If You Believe One Religion You Have to Believe All Religions | Critique of Religious Arguments #2
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 9 фев 2025
- ----------------------SUPPORT----------------------
Paypal (thanks so much): www.paypal.me/...
Patreon (thanks so much): / skepticallyskeptical_
----------------------Video Description----------------------
In this video, I share how the burden of proof among each religion is the same, which leads to the conclusion that there is no reason to believe one religion over the other.
----------------------Join Discord and Twitch----------------------
Twitch: / skepticallyskeptical
Discord: / discord
----------------------Follow My Socials----------------------
Twitter: / chase35riley
Instagram: / chase35riley
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
Bingo, very good video. Just the other day I said to myself, all religions operate off the faith system. So why in the world do people feel Christianity has the one true God and all the others are false? Your video hit the nail on the head, if you believe in one, you have to believe in them all.
So there was a Mrs Beetle, and she was teaching her 1st grade class the math problem of 2 + 2 = ? She asked the class if anyone could tell her the answer. Johnny raised his hand and called out ‘3.’ Mrs Beetle said “no, that’s not correct, does anyone else know the answer.” Mary raised her hand and said ‘5.’ Mrs Beetle said “no” again and she gave Billy a turn to say the answer. Billy said “2 + 2 = ? is not even a valid question because there actually is no answer.” Jennie piped in that she strongly disagreed with Billy because she said that that was only the correct answer for Billy, but that the correct answer is actually whatever anyone wants to believe (everyone is always correct). John shook his head and called out “come on, the answer is 4.” Some other kids in the class wondered if it was even possible to find out the correct answer since so many kids had so many different answers. Other kids were thoroughly bored and could care less, and they were wondering how much longer it would be until lunch time.
If u believe in 1 religion u have to believe in all religion?Who the hell told u that?I am a converted Christian from Hinduism I cannot tell you how beautiful it is to serve the true God and his son Jesus Christ.. It has been both hard sweet bc the master told us to pick up our cross and follow him whatever that maybe also there is an understanding that God will also test us and prune us and prepare us ,then we have a devil and enemies to contend with.The sweet part is the joy,peace, happiness, fearlessness blessings and miracles,promises from the word of God like healing, provision etc.My life has changed amazingly..
Your experience is valid. Everyone is happy your life has changed. I was in a Christian cult as a kid and Jesus was used to destroy our lives. If God is real why did he let his name be used in this way. lots of people suffered and some died for nothing but a leader's desire for power.
Have you ever watched Zeitgeist? If not, I recommend watching atleast part 1!
I have not! I will look into it.
If you do ever get around to it, I'd love to know what you think after!
Your thesis is true, if at all, for the monotheistic religions. You really oughta look into Eastern religions, and mysticism in general.
Zeitgeist is utter shit in that it teaches as fact complete lies.
To say all religions are true is logically impossible since they all believe in different Gods which contradicts other religions. For example, Muslims say Jesus is a prophet, and that Allah is the only true God, but Christians believe Jesus is God which would be considered shirk to the Muslim faith. Then you have to look at the teachings of the belief to see if it internally consistent and if it self-contradicts itself by applying logic and evidence. When a Hindu says all distinctions are illusions, they are also rejecting logic, but if the Hindus reject logic then they can't provide a rational argument for Hinduism, so that ones out. The book of Mormon teaches there is only one God, yet Joseph Smith taught that there are many Gods and that you can become one. Finally you need to check if it's verifiable, the mass suicides by the group called Heaven's Gate believed their souls would be caught by a passing spaceship, the problem was there assertions were not verifiable and there was no way to tell that a spaceship even existed for them, so that ones out the door as well.
The only religion that makes sense is the Christian one, it has evidence, makes logical sense and does not contradict itself even the Bible is the oldest most accurate piece of antiquity we have, with over 6,000 manuscripts and the oldest one dating to within the first century of when it was written.
So in Christianity 1+1+1=1 ..... that's concerning.
But hasn't the torah come before the gospel. So the Torah is the oldest...
@@mlindalina1 Not sure what you mean with the math's equation. But the Christian worldview has a basis for the laws of arithmetic , whilst the naturalist Atheist doesn't.
The Torah and Tanakh is not a separate religion, in fact they form the books of the old testament, without them the new testament revelation of Jesus wouldn't make sense.
Wow, you totally demolished every five year old Christian out there. Usually by time Christians get to be 8 or 9 though, they learn about things like philosophical and historical evidence, so maybe eventually you could deal with that.
