What counts as proof that I believe in a certain religion?

[DetlefK]

Is it good enough to say that I believe in it?

Is it good enough to do what a believer would do?

Or is there no such test at all, and the question is just whether I self-identify as a member of a certain religion?



For example:

- If someone claims religious discrimination for being judged for doing that thing, wouldn't they first have to prove that they did the thing for religious reasons?

- I once read a post by a pastor who condemned the prosperity-gospel as heresy, but called on the believers not to do anything about it, because doing so would mean doubting the beliefs of fellow Christians.

[Orrex]

1. Classically, I believe that they cut you open and read it in your entrails.

Sometimes the old ways are the best ways.

[trotsky]

3. ...

[Thomas Hurt]

31. no, no, no, they tied you up threw you in the lake...

if you drowned you were not a heathen or an apostate.

[AtheistCrusader]

52. I'm dissapointed that this thread continued after this post, because nothing else can possibly

measure up, so to speak.

[Voltaire2]

2. Religious "proof" is self-reporting and for organized religions, going through the motions.

If you say your are a member of x religion and you appear to perform whatever rituals x requires that would seem to be sufficient. In fact I don't see why it goes beyond just self reporting. Religions are belief systems, that is by definition internal.

[trotsky]

4. The only practical thing we have to go on is self-identity.

Otherwise you fall into the trap of what it means to be a "real" follower of X religion. They've had thousands of years to sort that out, and still haven't managed. Holy wars, inquisitions, SPLITTERS, you name it.

[DetlefK]

5. If I self-identify as a Christian, but behave in an unchristian manner...

does that mean that I'm a Christian?

[Mariana]

7. Everyone has their own individual interpretation

of what "behaving in a Christian manner" or "behaving in an unchristian manner" means. How do you determine which of those interpretations are right and which ones are wrong?

[DetlefK]

10. Christians have this book they care about when it's convenient.

[Mariana]

12. Yes, they do. It's a big book

with a lot of conflicting stuff in it. Every Christian decides which stuff in the book is important and which can be ignored. Once again, how do you determine who is right and who is wrong?

For example: Jesus clearly said that divorced people who remarry are adulterers (with some exceptions), yet many Christians have divorced and remarried (and aren't among the exceptions). When those people have sex with their new spouses, are they behaving in a Christian manner or in an unchristian manner?

[DetlefK]

14. See #13.

[trotsky]

8. Who gets to decide what "un-Christian" means?

Lots of people think that if you support abortion rights, you're behaving in an "un-Christian manner." Are they right or wrong? How do you know?

[DetlefK]

9. Not turning-the-other-cheek, not giving away my stuff to the poor...

...not forgiving others and instead vowing revenge...

You know. Stuff that Jesus preached pretty much word-by-word.



What's the point of a religion if it means something different to every believer? If everybody has their own definition of Christianity, there is no point in being a "Christian", because there is no religious fundament the believers agree on.

[trotsky]

11. "turning the other cheek"

Does that mean I can, or cannot engage in self-defense?

"giving away stuff to the poor" - Does that mean the government should or should not play a role?

"forgiving others / vowing revenge" - From the guy who said "But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me."?? (Luke 19:27)

Yeah, it's not clean cut. I'm sorry that's unsettling to you. But unless you are in the position to conclusively define what a religion is or is not (SPOILER ALERT: No one is.), then we're stuck with self-identity.

[DetlefK]

13. Then the concept of religion is meaningless.

If we cannot define what the teachings of a particular religion are and are not, if we cannot define what a religion does and does not expect from a believer, if we cannot even define who a believer of a particular religion is and who is not, then what is left of "religion"?

If we take away all that, what is religion any more than secular traditions for which their followers make up justifications on a case-by-case and follower-by-follower basis?

What's the point of preaching, furthering and defending a religion when your supposed co-believers don't agree with you on what that religion is?

What's the point of talking about religious discrimination when you cannot even prove that that religion exists separately from you?




All this leads to one conclusion:
How is there supposed to be a debate on God, on whether or not he exists, on the cosmos, on what it means to be human, on how we are supposed to live our lifes...
How are believers supposed to convince non-believers in a debate if they cannot even define what they are talking about???

I know, I know... This is not about facts and knowledge. This is about belief. You are asking me to believe.

But how can you ask me to believe when neither of us knows what belief is???

[Mariana]

15. At the end of your post, you say

"All this leads to one conclusion" but you don't say what that conclusion is. You ask questions, and questions are not conclusions. What is the conclusion you have come to?

[DetlefK]

16. That, in an argument, believers have nothing they could argue for.

There is nothing to suggest or to defend for a believer, because he cannot explain WHAT he is suggesting or defending.

[Voltaire2]

22. But that is just silly. There are thousands and thousands of ridiculous books describing in great

detail the ludicrous beliefs of assorted religions. You seem perplexed by the fact that they all differ. Of course they do as it is all bullshit, but the explanations can be long and detailed, and despite the beliefs being obvious bullshit the explanations can be quite elegant and elaborate and entirely logical in a formal sense.

