All Wrong

Originally posted by Badwater
I'm not saying that he is incorrect, necessarily. If the quote is accurate he is plucking conditions and conclusions from thin air. Upon what basis does he reason that it is "obviously inconceivable that all religions" can be right? And from that premise the only reasonable conclusion is that they are all wrong? The "only reasonable conclusion"? Based upon ...[text shortened]...

From my standpoint he does no justice to his cause through this means of pontification.

The "only reasonable conclusion"?
Where is this quote from?

Originally posted by 667joe
Since it is obviously inconceivable that all religions can be right, the most reasonable conclusion is that they are all wrong. Christopher Hitchens

Religons are (or should be) a stepping stone for people.
Hitchens may well be right but I find this quote deals in absolutes and , as has been proven many times before, absolutes lead nowhere fast.

I have to put this thread into context of the other threads you've started to answer , otherwise I may think of answering you differently ...

Originally posted by rwingett
Your sorry attempt to turn the tables is just plain stupid. The sole criteria which distinguishes one as an atheist is a lack of belief in a god or gods. All atheists lack that belief. Therefore they are either all right, or they are all wrong.

Not at all. If the question is, is there a God, then you have a 50/50 shot at being right. After that, everyone has wrong opinions whether it be for religion or politics or any other topic. So does this mean that God has not planted religion in this imperfect world of men? Nope. In fact, I routinely see men abuse and twist the purity of the gospels for their own benefit.

Originally posted by rwingett
No, but it is more likely that they are all wrong. At least to some extent.

That's true. They ARE all wrong to some extent, but the same can be said about everyone, everywhere, all the time.

Originally posted by whodey
Not at all. If the question is, is there a God, then you have a 50/50 shot at being right.

Why is it that theists seem to be on average far worse at probability than atheists?
Probability is all about what we know.
If we say that God is a random hypothetical being, then the probability of his existence would be nearly zero as we know that there is an infinite number of hypothetical beings and a finite number of existent ones.

To demonstrate, I am sure that you do not assign 50/50 probability to the existence of each of unicorns, pixies, fairies, goblins, vampires, etc. In fact, if I make a fairly long list I can come up with the conclusion that there is a 99% probability that at least one of them exists. Would you agree with that conclusion?

If we assign more properties to God, then it becomes more complicated, but to end up with a neat 50/50 would be nearly impossible.

You were probably taking the question from the zero knowledge stand point, ie there is a question with two possible answers and nothing whatsoever is known about the question or answers.

I think introducing probability complicates matters and gives a false impression of rigor.

We have several collections of religious texts. If believers want to treat these as collections of propositions, most of which they regard as true, then there is a question they face.

That is, several mutually contradictory propositions have been arrived at by methodologies that are similar to each other, or inscrutable. Why should we have any confidence that any given proposition arrived at this way is true?

Originally posted by Lord Shark
I think introducing probability complicates matters and gives a false impression of rigor.

We have several collections of religious texts. If believers want to treat these as collections of propositions, most of which they regard as true, then there is a question they face.

That is, several mutually contradictory propositions have been arrived at by ...[text shortened]... table. Why should we have any confidence that any given proposition arrived at this way is true?

The basis of all religons is the same. ie. One God,love one another.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
The basis of all religons is the same. ie. One God,love one another.

I think that's debatable, but even if it were true, it would remain the case that most of the truth claims of believers contradict those of adherents to other religions.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
The basis of all religons is the same. ie. One God,love one another.

Neither of those is universal, if anything the first is in the minority ( I know of only two such religions, though I know there are more) , and the second is common only because it is a common human sentiment.

The basis of nearly all religons are similar.
You two can pick apart the differences all you want but the basis of the religons I've read about (Hinduism,Christianity,Moslem,Bhuddism,a few more) is quite similar.
There is ususally a prophet-like figure who points the way beyond him to the 'cosmos' and says that 'love' and faith is integral to making it.
Why do we always focus on the differences?
Its like being human, we are all the same but we are all different. Now we can be like bullies at school and point out someones big ears or we can focus on what we have in common, ESPECIALLY THE FACT THAT WE SHARE THE SAME FATE ON THIS PLANET DEPENDING ON WHETHER WE CO-OPERATE or see the environment and ultimately the chance of future life on this planet disintergrate.

These are real choices. They have real consequences.

You may pick apart my simplistic,non peer reviewed arguements, but we are all three living on this planet at this time and that brings ours fates together.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
The basis of nearly all religons are similar.
You two can pick apart the differences all you want but the basis of the religons I've read about (Hinduism,Christianity,Moslem,Bhuddism,a few more) is quite similar.
There is ususally a prophet-like figure who points the way beyond him to the 'cosmos' and says that 'love' and faith is integral to makin ...[text shortened]... ut we are all three living on this planet at this time and that brings ours fates together.

Can I steal your post and put it on my blog? I like it.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
The basis of nearly all religons are similar.
You two can pick apart the differences all you want but the basis of the religons I've read about (Hinduism,Christianity,Moslem,Bhuddism,a few more) is quite similar.
There is ususally a prophet-like figure who points the way beyond him to the 'cosmos' and says that 'love' and faith is integral to makin ...[text shortened]... ut we are all three living on this planet at this time and that brings ours fates together.

I agree that the basis of all religions is similar, but I'm afraid it isn't anything like 'love each other, love god'.

But even if it were, the different religions can't agree on what god is and what kinds of love are permitted.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
The basis of nearly all religons are similar.
You two can pick apart the differences all you want but the basis of the religons I've read about (Hinduism,Christianity,Moslem,Bhuddism,a few more) is quite similar.
There is ususally a prophet-like figure who points the way beyond him to the 'cosmos' and says that 'love' and faith is integral to making it.

I rather suspect that you know little or nothing about Hinduism and Buddhism. The very little I know mostly contradicts your claim. Christianity and Islam are similar for a reason, they both have the same origin (Judaism, which I am surprised you didn't mention). I am however not aware of Mohamed saying anything about love being integral to anything, though I also don't know that he didn't. Do you know, or you just guessed?

Why do we always focus on the differences?
So why didn't you include atheists? Why even mention religion? Why not just focus on the fact that we are all human?
The differences are what make the religions into religions.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Can I steal your post and put it on my blog? I like it.

yeah sure, (I assume you are being serious,sometimes I'm not sure)

Originally posted by twhitehead
I rather suspect that you know little or nothing about Hinduism and Buddhism. The very little I know mostly contradicts your claim. Christianity and Islam are similar for a reason, they both have the same origin (Judaism, which I am surprised you didn't mention). I am however not aware of Mohamed saying anything about love being integral to anything, thou ...[text shortened]... the fact that we are all human?
The differences are what make the religions into religions.

I'm not quite sure what Mohamed said,but I have read many sufi poets who go on about love.
I will admit I've forgotten and blurred a lot of the stuff that I've read, but thats not important to me.
Hinduism and Bhuddism are more word of mouth and experiential than knowledge gained from books.
I didn't mention Judaism because I haven't learnt much about it.

Last three questions:
1. I was making a general point, I dont feel confident to speak for athiests either.
2. Why even mention religon? Huh? Like I said before, for some people its a stepping stone.
3.I have focussed my arguements many times on the fact that we are human. I do change my angles from time to time. Ok?