I think this is a really good critique of the four particular arguments that sometimes people use. The arguments from Personal Experience, Religious Text, Intelligent Design, or Just Have Faith are not strong enough defense for religious claims. Potentially they can get someone to the point of a general Theism such as Deism but not to particular religions. I do have one issue though, which is the title of the video, those four points certainly do not lead you to one religion and, as you say, could be a number if not all religions. However, when we look at the deeper literature in Religious Scholarship you do find arguments and conversations that would be more specific to a much more selective group of religions. Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and New Age Spirituality are all very different from one another and their claims often contradict one another. So if we went into more details we could create arguments that would be unique to them. For example if you and I sat down and had a philosophy conversation about the nature of reality and dealing with the question is pain an illusion, depending on how we answer we would either end up defending two of those religions (Buddhism and New Age Spirituality) or disapproving them. We could do this with many examples, conversations about the Resurrection of Christ and to what extent history can defend it would be the most standard one for Christians. So while I like the particular critiques you have, I think the idea that religious arguments cannot point towards specific religions and only just to all religion in general isn't real true outside of the four arguments you presented.
Well, I think the issue is that in order to even begin talking about the resurrection of Christ, the wrath of Allah, the millions of gods of Hinduism, etc., you first have to ask, why do I even care about those concepts or events to begin with? Meaning, there is no evidence that it is possible for someone to raise from the dead by themselves. There is no evidence that Allah or the millions of Hindu gods exist. Therefore, we should not not care about comparing the historical accuracy of the Bible vs. the Qu'ran vs. the many texts of Hinduism. In order to begin the conversation, there needs to be evidence for these, and that is why I presented the arguments that I do. I ask, why do you believe that the resurrection of Christ is possible to begin with? And the answer is the Bible. I ask, why do you believe in the wrath of Allah? And the Muslim's answer is the Qu'ran. The four most common foundations to religious belief are the four arguments I presented. If you undermine the foundation, the whole argument falls apart.
Ok so I think there is some agreement and maybe some disagreement here.
Let’s start with the agreement area. I am on board with saying religious beliefs have some of the foundational points that you made. We all are confined to understand the world through personal experience, even the scientific method is based on doing observable experiments. Then of corse we have the religious texts. It seems to me though, you write about them as if the texts themselves are the evidence for the religions. From my perspective, the different religious writings are not pieces of evidences but collections of claims.
This leads me to my main disagreement with your response, your ultimately asking why should we care about the claim of Christ’s Resurrection or another religious claim when there is no evidence of it? But it seems like your saying there is no evidence for these things before the investigation even begins. The four point you bring up here, are indeed a foundational point, but they point us in a direction to then study or investigate. Because IF there was evidence of resurrection being possibly, it would be found in IF it has ever happened. Which would require a very challenging historical study of a claimed of one.
Now certainly even if we do this research studies there will still be disagreement. As you know both NT Wright and Bart Ehrman both are train with understanding in ancient history and theology and disagree on the results of this kind of work. But let me just make sure I have my main overarching point clear: my claim here is not that we can with 100% certainty prove any one religion, but simply that when we move pass the foundations of religious belief into investigations of those beliefs we now deal with evidence and questions that would be unique to a select group of religions and not all of them, which is why I simply would say you don’t need to believe all religions if you believe in one as your title seem to make as the videos main point.
So when you ask why do you believe the resurrection to begin with, my answer is I don’t. But I recognize many have claimed it about a specific individual and therefore I am open to studying and researching it to see if that particular claim is true or not. But the claim itself or the Bible itself is never the reason why I come to the conclusion of belief.
Great vid!
Thank you! Hope you stick around for future videos!
My answer would be because I have seen the demonic.
The demonic is successfully clever in the world. It can put on a sparkling clean face of truth to cover up its lies. The devil can ride in a nice clean car. He can also live in a nice clean lovely home. He can be a well-spoken person who has written a holy book - the art of deception is clean and truthful.
Can I declare thermodynamics as my "Religion"?
It can’t be . Thermodynamics are truth 😃. You can’t challenge it at least for now haha
@@ARMY_RUGS
I'm not sure what your point is?
I’m a few videos in now and this is just amazing. I have told so many people that I believe everything and nothing because it makes living a lot more fun and interesting. Everything is so similar and who is to say one is wrong or right when everything is so so similar. It’s just the human brain grasping for meaning. Seriously I love your videos. These are great.
I think a better version of this argument is: no religion can be falsified if you follow its assumption or logic, therefore if you believe in one religion then you have to believe in the other ones as well. If Christians claim that one must use faith and follow Christian logic to see Christianity is true, then they can pretty much do the same thing to any other religion as well.
You have very striking features! I feel like you would be a great model to draw ✍️
Notice all the falling away videos are done by very good looking people.
@@bobthebuilder9553 Jesus has hair like wool.
Huh? Christianity differs because it solves the problem of sin in that Jesus Christ was God in the flesh who took upon himself the sins of mankind aka the ultimate sacrificial lamb. And while it does take child like faith to believe this, there is plenty of evidence that sets Christ apart from the rest, found in books like "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel. No other "religion" has God dwell in them either, using their body as a holy Temple (aka The Holy Spirit).
