First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
Can a person believe in two religions at the same time?
30236 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
It doesn't matter.
Offline
Posted 8/25/16
What a person believes in isn't always logical and mabe not all religions conflict with each other.
7413 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
48 / M / New England, USA
Offline
Posted 8/25/16 , edited 8/25/16
I lost my faith in the Catholic Church (and I believed God) back in the early 80s). I tried finding out what exactly I was after that and realized I fell somewhere between an Agnostic and an Ignostic. It took many years but I finally realized that my lack of faith wasn't in God himself but in organized religion and the people who preach it. I honestly have no knowledge of which religion my beliefs fall but I do believe in both God and values, so I have no doubt someone can believe in two religions at once.
26 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M
Offline
Posted 8/25/16

Hrafna wrote:


Eden_Tier wrote:


Hrafna wrote:


Eden_Tier wrote:

Polytheists.

I don't know how you can logically be one, but they exist.


Strictly speaking, that is not a logical sentence. So, you might want to work on that, first.


you have strangely neglected to explain how it is otherwise.


Ok.

It is otherwise because you are illogical. Now, it is your turn to explain how that is otherwise.


Ps. I'm using the exact same argument that you were using. So, come on. Prove otherwise.


Heh. I suppose you are at that, but you still made the claim that my sentence is illogical, and you also made the argument that I am Illogical. Therefore, the burden of proof is on you to prove those particular claims, you can't turn it around on me.

So, if you consider my argument inadequate, and you're copying my argument style or whatever, then you're practically admitting that your arguments are also illogical. So, ain't that a thing.

I didn't explain my original comment, I admit that, but then again nobody really asked me to. But I will, since you seem sensitive about this topic in particular.

Polytheism is illogical for the same reason that all religions are illogical. It's a belief system without evidence. I was kind of eluding to another reason as to why it's illogical, but this works much better than that one and I don't want to give you an opening to make a valid point, because I don't like people who cry when the truth hits them like salt on an open wound.

I somehow get the idea that Ad-hominem will soon be coming my way.
Posted 8/25/16


Eden_Tier wrote:

you still made the claim that my sentence is illogical

Yes, I did make that claim, and yes, your sentence was structured in a manner as if to state that there were no valid explanation-- no set of circumstances that led to my belief, and my decision to believe in it.


Eden_Tier wrote:

Polytheism is illogical for the same reason that all religions are illogical. It's a belief system without evidence.


Yeah, see, that's another argument, about something different entirely.


Eden_Tier wrote:

I somehow get the idea that Ad-hominem will soon be coming my way.


Why? Because you had a couple of bad experiences in the past, and choose to project those experiences on everyone you encounter?
26 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M
Offline
Posted 8/25/16 , edited 8/25/16

Hrafna wrote:



Eden_Tier wrote:

you still made the claim that my sentence is illogical

Yes, I did make that claim, and yes, your sentence was structured in a manner as if to state that there were no valid explanation-- no set of circumstances that led to my belief, and my decision to believe in it.


Eden_Tier wrote:

Polytheism is illogical for the same reason that all religions are illogical. It's a belief system without evidence.


Yeah, see, that's another argument, about something different entirely.


Eden_Tier wrote:

I somehow get the idea that Ad-hominem will soon be coming my way.


Why? Because you had a couple of bad experiences in the past, and choose to project those experiences on everyone you encounter?


'Couple'? This is the internet, friend. It's full of people who flip out the second their ideas are challenged. Lets not pretend you haven't been aggressive this entire conversation.

But forget that, you've given me juicier content to contend with, even if it is dishonest.

Don't kid yourself, by the way. I see what you're doing here. You start off by setting up this ridiculous strawman fallacy, saying I was challenging the journey to your beliefs rather than the belief itself. This is baseless, and was at first confusing until you dismissed my actual argumentation as if it wasn't what we were talking about. It's a petty dodge, nothing more. You're as transparent as a bricked window.

But, don't let me stop you. Carry on throwing out fallacies. You and your kind can't really do anything else, because in a logical debate about whether ANY theistic belief is grounded in reality, you'd get trounced every time. All that condescension, all for some lame strawman. Laughable.

