Why different religious, moral and logical beliefs are okay, and why they exist.

[Anonymous]

Have you ever had an argument with someone over religion as someone who either follows that religion, a different religion or is non-religious? Did the argument consist of you making points that they couldn't argue against, or argued against using flawed logic? These types of arguments often make others look dumb or wrong to us, but your points and arguing sounds just as inconherent and incorrect/illogical as theirs does to you.

Any sort of belief, in any shap or form, is believed by that person because to them, it works.

When someone believes in God and they go to church and they pray and they preach, following religious texts, they aren't being illogical. To them, God really does exist and everything they are doing is making complete sense.

When someone doesn't believe in God, attempts to use science to argue against certain aspects of religion and has no belief in spiritual beings, they aren't being ignorant or doing anything wrong. To them, God doesn't exist and their lives function without God in the equation, if everything works without religious views in their mind, then their logic is correct to themselves.

Everyone believes what is truly correct and what works, but what that is is unique to each individual. Please consider this information next time you offend someone with different beliefs or consider them less intelligent, it's purely just a difference in how they percieve reality.

..but don't force it down others or offend others for not agreeing.


If this mytake didn't make much sense, think of it like language. Some languages have words that others don't, and most languages aren't similar in their sound at all, but in the end they all accomplish the goal of communicating and they all make sense to their users.

[Anonymous]

You have one big flaw in your logic, even if everything works in their own mind, even if their logic is correct to themselves, it still doesn't change reality or the facts.
Using science to argue against certain aspects of religion makes sense and it's sound arguing, and I say that as a religious person.

If you faith can’t hold up to scientific proven realities, then you faith is based on pure wishful thinking. A Religion doesn't need scientific proves to be true, but it needs to be not disproven by science – otherwise it can’t be true in any true meaning of the word. If it’s only true for you, it’s called a delusion, truth is something we all have in common.

[myTake Owner]

Your belief is a mix of both then, you don't have to be pro science or pro religion.
If someone religious cannot use their faith to hold up scientific proven realities, but they truly believe that it does, then to them it actually does and to you it doesn't.
That's the point, everyone is equally deluded or equally non-deluded.

[Opinion Owner]

"everyone is equally deluded" I absolutely disagree, the amount of delusions varies a great deal.

According to you, nothing matters and everything is the same and equally good or bad... well that's just a wrong assumption.

2+2=4 no-matter if you believe it or not. You can't say 2+2=4 for you not me.

[myTake Owner]

You forget that the mytake is nothing to do with mathematics and is a religious point.
If you're Christian, you don't view mathematics differently. 2+2 still equals 4 for Christians, and anyone else following any other religion.

Everyone is equally deluded in their beliefs. Mathematics isn't a belief.

[Opinion Owner]

Right, but religions are have beliefs and some of them can be disproved.

For instance this the old Chinese and Indian believe of the World Turtle:

cdn.superbwallpapers.com/.../...6452-1920x1200.jpg

It can be disproved as well as 2+2=4, so this faith is therefore deluded and unlike the believe in a God, with can't be disproved. It doesn't mean God exists, but it shows there is a difference and not all religions are equal.

I am not saying you are completely off, I an suggesting a moderation that recognises not all religions nor all religious beliefs are equal, there are differences... some are possible, some are even likely, some er completely impossible.

[myTake Owner]

You also have to believe that the science that you follow is true. Most people trust in evolution because it's unlikely that someone will come up with a more accurate or correct theory, but if they did then evolution would be wrong.
Perhaps it was wrong to say equally deluded, you're right. However the idea of the mytake was to say that to that person, it's not that they believe flawed logic, it's that to them it is completely sound logic and there was no difference between different beleifs.

[Opinion Owner]

Yes indeed to many believers in religion or evolution for that matter, to most of 'them it is completely sound logic', even if it isn't to those of different faith.

Science can be split in two, the thesis/theories and fact on witch the thesis/theories are based. The earth is round is a fact, the age of earth is a theory based on facts.

The main different being one can be proved, the other just can't be disproved.

[myTake Owner]

I can see where you are coming from, but the earth being round is a fact currently. In the future, something might change how we view this (personally I doubt it, but it's possible.)
When everyone thought the earth was flat, it was labelled a 'fact' at the time and it also probably had ways of 'proving' it. Science fact is more likely to be real, but it's still backed by belief in a sense. Not quite the same as religion, but in a sense.

