If there is one true faith then there should be one religion

What do you value more?

Honesty	10.8%	[ 4 ]
Friends	0.0%	[ 0 ]
Family	2.7%	[ 1 ]
Truth	24.3%	[ 9 ]
Peace	5.4%	[ 2 ]
Power	5.4%	[ 2 ]
Righteousness/Properness	5.4%	[ 2 ]
Love	16.2%	[ 6 ]
Happyness	8.1%	[ 3 ]
Freedom	21.6%	[ 8 ]
Total Votes:			[ 37 ]

[Ask Jappleack]

Lucky~9~Lives

We Are Organisms

Lucky~9~Lives

We Are Organisms

There needs to be an agnostic religion that is created for moral values and accepts that God may or may not exist but still be used as a moral system perhaps.

Religious Society of Friends (Quakers)

No. Not talking just abrahamic.

Like Nityananda-rama dasa said.

I would have appreciated it more if you linked me to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontheistic_religions quakers are still somewhat theistic.

[Ask Jappleack]

Pseudo-Onkelos

We Are Organisms

Pseudo-Onkelos

"One true faith" sounds oxymoronic. It implies that faith is true on the basis of, well, nothing. It would be just another religion claiming to be true.

I do think this would be a waste of time. As for me, I'm non-religious.

no, one true faith means theres only one set of faith that ends up being true. So to discern the true faith this religion would be made.

How does one set of faith end up being true? Faith relies on trusting something or someone, not reason or empirical evidence.

We can trust a method of discerning truth, or methods.

[Lucky~9~Lives]

We Are Organisms

Lucky~9~Lives

We Are Organisms

Lucky~9~Lives

We Are Organisms

There needs to be an agnostic religion that is created for moral values and accepts that God may or may not exist but still be used as a moral system perhaps.

Religious Society of Friends (Quakers)

No. Not talking just abrahamic.

Like Nityananda-rama dasa said.

I would have appreciated it more if you linked me to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontheistic_religions quakers are still somewhat theistic.

I linked you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontheist_Quakers precisely so you may appreciate that Quakers are not necessarily somewhat theistic.
- gonk

[Ask Jappleack]

Lucky~9~Lives

We Are Organisms

Lucky~9~Lives

We Are Organisms

Lucky~9~Lives

We Are Organisms

There needs to be an agnostic religion that is created for moral values and accepts that God may or may not exist but still be used as a moral system perhaps.

Religious Society of Friends (Quakers)

No. Not talking just abrahamic.

Like Nityananda-rama dasa said.

I would have appreciated it more if you linked me to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontheistic_religions quakers are still somewhat theistic.

I linked you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontheist_Friend precisely so you may appreciate that Quakers are not necessarily somewhat theistic.
- gonk

Quakers are theistic, their friends are not xd its good they can tolerate n all I suppose but. xd *shrugs*

[Lucky~9~Lives]

We Are Organisms

Lucky~9~Lives

I linked you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontheist_Friend precisely so you may appreciate that Quakers are not necessarily somewhat theistic.
- gonk

Quakers are theistic, their friends are not xd its good they can tolerate n all I suppose but. xd *shrugs*

I edited my last post to be less Friendly.
- xd

[Xiam]

Pseudo-Onkelos

We Are Organisms

Pseudo-Onkelos

"One true faith" sounds oxymoronic. It implies that faith is true on the basis of, well, nothing. It would be just another religion claiming to be true.

I do think this would be a waste of time. As for me, I'm non-religious.

no, one true faith means theres only one set of faith that ends up being true. So to discern the true faith this religion would be made.

How does one set of faith end up being true? Faith relies on trusting something or someone, not reason or empirical evidence.

A faith ends up being true when you feel in your gut that it is true.

[Aporeia]

Pseudo-Onkelos

We Are Organisms

Pseudo-Onkelos

"One true faith" sounds oxymoronic. It implies that faith is true on the basis of, well, nothing. It would be just another religion claiming to be true.