P.S. Your 'circumstances' are no doubt all personal experience or equally worthless arguments, and therefore cannot be used to much extent in a logical debate. So... Is it really logical? Looking at it that way, even your own strawman defeats your argument. I might be wrong, but probably not.
3415 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M
Offline
Posted 8/25/16 , edited 8/25/16
Tumblr you say?^

Also I believe all the current ones + Donald and the spaghetti monster.

35490 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Usually right und...
Offline
Posted 8/25/16
The answer really depends on your definition of "religion" and "having a religion".

I know several people who were brought up with two religions but do not necessarily believe in either. To some that may constitute having more than one religion, to others it could mean having no religion at all as they don't believe in them.

My own point of view is that everyone has their own, personal, belief. That belief may align with a formal religion - completely or partially - or it may not, it might even incorporate bits and pieces of several religions. It depends completely on each person what they accept as their belief and logic need not necessarily apply. There can be any number of things outside the realm of logic as far as religion is concerned and they still make perfect sense to the people who believe in it.
I don't belive there is a "right" or "wrong" way to believe so long as nobody tries to force their beliefs on anyone else. And honestly, trying to argue about religion is an exercise in futility.

So, if, for the sake of answering the question, we define religion as having a belief of some sort? I think you can only have the one.
Posted 8/25/16

Eden_Tier wrote:

'Couple'? This is the internet, friend. It's full of people who flip out the second their ideas are challenged. Lets not pretend you haven't been aggressive this entire conversation.


Aggressive? Aggressive about what? Directing my posts in your general direction is considered aggressive? Well, shit. Or wait, do you presume to believe that you can tell what my tone is like as you're reading this?


Eden_Tier wrote:

But forget that, you've given me juicier content to contend with, even if it is dishonest.

Don't kid yourself, by the way. I see what you're doing here.


Oh goody, more belief. I love it when you believe in things, 'O logical one.


Eden_Tier wrote:

You start off by setting up this ridiculous strawman fallacy, saying I was challenging the journey to your beliefs rather than the belief itself. This is baseless, and was at first confusing until you dismissed my actual argumentation as if it wasn't what we were talking about. It's a petty dodge, nothing more. You're as transparent as a bricked window.


Again with the belief. What is up with you and believing in the first foremost random shit you can find?

Oh my, was it confusing until I dismissed an argument that I wasn't arguing against. Yeah, let's go back and argue about that.


Eden_Tier wrote:

But, don't let me stop you. Carry on throwing out fallacies.


Ah, yes, where was I? The fallacy fallacy fallacy fallacy fallacy.


Eden_Tier wrote:

You and your kind can't really do anything else,


Uuuh, a generalization, and I don't even know with whom you've generalized me with. Now I'm all giddy inside.


Eden_Tier wrote:

because in a logical debate


Wow, that sounds like the pinnacle of logic, right there. I bet logical people attend those logical debates. Non-logical people would probably not attend logical debates, because they're not logical. I mean, that's only logical, right?


Eden_Tier wrote:

about whether ANY theistic belief is grounded in reality, you'd get trounced every time.


Pretty sure I've never seen Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens debate about whether or not belief is grounded in reality, and I'm pretty sure I would never participate in a dumb ass debate like that myself, but you would?


Eden_Tier wrote:

All that condescension, all for some lame strawman. Laughable.


Hahahaha, yeah...


Eden_Tier wrote:

You and your kind can't really do anything else,


slippery-slope strawman is hillarious.


Eden_Tier wrote:

P.S. Your 'circumstances' are no doubt all personal experience

No shit, Sherlock.


Eden_Tier wrote:

or equally worthless arguments,

Arguments against what, and worthless compared to what? What are you talking about this time around? I mean, for someone so logical and full of good arguments, you sure don't care much about context.


Eden_Tier wrote:

and therefore cannot be used to much extent in a logical debate. So... Is it really logical? Looking at it that way, even your own strawman defeats your argument. I might be wrong, but probably not.


I'm logical, you're not, prove me wrong. That's logical, that's illogical, here's a logical debate. Look, a fallacy, a logical fallacy. An argument, a good argument, a worthless argument. You might be wrong, but probably not, because you're being logical, and I mean, that just makes your argument that much better. I'm logical and you're just writing fallacies, and nothing you say is really based in reality, because you know, logic.

