Current estimates are north of 4,000 active religions on the planet today.

Why are there so many?

Does this include sects of Christianity? Or is Christianity considered one religion?

TPS_Report said:

---

Current estimates are north of 4,000 active religions on the planet today.

Why are there so many?

---

We haven't finished the job?

Something something deus something vult (Roman Catholics, probably).

schmendeler said:

---

The world can be a scary place. There is comfort in having an explanation for why things are they way they are, even if it is wishful thinking.

---

How is this different from saying Stone Age people were stupid and didn't know how the world works?

kurt vonnegut said:

---

TPS_Report said:

---

Current estimates are north of 4,000 active religions on the planet today.

Why are there so many?

---

[edited to correct some word choices]

Religious truth is cultivated by culture, tradition, and personal experience, which leads to diversity, while other kinds of truth converge because their methods of verification operate independently of those factors.

---

Tell that to the postmodernists.

All truth is relative now. Haven't you been paying attention?

schmendeler said:

---

The world can be a scary place. There is comfort in having an explanation for why things are they way they are, even if it is wishful thinking.

---

That provides a hypothesis for the generation of a religion, but doesn't exactly address the issue of why religions emerge in already religious environments, or evolve in general.

It also poorly addresses large aspects of religion that have little do with explaining anything.

schmendeler said:

---

AGC said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

The world can be a scary place. There is comfort in having an explanation for why things are they way they are, even if it is wishful thinking.

---

How is this different from saying Stone Age people were stupid and didn't know how the world works?

---

They weren't stupid, they just didn't access to knowledge.

---

Sure, but everyone who sacrificed their firstborn in a drought that didn't bring rain were smart enough, no? There's some pretty basic cause/effect that even early people without knowledge could still figure out. So how do such things persist if it was simply an explanation?

schmendeler said:

---

AGC said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

The world can be a scary place. There is comfort in having an explanation for why things are they way they are, even if it is wishful thinking.

---

How is this different from saying Stone Age people were stupid and didn't know how the world works?

---

They weren't stupid, they just didn't access to knowledge.

---

And we do? We know why things are the way they are?

Maximus of Tejas said:

---

Because humans have a rational mind, soul, and spirit. We are geared towards higher level thinking combined with free will which is molded after the Trinity.

---

Please explain how higher level thinking and free will are molded (sic) after the Trinity.

First, prayer is relational, not transactional.

Second, I personally don't think the creator of the universe gets caught up in nomenclature. I believe humility, will, and an open heart are the only prerequisites.

But thats just my limited perspective.

Going back to your OP, why do you think over half the world's population believes in some derivative of a God first conceptualized by a bunch of hillbilly semites?

A group of people who spent the majority of the last 3,500 years being subjugated by basically everyone else.

Kind of wild, isn't it? Out of all the deities worshipped in human history the only one to reach global proportions of believers is the one first "invented " by a bunch of Bronze Age sheep herders?

Some might even go a bit further and ascertain that's because that is the correct one. But who am I to judge?

Silent For Too Long said:

---

Going back to your OP, why do you think over half the world's population believes in some derivative of a God first conceptualized by a bunch of hillbilly semites?

A group of people who spent the majority of the last 3,500 years being subjugated by basically everyone else.

Kind of wild, isn't it? Out of all the deities worshipped in human history the only one to reach global proportions of believers is the one first "invented " by a bunch of Bronze Age sheep herders?

Some might even go a bit further and ascertain that's because that is the correct one. But who am I to judge?

---

Is the fact that Abrahamic religions have grown to have such global reach an indication that they are true? Or if we assigning unearned meaning to the inevitability that some culture was bound to become the first culture with global reach? Put another way, is the popularity of Abrahamic religions because of their truth or because of their association with the dominant world wide political, economic, and military players during the past centuries global industrial and technological revolutions?

Christian/Muslim, in particular, cultures have been most effective amongst religions at spreading and putting down other religions. If China and India where the world wide economic dominant forces over the last several hundred years, had settled the Americas, had colonized Africa, and had intentionally stamped out tribal religions on those continents, then 75% of the world would be Buddhist and Hindu.

Silent For Too Long said:

---

First, prayer is relational, not transactional.

---

People pray for outcomes. This makes it transactional.

Quote:

---

Second, I personally don't think the creator of the universe gets caught up in nomenclature. I believe humility, will, and an open heart are the only prerequisites.

---

Prerequisites for what? I'm not understanding your point here and need a little help.

Silent For Too Long said:

---

The notion you can statistically assess the power of prayer in any knid of empirical way is filled with faulty a priori assumptions.

Prayer is personal, not a science experiment.

---

Tell that to so many of the people who pray.

Praying for internal strength or peace of mind or emotional regulation ect are the only prayers that make sense as a matter of effectiveness. You could add a prayer for forgiveness or a prayer of "thy will be done" but I categorize them similarly.

A prayer for divine action, intercession, miracle ect. Is a different animal and would certainly be something empirically substantiated.

schmendeler said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

AGC said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

The world can be a scary place. There is comfort in having an explanation for why things are they way they are, even if it is wishful thinking.

---

How is this different from saying Stone Age people were stupid and didn't know how the world works?

---

They weren't stupid, they just didn't access to knowledge.

---

And we do? We know why things are the way they are?

