Question:
Is believing one religion and rejecting all others an inherently illogical position?
anonymous
2010-02-22 12:52:01 UTC
Take Christians for example, no matter what excuse they come up with, no matter what bible verse they blurt out and no matter what famous Christian historical figure they name, believing Christianity is the truth and believing every other religion is false is an inherently illogical and intellectually dishonest position, right? Is it perfectly equivalent to believing in leprechauns but vehemently denying the existence of fairies?
26 answers:
anonymous
2010-02-22 12:58:32 UTC
Yes BUT they all demand absolute 'loyalty'...

It's just about the feeding troughs - no one wants to share.

~
anonymous
2010-02-22 13:07:29 UTC
It is not inherently illogical to believe that one religion is more correct than all the others (the question to answer is, "Which one?").

Unless all religions are devoid of an iota of truth, it is highly probable that one has more truth than the rest.

I venture to suggest that most religions have some truth in them. For example, "It is a good thing to help your neighbour when she/he is in need" is a commonly occurring theme.

Some religions have central or essential beliefs.

Islam says that the Koran exists in heaven in Arabic and was dictated by God to Mohammed. Christianity says that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and rose from the dead on the third day after his death.

There is nothing inherently illogical in believing one of those claims and rejecting the other, and I do.
jtrusnik
2010-02-22 13:06:44 UTC
It isn't *illogical,* per se, to think that you're got right about something, while rejecting other possibilities out-of-hand. For example, I'm quite certain that I have brown hair, and I wouldn't really give much, if any, consideration to other possibilities without a reason to question my hair color in the first place.



However, it's certainly irrational to start with the conclusion and then stick to it no matter what objections are raised. When those objections end up with you admitting to a contradiction, you've crossed into the illogical.



For example, admitting to not believing in leprechauns because there's no reason to believe in them, but believing in a god despite no reason to believe in such a being is a contradiction: you would essentially stating that lack of evidence both is and is not a reason to not believe in something.
no1home2day
2010-02-22 13:01:20 UTC
Absolutely.



It was the same way in my math classes when going to school. The teachers would always reject any answers that didn't match hers. A lot of us really thought that she was being narrow-minded, and rather bigoted that she would reject anything that she didn't agree with.



The point to my little humor is that Truth simply IS, and if you want to disagree with Truth, that's YOUR problem. I am NOT obligated to change on YOUR account, and neither is the universe. Jesus said "I am Truth!"



If it is wrong for me to accept what Jesus said, and then realize that anything that does NOT line up with what Jesus said is NOT Truth, then it is also wrong for my math teacher to not accept any answers that don't line up with HER answers!



And, continuing with the same analogy of math, here you are (spiritually speaking, mind you), here you are, just learning about addition and subtraction, and you're trying to say to a math scholar (or what ever you want to call him) that calculus doesn't exist just because YOU don't understand or believe it!



You see, the universe doesn't owe you anything. It is not obligated to change on YOUR account.



And the only way you can say that God doesn't exist is first of all, to claim that you have omniscience (that is to say, that you know absolutely everything there is to know in the entire universe); and that you have omnipotence (that is, you can bend the universe to your will, and change the universe based on your own limited knowledge base and experience level).



Of course, once you claim omniscience and omnipotence, then you are claiming to be some kind of a god, in which case you couldn't deny the existence of God without denying your OWN existence.



Hey! You can't have it both ways! If GOD doesn't exist, then YOU don't, either - because for you to claim that any God doesn't exist, you have to first BE a god, and then you deny your OWN existence.



So, quit making silly, ridiculous, arrogant and presumptuous claims about a Reality that is far too big for your limited, finite, temporal mind to grasp!
RogerRoger
2010-02-22 13:04:05 UTC
It is illogical to believe that religions that are mutually exclusive are all true. That's just laughable.



To believe that there is an eternal uncaused cause of the universe. (ie. God) is not at all the same as believing in faries.



To me, believing that everything just exploded out of nothing and made everything for no reason, and that through some random process given infinite time we are magically here is more ridiculous than to believe that the universe was designed or put in motion by something/someone greater.
sunshine
2010-02-22 13:07:22 UTC
Any religion that does not set Jesus Christ as savior and Lord, is a false religion.

The Bible clearly teaches this.