Great perspective.
I’m subscribed!!!
Aye, thanks bro! I really appreciate the comments and the subscription!
No.
Hey Chase,
I think that if someone's views are based purely on these vague statements as you've put forward, then yes, all religions are the same. I would also agree that the argument of causality or the argument of design don't get you to a specific deity. They merely argue for an ultimate cause or creator. However, I think there is flaw in the example you provide. You assume that every religion is equally reasonable or has an equal lack of objective evidence and an equal reliance on blind faith. It doesn't matter that they each claim to have a god or deity, it matters which one is more "evidentially reasonable" as J. Warner Wallace would put it. If Christianity were solely based on blind faith in a god that was written about some thousands of years ago, then it has as much claim as the Greek pantheon of gods. However, if there is more evidence, more reason to believe in it than subjective feelings or blind faith, then it has more claim and is not in the same league as other religions. Christianity is not a blind faith. Even individuals within the Scriptures are not cited as having a blind faith. They believed based on what they observed in their lives and their accounts of history. Paul told his audience to go and listen to the eye-witness testimonies of more than 500 people who saw Jesus alive again after his death. He didn't want them to just blindly believe. Luke wrote an entire Gospel, as well as the book of Acts, to provide people with evidence for their faith. He used sources to do so. Claims and events recorded in the Bible have been validated by evidence within the fields of archaeology, manuscript evidence, etc. I do not think that religions such as mormonism or Islam or Hinduism have any such claims. They are not as evidentially reasonable. To summarize, design and ultimate causes and fine tuning will point towards a need for a creator, though not a specific one. The question is then which religion is more evidentially reasonable.
There are many things wrong with what you present. You say that different religions are "evidentially reasonable" as if reason is something we can objectively grasp onto and, that is outside of human thinking. You claim your god gives you reason, which causes you to deem your religion as true and "reasonable", whereas a Muslim claims you can't have reason without Allah, and thus claims their religion to be the most reasonable. Not only that, but you're assuming that the Bible is even true in its accounts of people within it. Also, an example of religions being the same would be Moses believing because "god spoke to him", just like Mohamed believed in Allah because "god spoke to him". It all boils down to the argument that I made in my video that religious arguments are all the same. Islam says their religion is reasonable based off their corresponding language game, and Christianity says the same. Also, when you said, "Even individuals within the Scriptures are not cited as having a blind faith. They believed based on what they observed in their lives and their accounts of history.", you are just making the argument that people believe off personal experience which, again, is an argument used by all religions. And when you say, "Paul told his audience to go and listen to the eye-witness testimonies of more than 500 people who saw Jesus alive again after his death. He didn't want them to just blindly believe. Luke wrote an entire Gospel, as well as the book of Acts, to provide people with evidence for their faith. He used sources to do so. Claims and events recorded in the Bible have been validated by evidence within the fields of archaeology, manuscript evidence, etc.", again, you're just making an appeal to "I have a holy book that proves me to be correct". I guess you haven't studied Islam that much because there is archeological and manuscript evidence in support of the things that happened in the Quran. However, even if all the archeological evidence in the BIble had been proven to be true (it hasn't), that gets us nowhere closer to the truth of Christianity. The central claim to Christianity is that Jesus rose from the dead. If that can't be demonstrated, Christianity can be considered no more true than any other religion. Believing Jesus rose from the dead is absolutely a faith claim. You can say, "oh, it isn't blind faith because I have the Bible and archeology", but you believe the Bible off faith anyway. And as I said in this video, and previous videos, faith is an unreliable path to truth because it can lead anyone to any conclusion.
3:30 minimal functionality does not argue well for a conscious design. But quite the contrary.
3:42 this same reasoning can be used against them when you will stump them with “if that’s true, then god had to have had an origin, too. Otherwise your argument is false.” Then stand back and watch them chase their own tail 🤣
Christian here sorry dude I think you got some parts of your arguments wrong here or to be more specific false analogys because I dont use this type of reasoning for the evidence for my religion
1. Because I dont use the kalam as an argument for the existence of the judeo-christian God. in the other hand I use it for the existence of a "Theistic" God.
And what you said about the holy books and the prophets and etc.....
I might have to give you a channel you might like ;)
(Im really sorry if you felt weird if you haved ever told people who are christians that you werent a christian anymore and if you ever haved bad responses from them I would really like to have a conversation with them)
Love you 😍
@Skeptically Skeptical, There are many good historical arguments for Christianity past the basic arguments for deism, you seem to not know the good arguments for Christianity, how did you argue before you were an atheist? You may simply be unaware of the best arguments.
How did you stop to be Christian? And have u studied Philosophy?
