Christianity isnt the only religion

[Ambient]

How come whenever religion is attacked or criticised, especially in regards to God it is the abrahamic faith that is criticised?

Moreso when theyre are questions regarding the nature of God it seems its either atheism or the abrahamic God.

Dont you guys know that it is only one conception of many?

[Ron_Smythberg]

How come whenever religion is attacked or criticised, especially in regards to God it is the abrahamic faith that is criticised?

Moreso when theyre are questions regarding the nature of God it seems its either atheism or the abrahamic God.

Dont you guys know that it is only one conception of many?

You'd have to be pretty dense to believe christianity is the only religion.

[PirateJoe]

1) Easy target
2) Most people here are from western nations. The most popular religions in western society are by far Christianity and Judaism.

[El Monstruo]

Because Christianity is the white mans religion.

[Ambient]

You'd have to be pretty dense to believe christianity is the only religion.

But in western society christianity is the dominant religion.

Of course people know of others, but they are not socially constructed by them because many of them are simply absent from their social world.

So when someone is socially constructed they are often unconscious to this fact.

For example look at this thread

http://www.zoklet.net/bbs/showthread.php?t=19977

The title is "pre-concieved conclusions about "God" "

But the op and the entire thread have to do with abrahamic conception.

When you ask someone from western society "do you believe in god" they will probably interpret that as "do you believe in the abrahamic God".

Perhaps it would be better to say "The abrahamic conception of God, is not the only one".

[Built To Last]

Because you don't take world history until you're in highschool ;).

[Ron_Smythberg]

But in western society christianity is the dominant religion.

Of course people know of others, but they are not socially constructed by them because many of them are simply absent from their social world.

So when someone is socially constructed they are often unconscious to this fact.

For example look at this thread

http://www.zoklet.net/bbs/showthread.php?t=19977

The title is "pre-concieved conclusions about "God" "

But the op and the entire thread have to do with abrahamic conception.

When you ask someone from western society "do you believe in god" they will probably interpret that as "do you believe in the abrahamic God".

Perhaps it would be better to say "The abrahamic conception of God, is not the only one".


I think you may have a point. It seems that some people have a kind of ingrained type of bigotry (or perhaps pure ignorance), in regards to discussion of deity.

We definitely do not give enough respect and thought to other faiths and cultures and that does need to change.

[Rust]

Well it makes sense that the conception of a god which has the most adherents be the conception of a god that hast the most criticism...


ITT: we complain about something that has a completely reasonable explanation.

[Cytosine]

Representation has a lot to do with it, but also because Christianity is frankly one of the most viral/damaging religious memes. Islam is on the same level as they share a common ancestor.

You don't see people protesting funerals about how Shiva hates fags, do you?

[The Happiest Little Nug]

Buddhism ftw

[Mantikore]

i think christianity takes a lot of flak in this sense because its the one people are most familiar with and is therefore, it would be the easiest for them to pick apart

[Persian]

How come whenever religion is attacked or criticised, especially in regards to God it is the abrahamic faith that is criticised?

Moreso when theyre are questions regarding the nature of God it seems its either atheism or the abrahamic God.

Dont you guys know that it is only one conception of many?

Because it's the biggest religious group, so if you're trying to take down theists, you pretty much win half the population of the world by disproving Christianity.

[JustAnotherAsshole]

Because it's the biggest religious group, so if you're trying to take down theists, you pretty much win half the population of the world by disproving Christianity.

You cannot disprove a person's faith. You cannot prove it either.

It's based on belief, not on fact of evidence.

Even if you did somehow disprove it, either people would ignore you, or some nut would kill you.

[negz]

Most people here are pissed that mommy made them go to church.

[reallystupidstuff]

I would have to say because Christianity and followers thereof are responsible for all of the retarded laws none of us care to follow

[JustAnotherAsshole]

I would have to say because Christianity and followers thereof are responsible for all of the retarded laws none of us care to follow

Like?

[Bensozia]

How come whenever religion is attacked or criticised, especially in regards to God it is the abrahamic faith that is criticised?

Moreso when theyre are questions regarding the nature of God it seems its either atheism or the abrahamic God.

Dont you guys know that it is only one conception of many?

Like many said before me, most of people in here are Westerners so the dominant religion where we live is Christianity, followed by Judaism.

Hence we know more about it and its deviances than any other religion, especially Islam that is still a minority in the Western world. Not to mention that, at least in the US, Christianity uses very aggressive forms of proselytism. Not as much as Islam but still...

Of course, Christianity is not the only religion. But for many people, it's the one we have to deal with the most.

[razlyubleno]

For example look at this thread

http://www.zoklet.net/bbs/showthread.php?t=19977

The title is "pre-concieved conclusions about "God" "

But the op and the entire thread have to do with abrahamic conception.

Actually, the thread wasn't skewed so much towards Abrahamic religion as it was towards monotheism, of which Abrahamic religions are by far the are largest representatives. It was only natural for the discussion to develop in that direction. And exactly which religion is examined is irrelevant, since the OP doesn't concern itself with an overall conception of God; but only with a single attribute that gets applied to conceptions of God, and with the reasons for that application. Pick an example, run with it. Each way, it doesn't matter, since it's so very peripheral to the point.