The Jew and Christian both believe in the same God, Messiah has come ! Jesus Christ ; and the Jew missed Him.

All other religions are FALSE teaching.

Illogical would be to receive darkness over Light.

God's path is well lite in Jesus Christ.

The enemy says it's ok to test other waters/religions.

I personally have looked at other religions and faiths and never do they co inside with the word of God ( bible)

If it is perverted and not written according to the Bible I through it out.

peace

a friend

in Christ Jesus
John by pointing to his deeds...
2010-02-22 12:58:16 UTC
Again, no source, reference, citation, or anecdotal story, just your hateful bullshit.



This is what the Catholic position is :

"I do not undervalue at all the advantage of institutions which, though not Catholic, keep out evils worse than themselves. Some restraint is better than none: systems which do not simply inculcate divine truth, yet serve to keep men from being utterly hardened against it, when at length it addresses them; they preserve a certain number of revealed doctrines in the popular mind; they familiarize it to Christian ideas; they create religious associations; and thus, remotely and negatively, they may even be said to prepare and dispose the soul in a certain sense for those inspirations of grace, which, through the merits of Christ, are freely given to all men for their salvation, all over the earth. It is a plain duty, then, not to be forward in destroying religious institutions, even though not Catholic, if we cannot replace them with what is better; but, from fear of injuring them, to shrink from saving the souls of the individuals who live under them, would be worldly wisdom, treachery to Christ, and uncharitableness to His redeemed."

NEWMAN
Seriphe
2010-02-22 13:00:30 UTC
Every major religion has a Great Flood, an armageddon, and at least one 'savior'. They all have so much in common, yet kill each other. I know of 2 different church denominations in my area that are exactly the same except for their views on 'thee/thou' and 'you'.
anonymous
2010-02-22 12:56:08 UTC
Sure. As a Deist/Pantheist I believe in a universal God that doesn't care if you call it Jesus, Zeus, Quetzalcoatl or the FSM. God doesn't even care if you believe, but how you treat one another.
Corey
2010-02-22 12:55:56 UTC
It depends on if they actually had proof of their magical cosmology being real. As I am skeptical that anyone does, then it is usually an illogical position based on special pleading among other logical fallacies.
Elizabeth
2010-02-22 13:01:52 UTC
It is inherently illogical to make sweeping proclamations about one group of people--to say that Christians reject all other religions--if you didn't use valid, reliable research to come to that conclusion.



You pseudo-intellectual, wanna-be real intellectuals kill me.
anonymous
2010-02-22 13:00:57 UTC
Correct.



IMHO, the only true religion is our personal relationship to/with god. All else is scaffolding.



FER paradigm: http://www.urantia.org
anonymous
2010-02-22 12:54:37 UTC
Not to mention that there's really no way for them to know whether Yahweh is a god, or whether it's telling the truth. If it's so powerful it could just be projecting hallucinations on all of us, and we'd never know. It's probably a perv looking at us under our clothing. Maybe that's why it's all worked up about us touching our privates: it wants our hands out of the way so it can get a good clear look.
anonymous
2010-02-22 12:54:48 UTC
As long as the evidence is equal for both it isn't a consistent position.
sKewbrain
2010-02-22 12:56:26 UTC
If I tell you my name is Jeff and you call me Steve, does that make me Steve? If someone else calls me George, am I George? If another person says I'm Jim, would I become Jim?

No. Jeff is Jeff.

The point is, there is one ultimate truth to our reality and why it is and just because people want to twist and change the truth for whatever reason doesn't make it any less the truth.
mike4
2010-02-22 12:56:46 UTC
And again you compare Christians to all other religions why?
anonymous
2010-02-22 12:58:31 UTC
Yes, but hey, thats the 'Christian' thing to do.
gtahvfaith
2010-02-22 12:55:29 UTC
Not illogical at all. God was present in the beginning, He created it all
?
2010-02-22 13:01:18 UTC
“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”



- Stephen Roberts
amenhotep
2010-02-22 12:58:29 UTC
yes.



they are posessed by lower life forms and dont even know it.
Cooley
2010-02-22 12:56:31 UTC
HEY U REJECT 1 MORE THAN ME

THAT MEANS

YOU'RE MORE ILLOGICAL!
Classical Liberal Jochan
2010-02-22 12:53:59 UTC
Devout Muslims are the same. If you are raised into something you tend to be devout to it.
?
2010-02-22 13:07:49 UTC
“WHAT IF”