"They all claim the same thing". No they don't. Firstly you conveniently ignore numerous other regions and concentrate on the Abrahamic religions but they are almost all monotheistic, but other religions are not, so clearly you don't have to believe in ALL religions if you believe in one. Even within the Abrahamics they aren't so blindly similar as you point out. When two religions state that their holy book was provided by their god and the holy books contradict (as for example the Book of Mormon vs Q'ran) then either there is no god at all or the god of one of those religions is false. One cannot take the stance that they believe in the same god or that both gods are valid (because both gods would be liars). Believing that other religions have some truth is fine, but trying to reconcile them as being essentially the same is a bit of a straw man. If you believe one religion is true, then you have to accept the possibility that you may not have the right one, but you certainly don't have to accept that they are all true.
Read Wittgenstein
I think you're right that those are the 4 broad categories people look to when explaining or exploring why they believe. (Excluding the obvious "because I was raised that way" which is probably really the most common reason) But to just set them all up as inherently unhelpful in determining truth makes a lot of assumptions. Yes, most religions make similar claims about why they should be believed, but you are assuming that no meaningful comparative analysis of those claims can be made. For instance, if I compare the life change that I see with someone who joins my church to someone who joined the Jonestown cult, which has more positive outcomes? (Using extreme examples for emphasis.) Or to your second point, if I compare the manuscript basis and historicity and internal consistency of Bible and some other text, does one seem to be more credible? Or if I compare the evidence for Christianity to the evidence for Scientology? But ultimately, you're right that it eventually comes back to faith. For whatever reason, faith, hope, and love are important to God and it seems to me that he's designed the world so that it's impossible to reach existential truth without them, regardless of how frustrating that is for us! 😂
Well, all that again falls back on everyone making claims with no way to objectively justify them. You say that your church causes a more positive outcome than the Jonestown cult, but the Jonestown cult claims that they have a more positive outcome than your church. How do we decide which is true? We can't. The claims are the same and there is no evidence to support either one. I don't think it's helpful comparing the manuscripts and historicity of texts either. Even if the Bible is shown to be internally consistent (it's not) and have no errors between manuscripts (it does), this doesn't prove it to be true. You can't go back in history to observe it happening. That might cause you to say that through that logic we can't know anything about the past, but that's simply not true. We can reasonably believe nonreligious texts, although still skeptically. We can reasonably believe nonreligious texts over religious texts because religious texts make extraordinary claims, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. With reading a history about Alexander the Great, i can learn that he conquered a city, and I can conclude that to be true with some skepticism because we don't know, but we do know that kings conquered cities in the past (or even military do that today), so that's a reasonable thing to happen. Reading religious texts is a much different story. A god speaking to people, miracles happening, or people being raised from the dead are all events that quite literally go against everything we know about the world today. There is no evidence that these things have ever happened. Then you come down to faith, but as I said in this video and previous videos, you can believe anything off faith. This makes faith an unreliable path to truth. If faith is an unreliable path to truth, it can't get us to any existential truth (if there is any). Believing something off faith is believing something with no evidence, which again would land us on the same point that there is no reason to choose one religion over the other when it comes to a truth battle. I say truth battle meaning comparing the "evidence" people give to justify their beliefs. Sure, there are reasons to choose one religion over the other based on personal preference, culture, etc., but when it comes down to the evidence, there is no reason to choose one religion over the other. They all make the same claims and have nothing objective to support said claims.
@@skepticallyskeptical6495 That's a pretty wide and sweeping claim that no religion has any evidence over one another or that there is no evidence for events within the text. I don't know how you can make such a claim. Can you scientifically prove God? No. Can you verify and validate events and claims made within a text? Yes. And this has been done so over and over for Biblical accounts. Additionally, there are many people who use only objective evidences and arguments to make claims for the resurrection of Christ, for example.
@@thelogicalapologist7224 There is evidence of events within religious texts, i.e., the Bible, true. There have been towns, cities, statues, etc. uncovered that show those things did indeed exist at one point in history. My argument, however, is that the central claims are just as subjective among each religious, thus causing them to use the same arguments. The main claim of Christianity is that Jesus rose from the dead. There is absolutely no evidence of the possibility of someone being half god, and also being able to raise themselves from the dead. Again, like I said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I don't really care if you say that the Israelites killed and raped a city because that's what tribes did back then, but when you start making claims that donkeys are talking, people are being raised from the dead, seas parting, etc., these are things that have never been demonstrated as being possible in any reasonable sense. It's these claims that require evidence and there is none besides a book written thousands of years ago. Belief in these supernatural claims is unjustifiable as there is no reason to believe they are possible. It's these supernatural events that are the foundation of all religions, and they all use the same arguments to support them. "Well I know Jesus is the son of god because the Bible." "Well I know Mohamed is the one true prophet because the Quran." The arguments are the same, as I made my video about.
ONLY JESUS.
Omg you have such beautiful eyes lmao