are saying, however my attempt at showing how each opinion cancels out other opinions (or faith or what ever you want to call it) failed.
I was attempting to show that if there is a religion that believes the Universe was created in X manner, then there is another religion which has Y belief to counter X. If a religion tells a follower A set of rules for getting in to heaven, there will be another religion which tells their follower B set of rules to get in to heaven.
Did you see that movie that was out a few months ago called "Heaven is real"? The experience the kid gave is cancelled out by all the other experiences of non-christians who didn't see jesus. There are hindu's, buddhists, et who have experienced that stuff while near death, but no jesus or christian god.
I had a brother in law who had a NDE. It had two people in it and they told him if he wanted to go back he had to touch the tree of healing. He turned and saw this giant tree and he touched it. Then he woke up in the hospital. Guess what he job was? He was a tree surveyor for a big Canadian paper company. He would go out in to the woods by himself, deep in to the woods for weeks at a time to survey if trees were ready to be cut.
Funny thing. The christians I speak to always think they have the market cornered on religion. They refuse to acknowledge there are 5 billion other people in this world who believe in something other than what they believe in; or they say those other people are wrong.
In science there was an experiment where they put a "god helmet" on the subject then sent impulses to the area of the brain which was connected to spirtuality. Each person who went in had an experience which was different to each other, some nothing.
Why then is their god not universal? why are their experiences limited only to christians.
What this all proves is that their opinions, their faith, is countered by the opinions or faiths of other religions. A christian can't prove their god exists any more than they can disprove a god of a hindu; those gods cancel each other out.

i understand all that, but the problem is, your idea of a religion's "rules for getting into heaven," "ideas about who or what god is," etc. already display a christian bias.

it may interest you to know that most hindus do not doubt the existence of jesus, nor the biblical record of his life, at all. they are more than happy to conceive of him as an avatar. what they object to, of course, is the exclusivity of christianity.

i mean, just throwing around the term "god," whether in a mono- or polytheistic sense, is already problematic when a westerner talks a indian religions. there is no "god" in hinduism--at all. there are gods and goddesses, but even the most devoted theistic hindu will concede that the existence of their god or goddess of choice is purely conditional. in an absolute sense, it does not exist. that's why "god" (brahmin or ishvara), ultimately an impersonal absolute, can have a myriad of seemingly conflicting revelations: because they are all part of maya, when we get down to the nitty gritty.

the christian, of course, cannot accept this, because he is bound to believe that the bible gives positive, special, essential knowledge about god and god's attributes. the fact of jesus's sonship is not conditional, and it certainly is not maya. it's a truly existing status.

so, again, your syllogism is viable from a christian and muslim perspective, because christianity and islam deal in absolutes. they also deal in a creator god that is ultimately separate from his creation. no indian religion deals in such things. their thinking is, of course "god" (a term for the absolute hindus unfortunately started using thanks to their contact with westerners) can reveal himself to christians and muslims just as "he" does to hindus. why not?

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson

Posted on: August 7, 2014 - 12:37pm #53

digitalbeachbum

Posts: 4895

Joined: 2007-10-15

Offline

iwbiek wrote: i understand

iwbiek wrote:

i understand all that, but the problem is, your idea of a religion's "rules for getting into heaven," "ideas about who or what god is," etc. already display a christian bias.

it may interest you to know that most hindus do not doubt the existence of jesus, nor the biblical record of his life, at all. they are more than happy to conceive of him as an avatar. what they object to, of course, is the exclusivity of christianity.

i mean, just throwing around the term "god," whether in a mono- or polytheistic sense, is already problematic when a westerner talks a indian religions. there is no "god" in hinduism--at all. there are gods and goddesses, but even the most devoted theistic hindu will concede that the existence of their god or goddess of choice is purely conditional. in an absolute sense, it does not exist. that's why "god" (brahmin or ishvara), ultimately an impersonal absolute, can have a myriad of seemingly conflicting revelations: because they are all part of maya, when we get down to the nitty gritty.

the christian, of course, cannot accept this, because he is bound to believe that the bible gives positive, special, essential knowledge about god and god's attributes. the fact of jesus's sonship is not conditional, and it certainly is not maya. it's a truly existing status.

so, again, your syllogism is viable from a christian and muslim perspective, because christianity and islam deal in absolutes. they also deal in a creator god that is ultimately separate from his creation. no indian religion deals in such things. their thinking is, of course "god" (a term for the absolute hindus unfortunately started using thanks to their contact with westerners) can reveal himself to christians and muslims just as "he" does to hindus. why not?

I completely agree with every thing you said, but when I say god I do not mean Christians exclusively. If a Christian says, "my god is the one and only god" or "I'm going to heaven" there will be another religion with a contradicting viewpoint about God/Gods/Goddesses/death/life after death/etc. Since a Christian can not prove or disprove either, a Hindu can't either, then both ideas are negated.

People argue with me that there is a chance their religion could be true but so could the FSM or The Church of Bob. I even dispute an atheist view that we are all worm food and nothing more.

I think what I am trying to say is that all of us have it wrong. All of us, even the Buddhists. I believe that there are smaller beliefs which are true, but as a whole none of us have it correct.