[DetlefK]

23. I'm not talking about the individual belief of an individual person.

I'm talking about the problem that the adherents supposedly share the wider belief of the religion, but effectively just follow their individual version.

So, which version of the religion am I supposed to adopt, when the believers cannot agree among themselves what the correct version of the religion is?

Christianity?
Which version of Christianity?
Roman or greek branch?
Catholic or reformed?
Which reformed?
Or syncretic occult versions of Christianity like Caribbean Voodoo, Llullism and Hermeticism?

[Voltaire2]

25. Any version you want.

I fail to see how the vast choice makes any difference.

The adherents of each sect hold the beliefs of that sect. As nobody can prove anything empirical about any of these faith based beliefs, they are all equally valid.

[DetlefK]

28. 1. How can they all be valid if they contradict each other?

2. If your belief is true and the opposite of your belief is true as well, why should I have your belief and not the opposite of your belief?

[Voltaire2]

38. From the perspective of believer x the contradictory

beliefs of believer y can be "wrong" (you will burn in hell for that, for example) or "part of the many faceted mystery of gods" or a multitude of other explanations.

There are quite reasonable explanations on the ecumenical "it's a mystery and it's all good side of things", that the form is not nearly as important as the practice. See your local Unitarian church, for example.

[DetlefK]

39. Translation:

"God and his teachings are whatever we need them to be to make this religion work."

A cosmology based on utilitarianism.

[Voltaire2]

40. That is certainly one tendency.

But again another perspective is that all religious viewpoints can be valid - they are just imperfect human interpretations of the divine. That is not unreasonable or self-serving. The specific form doesn't matter.

[DetlefK]

42. And what happens if a believer has a question?

- "Reverend, I have this moral problem. What should I do?"
- "My son, you can do whatever you want, and no matter what you do, it will be the correct decision."

[Voltaire2]

43. you are being obtuse

In most religions the "reverend" would say "do this". You keep applying the properties of the class of all religious belief systems to the properties of a single religious belief system. That seems to be a logical error on your part.

[DetlefK]

44. Now you contradict what we have derived so far.

We have derived that, if different people believe different things, all of them shall be considered true.

Fine.

Now I have a problem and am asking for a solution.
But why would one solution be prefered to another when all solutions are equal?

[Voltaire2]

45. you've derived that, I haven't.

All I have said is that there are many religions with many different belief systems. You seem to be very puzzled over the fact that there can be contradictions between systems. There is no puzzle there. Different systems have different beliefs. You've introduced "considered true or equal" - and attempted to apply it globally across all of these systems and discovered a shocking set of contradictions. But there is no contradiction there. Each system is at best only internally consistent. The fact that these belief systems are not consistent with each other might be interesting but does not falsify any of the systems.

For example: faith x states that gay sex is a horrible sin and you will be punished for eternity for engaging in it. Faith y says its fine. For faith x believers it is a horrible sin. For faith y believers it is not a horrible sin. The contradiction only exists if you attempt to combine faith x and faith y. Within faith x their rules are valid and consistent. Within faith y their rules are valid and consistent. What exactly is the problem?

[DetlefK]

46. No, I'm baffled by the contradictions INSIDE systems.

If person A conders herself a Christian and believes X, and person B considers herself a Christian and believes the opposite of X, then what am I supposed to believe if I am a Christian and have no opinion on X?

Am I supposed to be for X or against X? Because both are somehow what "real" Christians believe.

My problem is that people with different beliefs are somehow mushed together into one religion. And if one religion harbors contradicting beliefs, how can I say that it is just ONE religion and not many?

[Voltaire2]

47. Again you've aggregated many religions into one.

There is no one thing that is the Christian religion. Instead there are many different varieties of Christianity. You might as well claim that colors don't make any sense because blue and red are different. You are making a categorization error.

[DetlefK]

48. Then what is the difference between a Christian and a Non-Christian?

[Voltaire2]

49. I keep grasping for the right words - it's a taxonomy problem.

Grossly imprecise but:
--------- Animals
Mammals ----- Reptiles
Cats - Dogs Lizards - Snakes

-------- Abrahamic Religions
Christians -------------- Muslims
Protestants - Catholics Sunnis - Shia

I still think you are just being deliberately obtuse.

[DetlefK]

50. It really seems to be a taxonomy-problem.

Cats and dogs are mammals. Fine. But when we are talking about cats and dogs, refering to both simply as mammals only creates confusion.

Instead of refering to cats and dogs as "this kind of mammal" and "that kind of mammal", why not accept that they are different and use different names for them?

Why do dogs and cats not get along?
Or lions and zebras?
Or humans and rats?
We're all just mammals after all!

[Voltaire2]

51. Why do we have taxonomy? Seriously?

Nah. You have descended into silliness.
Christian sects share certain beliefs not shared by non-Christian sects. It is a distinction with a difference. But you know that.