[Opinion Owner]

Well yes and no, it's true that a fact might not be the whole explanation and that limited what you can conclude based on it, however facts are things that can be proven by repeated evidence.

The earth being round has many times over been proven by empirical evidence, space photos, flying around the entire globe etc..
In fact it was religion that claimed the earth was flat and not round, science never said so, scientist however have made all sorts of hysterical claims over time... but human beings like scientists or clergy are still influenced by personal ambitions and limited by personal moral.

[myTake Owner]

Which is why there isn't an 100% pure factual thing to follow. As you said, personal ambition and personal morale can limit science and so can the fact that better/different evidence could come up at any time.
I understand that you feel science is more correct, I feel so too but lets not try and promote arguing amongst beliefs. :)

[HookingSwan]

Most people will go after ur throat for this. But I have to say I like how u view things and im more and more inclined to believe this to b true myself. Peace!

[myTake Owner]

Unfortunately yes, they will. I'm glad you see things the way I do and continue to spread the peace!

[anon4122]

Except that unlike language beliefs lead people to behave in certain ways and try and legislate in certain ways. So, if your belief system, leads you to be ignorant, and/or violent or if it leads to you trying to take other people's rights then no, it is not ok.

[myTake Owner]

It's only not okay to the people that don't follow the same morals. A lot of people hate murderers, yet commend soldiers in their military.

[anon4122]

So then do you think that a totally self destructive belief like letting murder go rampant in one's own community (something you would be hard pressed to find people agreeing with I think.) would be ok?

[anon4122]

also looking at some of your responses below. (The everyone is either equally deluded or non deluded argument) That is just Intellectual laziness via nihilism if we let any and all beliefs be accepted we literally will self destruct as a species. It is not ok to let beliefs thats harm ones own direct community flourish because then you and your community will die.

[myTake Owner]

I didn't say I'd find it ok. The murderer themselves probably would, though.
It's not so much accepting all the other beliefs, it's accepting why they are there.

[anon4122]

Ohh ok now I understand.

[oddwaffle]

Umm... Logic doesn't require belief. In fact, it strongly questions belief. It questions morals. It questions religious. It questions itself.

You do not believe in logic. You either know it or you will say "I don't know."

[myTake Owner]

It questions belief that is different from itself, and in some cases logic does question itself. Of course there's a base logic that is never incorrect, but humans don't have access to it in it's entirety yet so nobody goes about their lives with 0% belief knowing only the absolute truths about everything.

[oddwaffle]

That's the thing about logic. Most people don't have logic or understand it. "I think therefore I am" is a really basic logical argument. If A > B and B > C then A > C, is also really basic. If A is something then everything that is not A don't belong to A. You must not believe in logic. You either know or you don't. If you don't then you don't know.

This is why logic has a tendency to disregard religion. It is because it dismantle everything about religion and try to get to the facts. It couldn't find much. Most religions are based on some facts but they didn't translate well and later on people ignored the facts and put in their own opinions and carry those around as facts.

If you think really hard then the fantasy world of the matrix might just be real. There is no way to confirm if we are dreaming in the Matrix or actually experiencing life.

[myTake Owner]

But when you think you're right about logic, you must believe that your logic isn't flawed logic. Of course certain basic logics are unarguable, but your stated examples aren't disbelieved by anyone as far as I know.
Your point on the matrix version of reality could be very plausible and the simulation argument holds good ground. :)

[landlet]

No one actually cares if and what you believe.
It's when you try and push your dogmas on others that the problems start.

[TheSpartan]

There is only one truth. Not all religions and belief systems are correct.

[myTake Owner]

The one truth that you believe will be different for someone else.

[TheSpartan]

No more than the laws of physics will be different for someone else.

[myTake Owner]

Which they are. It used to be passed as scientific fact the world was round. Science can easily be disproved and changed at any point, so until we know everything about everything then it is a belief.

[TheSpartan]

Beliefs are still right or wrong. Just because we are uncertain doesn't mean there isn't still objectivity.

[myTake Owner]

It's right to the person believing it, and wrong to everyone else. At the current moment in time, we have to accept that as we aren't intelligent enough as a species to be purely correct all the time.