FIRST OF ALL, I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT I CANNOT ATTEND A CONVENTIONAL CHURCH WITHOUT BEING HYPOCRITICAL, BUT I FIRMLY BELIEVE IN GOD, JESUS, PRAYER, THE TEN COMMANDMENTS, LIFE AFTER DEATH, AND BASIC CHRISTIANITY. ALSO, IN IT’S UNALTERED AND ORIGINAL FORM, THE BIBLE WAS PROBABLY A MUCH MORE ACCURATE, THOUGH SIMPLISTIC, DOCUMENT THAN EXISTS TODAY.



HOWEVER, IT IS MY OPINION, THAT THROUGH THE SEVERAL DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS, REVISIONS, VERSIONS AND TRANSLATIONS OF BIBLICAL INFORMATION BY PERSONS WHO WERE IGNORANT TO MODERN SCIENCE, SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES, AND TECHNOLOGY, THE TRUE MEANINGS AND ACCURATE INTERPRETATION OF THE EVENTS RECORDED ORIGINALLY HAVE BEEN LOST. TO ME, THE BIBLE WAS INTENDED TO BE AN HISTORICAL DIARY OF A TRULY REMARKABLE VISIT AND A SERIES OF PROFOUND EVENTS THAT DID IN FACT OCCUR. IT IS SAD THAT MAN WAS NOT AT THE TIME, INTELLECTUALLY CAPABLE OF ACCURATELY COMPREHENDING AND RECORDING WHAT HE ACTUALLY SAW. BECAUSE OF THIS, MANS EARLY, AND ONGOING, INTERPRETATION OF RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE HAS TAKEN MANY AVENUES OF APPROACH, AND IN PRESENT REALITY, APPEARS TO ME TO HAVE BEEN INITIALLY BASED ON NAIVE CONJECTURE STIMULATED BY DIRECT EXPOSURE TO SEVERAL INSTANCES OF PROFOUND AND UNEXPLAINABLE PHENOMENON THAT OCCURRED BEFORE A MODERN UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGICAL ABILITIES WAS DEVELOPED. HOWEVER, AS ONE LOOKS AT THE HISTORY OF MAJOR RELIGIOUS FACTIONS, IT IS APPARENT THAT ALTHOUGH THE INTERPRETATION AND FOLLOWING OF THIS DOCTRINE WAS GREATLY VARIED, THERE WERE SOME ABSOLUTES THAT DID NOT CHANGE.



SOME EXAMPLES ARE: ONE SUPREME BEING OR ENTITY SUCH AS GOD, BUDDHA, MOHAMMED, AND THE GREAT SPIRIT. ALSO, THERE IS LIFE AFTER DEATH, GOOD AND EVIL, AND RULES THAT MUST BE FOLLOWED TO THE BEST OF ONES ABILITY TO ACHIEVE ACCEPTANCE TO THE HIGHER LEVEL OF EXISTENCE AFTER PHYSICAL DEATH.



TODAY, WE KNOW THAT THE UNIVERSE IS IMMENSE. WE ALSO KNOW THAT GALAXIES WITHIN OUR UNIVERSE GO ON AND ON, AND THERE ARE PROBABLY MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS OF THEM IN EXISTENCE. MOST OF THESE GALAXIES CONTAIN UNCOUNTABLE NUMBERS OF STARS. (WHICH ARE SUNS) SOME OF THESE STARS ARE HUGE. OTHERS ARE TINY. SOME ARE VERY NEW AND SOME ARE EXTREMELY ANCIENT. SOME HAVE BURNED OUT, COLLAPSED UPON THEMSELVES, AND HAVE BECOME "BLACK HOLES IN SPACE, WHILE OTHERS HAVE EXPLODED IN SUPER-NOVA. BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY, SOME ARE ABOUT THE SAME SIZE UNIFORMITY AND CONSISTENCY OF OUR SUN. THROUGHOUT THE UNIVERSE, THERE ARE PROBABLY TRILLIONS UPON TRILLIONS OF STARS THAT ARE VERY MUCH THE SAME AS OUR SUN. IF ONE BELIEVES IN EXTRA TERRESTRIAL INTELLIGENT LIFE, ONE CANNOT LOOK INTO A CLEAR NIGHT SKY WITHOUT FEELING EXTREMELY HUMBLED AND INSIGNIFICANT. IT IS MY BELIEF THAT WE ARE MOST CERTAINLY, NOT THE ONLY RELIGIOUS AND INTELLIGENT LIFE IN OUR UNIVERSE.