When you ask someone from western society "do you believe in god" they will probably interpret that as "do you believe in the abrahamic God".

Perhaps it would be better to say "The abrahamic conception of God, is not the only one".
You're mincing language, of course. Colloquially (in Western society), to refer to "God" with a capital letter and without an article, refers implicitly to the Abrahamic conception of God. If you want people to think in terms of other conceptions, you need to phrase it differently ("do you believe in a god?"). There's as much bias in the question as there is in the answer.

razly

[Ambient]

Actually, the thread wasn't skewed so much towards Abrahamic religion as it was towards monotheism, of which Abrahamic religions are by far the are largest representatives. It was only natural for the discussion to develop in that direction. And exactly which religion is examined is irrelevant, since the OP doesn't concern itself with an overall conception of God; but only with a single attribute that gets applied to conceptions of God, and with the reasons for that application. Pick an example, run with it. Each way, it doesn't matter, since it's so very peripheral to the point.


You're mincing language, of course. Colloquially (in Western society), to refer to "God" with a capital letter and without an article, refers implicitly to the Abrahamic conception of God. If you want people to think in terms of other conceptions, you need to phrase it differently ("do you believe in a god?"). There's as much bias in the question as there is in the answer.

razly

Abrahamic religion constitutes the majority of the worlds religous followers, but a religion should not be judged by its adherants. Infact quantity is not a great measure of religous qulity, or quality of any kind.

I could say Vedic religion is the natural answer to the question of God, because abrahamics only have a fraction of the scripture contained in the 10,000+ holy books of the vedas.

I have linguistic issues with the phrase "a god"; it is theosophically incorrect and implies there are multiple gods because their are multipe conceptions. Which according to most monotheistic conceptions is simply not true.

[razlyubleno]

Abrahamic religion constitutes the majority of the worlds religous followers, but a religion should not be judged by its adherants. Infact quantity is not a great measure of religous qulity, or quality of any kind.

Well, I don't quite remember passing judgment. But for the sake of argument, I'll pretend I did pass judgment, and I'll give you a reason for doing so that might be viable: Namely, that the number of follows can indeed indicate quality. We'll assume there is an even distribution of intelligent religious people across the entire globe, and to pull a ratio out of thin air, we'll say that the ratio of intelligent people to unintelligent people is 1:10. Now all that's left to do is plug-in some figures: there are approx. 3.8 billion followers of Abrahamic religions, and approx. 1 billion follows of Hinduism. That would mean there are 380 million intelligent Abrahamic religion followers in the world, but only 100 million intelligent Hindus. With an extra 280 million intelligent people contributing to Abrahamic theological thought, I tentatively (and hypothetically) suggest that the latter is more theologically sophisticated. Debunk me.


I have linguistic issues with the phrase "a god"; it is theosophically incorrect and implies there are multiple gods because their are multipe conceptions.

I'd disagree that it implies multiple gods existing simultaneously (if that's what you mean); but rather, in my opinion, it implies multiple conceptions of god existing simultaneously as philosophical entities. But I think what we're learning here is that language is idiosyncratic, and I'm not sure how fruitful a discussion of "what's implied" could be. My only point was that the way a question is framed has a certain amount of bearing on the answer you're likely to get. When you use what is essentially an idiom ("Do you believe in God?"), you shouldn't be surprised when people don't interpret the words literally ("Do you believe that a supreme supernatural entity of some description -- not necessarily the Abrahamic conception -- exists?"). Colloquially, asking if someone believes in God is functionally equivalent to asking if they believe in the God of the Hebrew Bible.

razly

[Ambient]

Well i wont lie, your argument is convincing and your points are generally valid.

When i said "judgement" a better description could have been "observed".

Now i dont know too much about theology, but as far as i know it relates to the forms and manifestations of diety.

Due to human nature i would say a conception with more adherance has more human input and evaluation therefore more development which means more developed theology.

The thing is i never brought theology up; theology was not even on my mind.

Theosophy, not theology.

Its like comparing philosophy to philology.

[razlyubleno]

The thing is i never brought theology up; theology was not even on my mind.

Theosophy, not theology.

Its like comparing philosophy to philology.
Sorry about that. I had no idea what theosophy actually was. I just assumed it was religious philosophy, which I've always thought of as being the same thing as theology. Looks like I've got some reading to do...

razly

[Ambient]

Sorry about that. I had no idea what theosophy actually was. I just assumed it was religious philosophy, which I've always thought of as being the same thing as theology. Looks like I've got some reading to do...

razly

Whats in a name?

Everything.

Ology connotates something much different to Osophy.

Philology has more to do with knowledge than ideas, and philosophy has more to do with ideas than knowledge.

The same is true for theology and theosophy.

Mainly, theosophy is the similarity or commonality of religion whereas theology are the differences/diversities.