[ 3 / a / adv / an / asp / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / g / gd / int / jp / k / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / o / out / p / po / sci / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / v / vg / vp / vr / w / wsg / x]

/lit/ - Literature

<< back to board
[Delete this thread]

File: 2014-03-12-inconspicuous.png-(42 KB, 200x399)
Can different religions be...
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)03:31 UTC+1 No.4981328 Report

Can different religions be described as being more or less right, or are all religions right/wrong to the same extent or both or neither? Explain.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)03:32 UTC+1 No.4981332 Report

No, religions can never match burden of proof.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)03:33 UTC+1 No.4981335 Report

It is irrelevant to see it that way.

Better to see them as fitting or necessary
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)03:36 UTC+1 No.4981346 Report

>>4981328
>Can different religions be described as being more or less right

The validity of their beliefs can be tested and weighed against others, yes.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)03:43 UTC+1 No.4981375 Report

>>4981328

Religions are metatechnologies for homo sapien neurologies that either constrain or expand the power of their body of affects to alter the world around them.

With that being said, a religion which denies the "material" world will be out competed by metatechnoloies which accommodate stranger and more complex worlds of mechanics (the "sciences") and be ghettoized into localized communities which are the equivalent of nature preserves and zoos in the vast expanse of industrialized society.
>>
Feminister 06/07/14(Sat)03:58 UTC+1 No.4981414 Report

Well a religion typically requires positing exotic truth without any argument to demonstrate validity of such truth.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)04:02 UTC+1 No.4981446 Report

>>4981414
It's like there's some irresistible force preventing tripfags from making a good post EVER.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)04:24 UTC+1 No.4981538 Report

>>4981446
Feminister is right, though. Aquinas would never be able to prove that, for instance, the Bible is the infallible word of God. Christians in general don't feel they need to support this claim.
>>
Feminister 06/07/14(Sat)04:32 UTC+1 No.4981569 Report

>>4981446
Aquinas didn't write the Bible. Teilhard would have been a better example, since he just said a lot of the Bible is a fable (positive sense), and tried to make Christianity super rational. But, of course, I said "typically", and even so he was more of a writer of commentary than of the actual religion.
All the content on this website comes from 4chan.org. All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster. 4chanArchive is not affiliated with 4chan.