I do think this would be a waste of time. As for me, I'm non-religious.

no, one true faith means theres only one set of faith that ends up being true. So to discern the true faith this religion would be made.

How does one set of faith end up being true? Faith relies on trusting something or someone, not reason or empirical evidence.

Truth is not about what is apparent. Truth exists regardless of all circumstances. Just because something has little or no evidence (or on the extreme side, is not even conceived) does not dismiss whether or not it is true.

Evidence and proof merely communicate the certainty/uncertainty of truth.

[Pseudo-Onkelos]

False Dichotomy

Truth is not about what is apparent. Truth exists regardless of all circumstances. Just because something has little or no evidence (or on the extreme side, is not even conceived) does not dismiss whether or not it is true.

Evidence and proof merely communicate the certainty/uncertainty of truth.

It just leads to an argument from ignorance and I'd much rather be certain of the truth. So until one can prove a faith to be true, I've no reason to see it as truth.

[Aporeia]

Pseudo-Onkelos

False Dichotomy

Truth is not about what is apparent. Truth exists regardless of all circumstances. Just because something has little or no evidence (or on the extreme side, is not even conceived) does not dismiss whether or not it is true.

Evidence and proof merely communicate the certainty/uncertainty of truth.

It just leads to an argument from ignorance and I'd much rather be certain of the truth. So until one can prove a faith to be true, I've no reason to see it as truth.

Depending on how deep you question, can you really deem anything as known? We merely view objective truth through subjective means.

I believe it's most logical to conclude proof proves nothing but plausibility. To entertain a thought without blindly accepting it is far more beneficial than to reject it completely.

[Crystal8Phoenix]

We Are Organisms

There needs to be an agnostic religion that is created for moral values and accepts that God may or may not exist but still be used as a moral system perhaps. But that is assuming people can't handle morals without it I suppose. Its better than scientology, better than rastafarianism, hell even better than every religion out there if its approached correctly.

Sounds like Unitarian Universalism. They're all about seeking personal spiritual truth and coexistence.

Quote:

What would this religion need?

A structure that supports people seeking their own truth. Something that guides but doesn't dictate.

Quote:

What sort of symbology should be used for mythologies or stories of the religion if there are any? Should we take true examples from the past or make up ideal examples? Will we wait for stories to unfold after the religion is open rather?

I can't really think of a good answer for this right now, so we're gonna skip it.

Quote:

What do all religions have in common?

faith. Even if you don't believe in God, you can't prove there isn't a God, so in a way, even with all the scientific evidence we have, you must have absolute faith that science and God cannot coexist and there is no possibility whatsoever of God to say there isn't one.
To me, faith isn't to believe without proof, it is to be certain of something you can't prove. If there is evidence to a certain belief, that isn't proof, it's just evidence. Faith can be disproved and disappointed, it doesn't always exist without reason.

Quote:

What should their book be called?

hmmm...I suppose the group can call it whatever it wants. I would probably have a collection of books with different titles but would name the main one "Book of Light". lol. Kinda cliche but whatever

Quote:

So what would people enter this religion for? Why do people enter religions or turn to religions?

I think people would enter this religion the same as for any other, to find inner peace and a way of living that allows them to die without regret.

Quote:

What uses do religions have besides moral values and answers?

To help people with the things that science and reason does not. With that part of our brain that considers the possibilities beyond what we can rationalize

Quote:

Why do people need answers?

Because they have questions

Quote:

Do you think this is a waste of time?

No. Not any more so than rationalizing anything. Science is nice but if we just die and that's it, then why be so concerned with what I do with my time here? I think people want to find a reason to live.

Quote:

And finally What religion are you or are you not religious?

I'm sort of Agnostic. I have my own spiritual beliefs and idea about God, but I don't have a religion or believe that my way is necessarily right. I have found an answer that satisfies my needs and makes me content about life.


Note: Having trouble thinking with my fiance and his cousin playing wrestling very loudly in the room, so sorry if my train of thought is hard to follow.