[Mariana]

34. Which version are you supposed to adopt?

I suppose it would be best to start with the fundamental questions:

1. Do you believe in one (or more) of the various deities that other people have believed in? Or, have you discovered a previously unknown deity?

2. Do you want to worship this deity? (Bonus question: Why or why not?)

3. Does the deity want your worship? Does it want you to do anything in particular, that you wouldn't do anyway?

If the answer to any of these questions is NO, there's no need to follow any religion, much less worry about which version to adopt.

[trotsky]

17. Not my monkeys, not my circus.

Just pointing out that trying to decide who is or isn't a follower of a particular religion is impossible.

[uriel1972]

19. Do you see why so many atheists are frustrated...

when we try and discuss the matter rationally and logically?

[Voltaire2]

21. No the concept of religion isn't meaningless, the exact definition of what a specific religion

believes is subjective.

Most religious sects have knowledgeable authorities who can tell you exactly what they believe. They can and do define those beliefs very precisely. What you can't do is turn around and tell person x that they are not religious because they don't have the exact same beliefs as described in great detail by the pope of religion y.

[DetlefK]

24. But that other person does not believe the same things as me.

How can we then say that we have the same religion?

Thje only thing that counts in religion is belief. And religious belief is the position that certain teachings are true and infallible because reasons.

How can two different teachings be true and infallible at the same time?

[Voltaire2]

41. You've assumed that all religions declare that

their beliefs are infallible. Some do some don't. The ones that do also believe that contradictory beliefs are wrong. Even if all religions decreed infallibility all that would mean is that as a believer you'd better choose the right religion. It is the coda to Pascal's wager: ok smarty pants, but which God, and which god's religion?

[Cuthbert Allgood]

18. All Christians are inherently flawed.

We know that because you were born with mortal sin. You spend your entire life trying to get over your nasty nature. OF COURSE you are going to act in an unchristian manner. What's important is that you keep trying to live up to the ideal.

See how fucking easy it is.

Of course it's about self-identity. Otherwise, nobody is a Christian because one crazy fucking denomination is going to tell you you aren't and another crazier denomination will tell that first crazy one that they aren't.

[Nitram]

6. I believe social scientists accept each individual's own assertion regarding which religion they

believe in, what spiritual practice they follow, or whether they don't believe at all, or have decided not to settle for or against the idea of a deity.

[Act_of_Reparation]

20. Religions are big tents.

And the minute you try to define your tent with any degree of specificity, the tent immediately gets smaller.

So you can't define religion specifically. You can only define them broadly. A Christian believes in Jesus Christ, and that's about all it can mean without spiraling off into wild inaccuracy.

[atreides1]

29. A Christian believes in Jesus Christ

In other words, the standards are less then one would find at the Bunny Ranch!

[DetlefK]

30. Which version of Jesus Christ?

Jesus Christ the non-violent one or Jesus Christ, the guy who beat up the money-changers in the temple?
Jesus Christ, the guy who wasn't even mad at Judas?
Jesus Christ, the guy who said he was willing to rip apart families to spread his new belief?
Jesus Christ the merciful, peaceful, poor shepherd of the original aramaic Christianity or Jesus Christ the glorious king and divine ruler of roman Christianity?



The problem is that, if you look too close, a religion splinters into more and more and more factions and possibilities, because religion has no mechanism to solve contradictions.
If two theoretical scientists argue over something, they use an experiment as a neutral arbiter.
But there is no neutral arbiter in religion.

Do you know how theological discussions went in the Middle-Ages?
Step 1: Each side collects Bible-quotes that support their argument.
Step 2: Those quotes are ignored by the other side, because they have their own quotes and interpretations.
Step 3: One side kills the other.

And without a neutral arbiter, religion has two choices:
1. The intellectual cop-out where two contradicting claims are both true at the same time.
2. Kill the unbeliever.

[Act_of_Reparation]

32. A Christian can believe in any of them.

Like I said, you can't get more specific than that.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

33. Who cares?

It's not my job to define what the "real" Jesus was like.

I did that for me and the answer is that there likely wasn't a historical Jesus and, if there was, he was not the son of god. Someone else's answer may differ. I don't care. As long as you don't shove your religion down my throat, I don't care what you believe.

I see no benefit from trying to play No True Scotsman.

[Iggo]

36. The fictional one.

[edhopper]

26. I agree with all religions

in that all the other religions' beliefs are wrong. I only disagree with a small percent of what they believe out of all the beliefs that are held around the world.

[TeapotInATempest]

27. It's a good question and I think it depends on the religion.

For instance, I'm an agnostic but as a baptized Catholic, the Catholic Church says I'm Catholic, period (unless I submit paperwork that seems like a pain in the neck and I don't care enough to bother).

And for Jewish people I think it becomes even more complex.

[Lordquinton]

37. This is a very good point

I remember reading a blog post from an atheist saying "on paper I'm a Muslim" talking about how churches inflate their numbers because it's so hard to actually leave one. The only action that will really get you kicked out is being gay.

[Iggo]

35. You tell me you are. That's all I have to go on.

If you say you are, you are.