WHAT IF:



ALL INTELLIGENT LIFE IS CREATED IN GOD’S IMAGE NO MATTER WHAT PHYSICAL CONFIGURATION IT HAPPENS TO BE IN.







WHAT IF:



"GOD”, THE CREATOR OF ALL THINGS, ELECTED TO ESTABLISH INTELLIGENT LIFE ON A FEW OF THOSE PLANETS AS HE DID HERE ON EARTH?



WHAT IF:



CREATION AND EVOLUTION ARE THE SAME. THE TWENTY-FOUR HOUR DAY IS MANS EARTHLY CONCEPT OF TIME BECAUSE IT FITS THE PHYSICS OF EARTH’S ROTATION IN ORBIT AROUND THE SUN, AND THE SPINNING OF THE PLANET ON IT’S AXIS.



WHAT IF:



ONE OF GOD' S DAYS EQUALS A BILLION OR SO OF OUR YEARS? TO PUT THIS INTO PERSPECTIVE, COMPARE A SINGLE ATOM TO OUR SOLAR SYSTEM, THEN COMPARE THE AVERAGE TIME REQUIRED FOR THE ELECTRONS (PLANETS) TO ORBlT AROUND THE NUCLEUS (SUN) AND THEN THINK OF THE SIZE/TIME RELATIONSHIP COMPARING OUR SOLAR SYSTEM TO THAT ATOM. THEN COMPARE OUR TINY SOLAR SYSTEM, AS AN ATOM, TO THE IMMENSITY OF THE UNIVERSE. SURELY, UNIVERSAL TIME CANNOT BE ON THE SAME SCALE AS MANS. IF THIS CONCEPT IS TRUE, THEN SIX OF "GOD'S" DAYS COULD EQUAL BILLIONS OF YEARS OF OUR EARTH TIME. WHEN MAN INTERPRETED AND WROTE "GOD'S" WORD (BIBLE) HE HAD NO ACCURATE CONCEPT OF THE UNIVERSE OR DIFFERENT TIME SCALES. SO SIX DAYS, (MANS INTERPRETATION OF "GOD'S” WORD) TO CREATE OUR EARTH COULD BE CORRECT FORM BOTH “GOD’S” WORD (BIBLE) AND DARWIN’S THEORY OF EVOLUTION.



WHAT IF:



“GOD’S” CREATION OF LIFE FLOWS ACROSS THE UNIVERSE AS A WAVE UPON THE OCEANS? (CONSIDER OUR PLANET BUT AS A SINGLE AND MINUSCULE GRAIN OF SAND UPON THE SHORES OF THE TINY ATOLL OF OUR GALAXY IN THE IMMENSE SEA OF THE UNIVERSE)



WHAT IF:



OTHER GALAXIES RECEIVED THE BLESSING OF LIFE A FEW OF “GOD’S” DAYS BEFORE OURS DID. WOULD NOT THIS MEAN THERE ARE BILLIONS OF PLANETS IN THE UNIVERSE THAT COULD HAVE INTELLIGENT LIFE AT LEAST A FEW HUNDRED THOUSAND YEARS ADVANCED TO OURS HERE ON EARTH?



WHAT IF:



THE “WAVE OF LIFE” IS STILL PROGRESSING? IF SO, THEN IS IT NOT POSSIBLE THAT WE COULD ALSO BE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS AHEAD OF BILLIONS OF PLANETS.



WHAT IF:



THE “GARDEN OF EDEN” WAS NOT A LOCATION ON EARTH, BUT WAS THE ENTIRE PLANET? NO OTHER PLANET IN OUR SOLAR SYSTEM HAS ALL THE ELEMENTS RE
The What Should I Do Retard
2010-02-22 12:53:31 UTC
They believe because they WANT
No Chance without Safi
2010-02-22 12:54:18 UTC
Yeah, pretty much.



.
anonymous
2010-02-22 12:54:25 UTC
Yes....


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...