All Religions Are False.

So are you like actually legitly a muslim now? Believe in djinn, the bodily resurrection of all corpses at the end of time, god revealing his message only in arabic to an illiterate warlord merchant in a cave, the whole shebang? How does this square with your, you know, lifestyle? honest question.

 

All religions are false?

What is false by definition is not true and therefor does not exist.

Religions exist.

 

What is true and false about them?

What does worship have to do with it? We could say that information is begging to be apprehended in the example of molecular bonding. Information is being exchanged and in the process we grow. There is a difference between praising something, that is giving a good appraisal like cheering for a football ball team when they score, and worshiping something. Worship in the most meaningful sense is devotion to. We are all innately devoted. We all have a passionate investment.

Religious ritual can more be examined under the guise of ritual not religion. Ritual is a series of actions performed in a prescribed order. For example, go to church on sunday. Go to church on certain religious holidays etc...

Ritual is dead as far as imparting helpful practical information because you have ritual on one hand and real life on the other. For example you don't hang with a large group of people every day and sing hymns. If you sang hymns constantly you might be aglow from being well oxygenated, but that is not what happens in a prescribed ritual system. On this basis you could say that some religious practice is not meaningful on a functionally practical level.

There is however divorced form doctrine or ritual the effect of raising the spirits in actually congregating around a core value. This happens however around any group gathering in common interest. It happens in the caucuses of the politically enthused as they develop a fervor. The internet is a forum that can be used for the same thing.

 

Religions are the means to something, like some kind of tool. What is false or not is how a person uses or perceives it. When a person seems only busy with religion to debunk it and focus on the traits that don't suit them (in discussions for example) and we look as objectively as possible it can shed a light on what, where, why, who or how something becomes false or not.

Now, I don't think people rigorously claiming all religions are false or not are coming from false intent themselves, but maybe they should think twice about how and if they look at all facets of a religion. To me it seems primarily the people (both in or outside) that make a religion false (or not false).

 

Regardless where a person is coming from then, true or false is an issue of function. Does it perform as advertised or do the terms put forward correspond to real things. Words are symbols and have meaning adopted or at any rate personally gleaned at some level.

 

I don't believe any religion performs as it's advertised, most religions make promises that cannot be fulfilled because even the most intelligent leader in said field have their own realities based on the assumption that their beliefs are what's real.

As stated above: religion does have it's place. It helps people deal and cope with what they don't know in the only way we know how.
We all want answers. Every person that has made the conscious decision to hold specific beliefs did so because they were LOOKING FOR SOMETHING.

However, it's these resources like the Bible that we cling to and when we take them literally that it creates the real problems in society. I've spoken to several theological majors, all of which said to me that the BIble wasn't necessarily intended to be taken literally. Some of these stories are simply fables built around a value which the writers felt were necessary for us to learn. A guideline or handbook, if you will, on to how to handle life and people. That being said, using it as an actual historical resource is quite a disservice to our much more intelligent human minds.

All that being said, I really don't think that religions are near as beneficial as what most people would like to believe. It has caused more death and war than anything. However, that's not religions fault as it is the fault of human condition.

 

People often seem to overlook that the bible is only a part of the religion, same when we include the complete doctrines incl those outside of the bible. For many religious followers the main part(s) are the experience, their faith and/or the communal part for instance.
Anyway, I think the bible can be used for an actual historical resource, but just like any historical resource we have to use our wits about it. But just because there are degrees in how reliable a historic book is as a historical resource doesn't mean it can be used as a historical resource at all It has been many times, if only to start looking for archeological sources or to compare it with other historical (re)sources. But that's not really what religion or this thread is about (except maybe partially for a history oriented person like me )

To me it seems that depends entirely on the person. It as a whole isn't also nearly as 'evil' or onesided a lot of other people like to portray it. Both (especially fanatic) pro and anti people seem to have lost their objectivity.

Agreed, the people and actions are at fault, not the religious concepts they felt like warring about. This may include leaders of a religion but it is good to keep in mind 'even' they are human individuals as well and so not the religion as a whole, even when some of them supposedly can speak in name of the religion (or even worse: it's God).

 

What does belief have to do with anything in determining whether a thing is true or false? Depends on what is advertised and what is desired. It is a fact that people rely on basic assumptions in interpreting what they see regardless. These are predominately unquestioned beliefs. Nothing real is aberrant. We can however confuse meaning.

 

Maybe read it as 'I don't think that any religion... etc.' or 'I think not that...' instead? I think that's how it was ment.

 

In the absence of example it relies on assumption. The statement communicates assumption and I have no idea behind the analytic substance of the statement I think unless it is spelled out. You may as well say it is my opinion which has a kind of virtue to the self but doesn't get us closer to determining the common facts.

 

'I think that' seems to mean the same as 'it is my opinion that'. If that's clear why bother nitpicking on the wording. How does sharing personal opinions on these matters not get us closer to determining the common facts? Comparing each other's thoughts is a valid way to determine things.

 

In relating to real substance or taking accurate measurements, our own opinions must stand back and be informed through mutual regard of the situation.

I am not nitpicking wording. I said in the absence of example. Comparing thoughts is what I am doing. Also I am comparing thoughts to purpose which is to determine what is true.

What happens in this instance is that you spend time arguing beliefs and not determining any detail on the issue of true or false. For example you consistently spend time taking up the example of the belief that religion does more harm than good. That is not even relevant to the question of whether it is true or false. Harm is an interpretation.

 

Ok, fair enough I guess.

I disagree with the last part of the sentence. Maybe it does seem like that to you, just like it seems to others that you often ARE nitpicking words (even if it's not your intent at all).

 

So in building on what I have said we can take this statement to a state of better understanding. If religion is not near as beneficial as many believe then it is not near as harmful as many believe. The recognition that human affairs are human affairs no matter what guise they profess to be under completely absolves religion as a functional entity in terms of making the world either better or worse.

Is that religions claim, to make the world better? Perhaps in terms of personal satisfaction.

 

When religion becomes a point of contention is when conflict arises. In such an instance belief is a symbol chosen to represent a truly unknown variable so religious contenders do not deal with the truth only with other contenders.

 

How does in those instances belief (or the symbol of it) becomes/represent an unknown variable? Always? How so? Aren't those conflicts sometimes about very specific belief issues.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting you here due to language.

 

Fact is I've witnessed you addressing that question, my example of religion causing more harm than good many times. If it gets to a more accurate view it is in dissembling of belief. It is what I am doing on a larger scale by examining the hidden assumptions that are fundamental in every position. It not only applies to our views on religion but how we apprehend the world in general.

To get an accurate picture regard everything on an equal basis.

 

If you get mixed up over the statement "religion is false", then instead consider the statement "The supernatural propositions of abrahamic religions are false", which is really what people mean when they say the former statement.

 

If a belief is in contention it is not commonly apprehended, i.e. not mutually verifiable as something extant. Whereas seemingly known it is not accepted as fact and therefor an unknown variable. Knowledge is being shared, something we are in common with and we can in common point to as accurate. Faith in fact must be open ended because facts continue to emerge.

 

I'm not mixed up. It is where you make your proposition that contention over the issue begins. You are saying the belief is false. I am examining the question as it is stated all religions because it is a larger question than that particular belief. Just so you don't get confused and try and drag away from the question by telling us what people mean.