Agnostic.com

10 4

Can any religion that must be "taught" be representative of a "true god"?

Don't just read the question...read this brief intro as well...

One probability is, if a supreme being wanted to be acknowledged in any way, it would be. Automatically, completely and verifiably in a universal manner.

It certainly wouldn't "inspire" profits for prophets for transcribing esoteric, conflicting, cruel and often absurdly "holey" texts; which would then spawn countless sects who'd want to kill each other over the most minor of differences of interpretations of this nonsense.

If your only "intelligent" answer "there is no god" state it then move along. The subject of the question is examining possibilities, however improbable they may be.

View Results
DangerDave 8 Jan 4

Post a comment Reply Add Photo

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

10 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

The existence of god is not something I consider viable at all. That being said, on the intellectual side, gravity and evolution require education before they can be understood and accepted. Any rituals that gravity and evolution require of you also have to be taught, so if god existed and religion was necessary ritual, it would have to be taught.

So gratefully as well as hypothetically "rituals" are not required.

Otherwise, I agree any hope of ending the "supreme being" argument will be in science. So...is there no god, a pantheistic one (or more "similar" others) waiting to be discovered or a deistic one who has no concern, or even knowledge, that it is identified?

We cannot yet know but I do know I wish we were "there"...then we could stop incessantly arguing about, killing each other and destroying ourselves over such petty beliefs.

@DangerDave. DD.....you say you wish you were there? Is that for knowing there is a god or total proof theres not one? Damn man.... I like it the way it is. It would be a nightmare knowing there is one and he let all this terrible crap happen in the world. Go ahead beleive none exist. There's no real proof one did anyway.

I fear the "gods that be" (at least in the behaviors of believers) more than any that could be.

IF we ever have THE ANSWER...whether we discover there isn't or is (a god who apparently doesn't give a rat's...care if we even acknowledge it) at least our current theists would lay down arms...

...or some of them...maybe...even presented with an empirical and easily understood TRUTH many would still cling to their fantasies..."fanaticies", if you will.

And please, don't "evangelize". Its unbecoming.

1

Education is often a matter of unlearning what is false and replacing it with what is true. If all the false religions are a given, then this unlearning and replacing would be necessary if said true religion were to flourish. In the absence of false religions, appreciation still might need to be taught, if said true religion would flourish. But if said true religion need not flourish and there were no false religions competing it would not need to be taught. It would have a spontaneous following, although a small one. -- I voted Yes but maybe my vote should have been Either/Or.

So you feel the spontaneous following would be small? I'd think it'd be "universal", or at least "planetary" if we suddenly "broke through" to (at least) a galactic level of some "elite understanding".

Eureka! So do you propose the small following would be the scientists who first discovered THE ANSWER?

I was thinking something along the lines of pantheism. So the small following would indeed include many scientist. I said it would be small because of all the believers in such as flat earth, alien abductions and ghosts. There is rampant superstition outside of religion.

0

Bertrand Russell said that all the religions lay claim to the truth and the each one is the true religion.He also said that as a matter of simple logic, only could be true.....

1

We must first ignore the inherent contradiction of an "all-powerful" deity. If you can do that, any scenario that follows is equally plausible. If a being that had the power to create matter, yet managed to fail to overcome petty human emotions like anger, jealousy, and vengeance, somehow cared what his creation thought of him and wanted any praise to be "pure" (unmolested by proof), then it is entirely possible that a religion that needed to be taught could be the religion that speaks of a true god.
So basically, all that matters is the first sentence. It's the biggest hurdle. If someone can get on board with that, you're not going to change their mind with any inconsistencies that follow logically from it.

I have very few conceptions remaining of a truly altruistic, benevolent supreme being even being the least bit possible. Other than that, we are in complete agreement. Good points!

1

Even assuming that god were real, the very notion of the knowledge of that god being passed on by humans is as fucked up as the game "telephone"....eventually it won't even come close to resembling the truth.

Great analogy!

0

Except for this one.

0

The unverifiable nature of religion seems the simplest yet most compelling reason to believe it can't be true.

0

must taught, may represent but.... no concur. because bottom line... no god.

1

There is no god and I do not see much use in discussing things that are extremely improbable.
Yes, you could suffocate because by random chance all the air molecules could move away from you for long enough a time. The probability of this however is about as small as the probability for any god to exist.

0

AUTHOR'S NOTE: COMMENT CIVILLY...PLEASE DON'T LIKE!

Atheists, get ready...you may not hear this from me often...but I really appreciate your (only caustic at times, from a minority, gratefully!) input in this poll. Far be this from "atheist bait" but bait instead for curious theists and fence riders.

The agnostic discussion was a secondary, "entertainment value" objective, which as of yet hasn't happened. For the record, I voted "no" and I'd really like to hear from our so far solitary "either/or" voter!

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:12892
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.