Ok, I see, so you just have a hard-on for repeating the term "logic", as if simply stating the term "logic" could work as an argument in of itself.


if (variable = true) {
// do something
}


That there is a logical argument riddled with shitty syntax. It's considered an argument, a logical argument, even though it's full of shitty syntax that wouldn't see the light of execution.

"variable" should say "$variable" and even if it did it would probably prompt an error about it not being defined. It's null, it's void, it means nothing.

"=" should say "=="

and "// do something" doesn't really do anything because it's just a comment.


And therein lied my point, not one of semantics, but of how few or no one is going to receive your point if you can't convey said point properly; if you write one thing, but mean another thing entirely, I'm probably going to get your stupid shit confused, as will most people remotely interested in what you have to write.

More to the point, you have no idea what I believe in. You have not once bothered to ask, because guess what, you're not as inquisitive as you would like to appear, nowhere near as scientific; you are as riddled with presumptions as that argument above is riddled with syntax errors, and how is your preemptive belief any different from any belief? Well shit, I guess I'm asking because "I don't know how you can logically be presumptuous."
4220 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Southern California
Offline
Posted 8/25/16
You sure can, but its seems pretty indecisive. Perhaps the person should do some more serious long term thinking about what they believe and don't believe. Otherwise there's confusion. Though some folks don't seem to have issues with confusion.
26 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M
Offline
Posted 8/25/16 , edited 8/25/16

Hrafna wrote:


Eden_Tier wrote:

'Couple'? This is the internet, friend. It's full of people who flip out the second their ideas are challenged. Lets not pretend you haven't been aggressive this entire conversation.


Aggressive? Aggressive about what? Directing my posts in your general direction is considered aggressive? Well, shit. Or wait, do you presume to believe that you can tell what my tone is like as you're reading this?


Eden_Tier wrote:

But forget that, you've given me juicier content to contend with, even if it is dishonest.

Don't kid yourself, by the way. I see what you're doing here.


Oh goody, more belief. I love it when you believe in things, 'O logical one.


Eden_Tier wrote:

You start off by setting up this ridiculous strawman fallacy, saying I was challenging the journey to your beliefs rather than the belief itself. This is baseless, and was at first confusing until you dismissed my actual argumentation as if it wasn't what we were talking about. It's a petty dodge, nothing more. You're as transparent as a bricked window.


Again with the belief. What is up with you and believing in the first foremost random shit you can find?

Oh my, was it confusing until I dismissed an argument that I wasn't arguing against. Yeah, let's go back and argue about that.


Eden_Tier wrote:

But, don't let me stop you. Carry on throwing out fallacies.


Ah, yes, where was I? The fallacy fallacy fallacy fallacy fallacy.


Eden_Tier wrote:

You and your kind can't really do anything else,


Uuuh, a generalization, and I don't even know with whom you've generalized me with. Now I'm all giddy inside.


Eden_Tier wrote:

because in a logical debate


Wow, that sounds like the pinnacle of logic, right there. I bet logical people attend those logical debates. Non-logical people would probably not attend logical debates, because they're not logical. I mean, that's only logical, right?


Eden_Tier wrote:

about whether ANY theistic belief is grounded in reality, you'd get trounced every time.


Pretty sure I've never seen Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens debate about whether or not belief is grounded in reality, and I'm pretty sure I would never participate in a dumb ass debate like that myself, but you would?


Eden_Tier wrote:

All that condescension, all for some lame strawman. Laughable.


Hahahaha, yeah...


Eden_Tier wrote:

You and your kind can't really do anything else,


slippery-slope strawman is hillarious.


Eden_Tier wrote:

P.S. Your 'circumstances' are no doubt all personal experience

No shit, Sherlock.


Eden_Tier wrote:

or equally worthless arguments,

Arguments against what, and worthless compared to what? What are you talking about this time around? I mean, for someone so logical and full of good arguments, you sure don't care much about context.


Eden_Tier wrote:

and therefore cannot be used to much extent in a logical debate. So... Is it really logical? Looking at it that way, even your own strawman defeats your argument. I might be wrong, but probably not.


I'm logical, you're not, prove me wrong. That's logical, that's illogical, here's a logical debate. Look, a fallacy, a logical fallacy. An argument, a good argument, a worthless argument. You might be wrong, but probably not, because you're being logical, and I mean, that just makes your argument that much better. I'm logical and you're just writing fallacies, and nothing you say is really based in reality, because you know, logic.