[Pseudo-Onkelos]

False Dichotomy

Pseudo-Onkelos

False Dichotomy

Truth is not about what is apparent. Truth exists regardless of all circumstances. Just because something has little or no evidence (or on the extreme side, is not even conceived) does not dismiss whether or not it is true.

Evidence and proof merely communicate the certainty/uncertainty of truth.

It just leads to an argument from ignorance and I'd much rather be certain of the truth. So until one can prove a faith to be true, I've no reason to see it as truth.

Depending on how deep you question, can you really deem anything as known? We merely view objective truth through subjective means.

I believe it's most logical to conclude proof proves nothing but plausibility. To entertain a thought without blindly accepting it is far more beneficial than to reject it completely.

I doubt my senses at times, but I'd have to end up being too radical if I went any further. The last thing I want to approach is solipsism. For now, I think science and reason have been sufficient at cracking away fiction from reality.

[Aporeia]

Pseudo-Onkelos

False Dichotomy

Pseudo-Onkelos

False Dichotomy

Truth is not about what is apparent. Truth exists regardless of all circumstances. Just because something has little or no evidence (or on the extreme side, is not even conceived) does not dismiss whether or not it is true.

Evidence and proof merely communicate the certainty/uncertainty of truth.

It just leads to an argument from ignorance and I'd much rather be certain of the truth. So until one can prove a faith to be true, I've no reason to see it as truth.

Depending on how deep you question, can you really deem anything as known? We merely view objective truth through subjective means.

I believe it's most logical to conclude proof proves nothing but plausibility. To entertain a thought without blindly accepting it is far more beneficial than to reject it completely.

I doubt my senses at times, but I'd have to end up being too radical if I went any further. The last thing I want to approach is solipsism. For now, I think science and reason have been sufficient at cracking away fiction from reality.

There are many flavors of solipsism, and some are quite rational.

To be simple, call nothing true, but merely plausible. Call nothing false unless it is illogical. Understand that all of the things you hold as reality are merely subjective, and that there is a greater reality which is beyond you. The objective truth is not to be confused with the subjective tell.

Uncertainty is honesty and humility in light of your limited perspective. Everything deserves scrutiny.

[Pseudo-Onkelos]

False Dichotomy

There are many flavors of solipsism, and some are quite rational.

To be simple, call nothing true, but merely plausible. Call nothing false unless it is illogical. Understand that all of the things you hold as reality are merely subjective, and that there is a greater reality which is beyond you. The objective truth is not to be confused with the subjective tell.

Uncertainty is honesty and humility in light of your limited perspective. Everything deserves scrutiny.

That sounds too amorphous and allows fictitious ideas to enter. I don't think I'd want to follow that, so I'll simply put it as it is: if there is no evidence, I'll have no reason to accept it.

[Aporeia]

Pseudo-Onkelos

False Dichotomy

There are many flavors of solipsism, and some are quite rational.

To be simple, call nothing true, but merely plausible. Call nothing false unless it is illogical. Understand that all of the things you hold as reality are merely subjective, and that there is a greater reality which is beyond you. The objective truth is not to be confused with the subjective tell.

Uncertainty is honesty and humility in light of your limited perspective. Everything deserves scrutiny.

That sounds too amorphous and allows fictitious ideas to enter. I don't think I'd want to follow that, so I'll simply put it as it is: if there is no evidence, I'll have no reason to accept it.

To permit thought on fiction is better than to ignore what may be reality. Some things are more plausible than others, merely viewing things this way does not remove your weighing of circumstances; the opposite, in fact, it expands them.

To know truth, should you not understand the lie?

[xXZirkannia]

Waste of time.

Besides, it's been done already.
This one guy died after being beaten and bleeding to death as a sacrifice to set people free of the bondages of sin - Religion included - but then some people made a religion out of that sacrifice rather than following what he said, and now the people that actually do follow what he said are lumped together with the religious folks, making the commandment to share the news and truth of it a heck of a lot harder. xP