Replies

Any religion whose end result is the dissolution of the individual or that provides no purpose is irrelevant.

Why? Because you don't like that outcome?

It's like atheism, if athiesm is true, it doesn't matter, because both your days and my days will run out with no purpose, and anything we accomplish will ultimately fade away with the death of the solar system.

Actually, Buddhism believes that everything will continue in an endless cycle unless action is taken to escape the wheel of karma. The "goal" of Buddhism is the dissolution of the individual. You, however, discount Buddishm as false simply because you don't like its implications. That's not logical reasoning, that is the fallacy of argument from the consequences.

Even if their gods existed but their ultimate purpose is to be devoid of desire so that they merge back in with the soul of the cosmos and cease to exist as individuals, then again, it just doesn't matter. The religion is irrelevant to the individual because there is no ultimate purpose.

There is an ultimate purpose. It's just not the ultimate purpose that you want, so you pretend that it doesn't count and that the religion is meaningless to all of its followers.

Yes I have expectations of religion.

Your expectations have no bearing on their truth values, however. Since I've let it be known that I'm not so foolish sa to believe that your strings of logical fallacies has any bearing on the validity of the religions that you are criticizing, I don't understand why you continue to defend your use of such faulty arguments.

. I may have only a very limited responsibility for the world, but it doesn't take a lot of serious thought to see that the world is not as it should be.

How should the world be? By what method have you determined that the world is not currently at that state?

If they are all going to fade out of existence, then the religion whether true or false is irrelevant.

Traditional Buddhist teachings is that we will not "fade out" of existence but are condemned to an endless cycle of life, death and rebirth until we learn to cast off our desires. I'm not a Buddhist, so I don't believe that. Please don't compare my personal beliefs -- or lack thereof -- with Buddhism simply because you don't understand either.

To say that I shouldn't analyze religions according to expectations is ridiculous.

You're analyzing religion according to what you "want to be" and tossing out any religion that doesn't tell you that you want to hear. That's a great way to choose a belief, but don't pretend that it has any basis in rational thought or in reality. Your dismissal of Hindusim and Buddhism for the reasons that you have given are rooted in faulty reasoning and have no bearing on the actual truth values of those religions, nor does it advance the validity of Christianity.

Once again, what the hell does any of this have to do with a study that suggests that the first life forms sprang from Borax minerals?

"Why? Because you don't like that outcome?"

No, because logic says if that is the outcome, then it doesn't matter what we do in this life. It's all in vain. Therefore if those religions represents truth, the religion is irrevelant, in the big picture it just doesn't matter. It's not just that it's an outcome I don't like, it's that it makes all we do in vain.

Atheism has the same result, but at least Atheism in my mind is logical. "There is no God and therefore your life is in vain" is infinitely more logical than "there is god(s) but your life is still in vain".

But fortunately I know different. There is a God and your life doesn't need to be in vain. It doesn't need to end, it doesn't need to merge with the cosmic soul and lose your identity.

How should the world be? By what method have you determined that the world is not currently at that state?

Because I have a conscience. And it tells me that when men do what is evil, that shouldn't be. There shouldn't be murders, rapes, child abuse, thefts, hatred, etc. Those things are wrong. I know this. Maybe I don't have a mathematical proof for it, but I suspect you know it too. And that knowledge, Dimensio, you have to deal with. If there is good and evil, if there is right and wrong, where does it stem from? If everything is happenstance who is to say what is good and evil? The individual would determine that for himself. But that's not the way it is.

"That's a great way to choose a belief, but don't pretend that it has any basis in rational thought or in reality."

Ok, fair enough. Maybe I haven't proven them false, the proof of Christianity lies in it's prophecies, miracles, changed lives, and meeting the Creator one on one.

What I'm saying in defending that logic, is in response to your question of which religion is right. If you are going to investigate any religion, you might as well concentrate on the ones that have some relevance. Maybe that is a better way to choose a belief than to disprove a religion.

But your right, I don't want those religions to be truth because of the implications. If they are true, it doesn't matter that I'm wrong. If they are false, then what is true? If Christ is true, then it does matter if you are wrong.