Ok, I see, so you just have a hard-on for repeating the term "logic", as if simply stating the term "logic" could work as an argument in of itself.


if (variable = true) {
// do something
}


That there is a logical argument riddled with shitty syntax. It's considered an argument, a logical argument, even though it's full of shitty syntax that wouldn't see the light of execution.

"variable" should say "$variable" and even if it did it would probably prompt an error about it not being defined. It's null, it's void, it means nothing.

"=" should say "=="

and "// do something" doesn't really do anything because it's just a comment.


And therein lied my point, not one of semantics, but of how few or no one is going to receive your point if you can't convey said point properly; if you write one thing, but mean another thing entirely, I'm probably going to get your stupid shit confused, as will most people remotely interested in what you have to write.

More to the point, you have no idea what I believe in. You have not once bothered to ask, because guess what, you're not as inquisitive as you would like to appear, nowhere near as scientific; you are as riddled with presumptions as that argument above is riddled with syntax errors, and how is your preemptive belief any different from any belief? Well shit, I guess I'm asking because "I don't know how you can logically be presumptuous."


There's the ad-hominem I was expecting. I've never seen someone nitpick so pointlessly, as if your ironic condescension is somehow a point in and of itself. You've shifted from replying to a comment with an obvious meaning, to silly diversions, strawmans and asinine pseudo-comedy. Gotta replace an actual argument with something, I guess. Anything but face reality, no?

Sorry, but I'll go ahead and end this here. Since you're so much superior to myself, I'm sure you'll understand why sitting here and replying to every little side comment would not only be a complete waste of time, but would result in the cycle continuing. It's not like there's anything even worth replying to there anyway.

Like I said, I should have known better than to engage a fallacy ridden fool - which theists of any type that puts any weight into their religion can't help but be.
41296 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 8/25/16 , edited 8/25/16
Ask the ancient Egyptians, of whom most current day theology is still based upon their many beliefs; let alone gods as it wasn't just multiple religions, but multiple gods of which tied into one another's teachings[culture].


This was mostly due to the fact that most of these were based upon celestial movement(early day astrology).


>In fact many of their gods are much more "scientific" per say(in fact very much so given their lack of scientific tools[technology], methodologies[branches] and knowledge[basic science like the law of relativity] during that era of which we currently tend to take for granted!) than the gods portrayed in popular modern theology.




Not only that but their multiple gods actually had personality and conflicting notions on how to "balance the world". They even have arbitrators whom don't pick either side of "good and evil" because they acknowledge the "shades of grey" in-betweenst.

> Take Thoth, Atum, Bastet, the abyss[Nu] for example... Each goes into some specific detail about their conscious upbringing or their primordial broth(nu) of which is rare for some of the more popular theology's deities, supreme being, or god(s) in modern times[abrahamic theology].





So with that said, If the beliefs are built around a naturalist aspect(Buddhism) then I'd argue that all those religions can be taught whilst not contradicting themselves in the process.

17031 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / F / In a van down by...
Offline
Posted 8/25/16 , edited 8/25/16

stars201 wrote:

Is it possible?

Under what circumstances?

Are you one of those people?

All opinions are welcomed.


Why not?

I'm a born Catholic, but there are tenets of Buddhism and even Wicca that I like as well.

Now if you were born Catholic...and you decided to also follow Islam, then I don't know. I mean, I know some of the Quoran(please correct me if I'm wrong w/spelling, Muslim CRers)is similar to the Bible supposedly....but that might be awkward
70 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 8/25/16 , edited 8/25/16
I believe in God, but I'm not gonna commit to believing anyones idea of him. I'm sure all of the religions got things right, and a lot wrong. Odds are that, if I learn about them, I'll believe parts of what they teach. For now I get what wisdom I can from the Bible, and disregard the crazy stuff.

Eden-tier seems like the good guy in all that. At least judging from how it starts out, which is basically Eden makes a point, then get's attacked with pure spite, and not even an attempt at making a counter-point.
5186 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
16
Offline
Posted 8/25/16
Lots of religions deprive from each other, so in a way you are.
3033 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / USA
Offline
Posted 8/25/16
Raised Jewish and Christian, practiced both till I was about 20. It's possible.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.