---

We know what earthquakes and eclipses and lightning are. We know that seizures and schizophrenia aren't caused by demons.

---

That's what they are, not why. Why did an earthquake occur and an eclipse last for 3 hours when Jesus died?

And the demon possessed did not have schizophrenia. Even if they did, why did it stop when Jesus commanded it to?

Yeah, "If."

But they didn't.

Christianity spread for 300 years while being marginalized if not outright persecuted before it was attached to any political power.

But feel free to explain it away however you want.

TPS_Report said:

---

Silent For Too Long said:

---

First, prayer is relational, not transactional.

---

People pray for outcomes. This makes it transactional.

Quote:

---

Second, I personally don't think the creator of the universe gets caught up in nomenclature. I believe humility, will, and an open heart are the only prerequisites.

---

Prerequisites for what? I'm not understanding your point here and need a little help.

---

For a meaningful prayer.

And, some people try to use screwdrivers as hammers. That does not make them hammers. People who approach prayer as transactional are probably doing it wrong.

Silent For Too Long said:

---

Yeah, "If."

But they didn't.

Christianity spread for 300 years while being marginalized if not outright persecuted before it was attached to any political power.

But feel free to explain it away however you want.

---

Marginalization and persecution of people that are different is the norm throughout human history.

But, I don't deny that Christianity has appeal and its own mechanism for spreading that goes beyond simply political power. But, the same can be said for other religions. Its also true that other religions have faced marginalization and persecution and endured. I don't know how far we want to go in concluding that these things point to the truth of the religion.

I was responding to the statement that Abrahamic religions (again primary Christianity and Islam), are the dominant religions in the world today. And I'm saying you cannot examine this question without understanding the political, economic, social, military power that predominantly Christian peoples have had over that time.

Yeah, maybe.

I just think its interesting when atheists says they don't believe in God, 99.9999999999999999% of the time they are specifically referencing the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as the one they don't believe in.

I also think the "how could we possibly choose the right God" argument, which TPS seems to be hinting at in the OP, isn't a particularly well thought out one. At this point I think we can reasonably rule out Zeus, Odin, and Ahura Mazda.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Silent For Too Long said:

---

Yeah, "If."

But they didn't.

Christianity spread for 300 years while being marginalized if not outright persecuted before it was attached to any political power.

But feel free to explain it away however you want.

---

Marginalization and persecution of people that are different is the norm throughout human history.

But, I don't deny that Christianity has appeal and its own mechanism for spreading that goes beyond simply political power. But, the same can be said for other religions. Its also true that other religions have faced marginalization and persecution and endured. I don't know how far we want to go in concluding that these things point to the truth of the religion.

I was responding to the statement that Abrahamic religions (again primary Christianity and Islam), are the dominant religions in the world today. And I'm saying you cannot examine this question without understanding the political, economic, social, military power that predominantly Christian peoples have had over that time.

---

Perhaps these religions didn't spread because of the dominance of their powers but instead they had powers because the Lord said He'd make them great nations.

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Perhaps these religions didn't spread because of the dominance of their powers but instead they had powers because the Lord said He'd make them great nations.

---

How far do we take this line of thinking? If the spreading of Christianity is due to God imparting powers on favored nations, why is Christianity not spread everywhere?

Again, we can come up with reasonable historic narratives to explain how Christianity spread into Europe, then accross to the Americas and parts of Africa etc. But, if God is driving the ship, why is Christianity not the dominant religion everywhere?

What I worry about is that this becomes an exercise in confirmation bias whereby we say that God imparting power to great nations is evidenced by the spreading His word to the Americas. But then we do not look at the lack of Christianity in other parts of the world as counter evidence.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Perhaps these religions didn't spread because of the dominance of their powers but instead they had powers because the Lord said He'd make them great nations.

---

How far do we take this line of thinking? If the spreading of Christianity is due to God imparting powers on favored nations, why is Christianity not spread everywhere?

Again, we can come up with reasonable historic narratives to explain how Christianity spread into Europe, then accross to the Americas and parts of Africa etc. But, if God is driving the ship, why is Christianity not the dominant religion everywhere?

What I worry about is that this becomes an exercise in confirmation bias whereby we say that God imparting power to great nations is evidenced by the spreading His word to the Americas. But then we do not look at the lack of Christianity in other parts of the world as counter evidence.

---

I do think Christianity is everywhere, to be clear, though as you stated, not the dominate religion. I'm not referencing specific countries. I'm not saying God said he'd make America a great nation. I'm saying God told Abraham he would make him a great nation and we know that refers to Christians. Same with Ishmael from which the Muslims arose.

Silent For Too Long said:

---

Yeah, maybe.

I just think its interesting when atheists says they don't believe in God, 99.9999999999999999% of the time they are specifically referencing the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as the one they don't believe in.

I also think the "how could we possibly choose the right God" argument, which TPS seems to be hinting at in the OP, isn't a particularly well thought out one. At this point I think we can reasonably rule out Zeus, Odin, and Ahura Mazda.

---

Most of the atheists you converse with are probably in the US and so reference to the Christian God is probably just a 'know your audience' thing. In other words, if you and I are discussing arguments for or against God, it makes little sense for me to tell you why I don't believe in Zeus, Odin, or Ahura Mazda. But, for what its worth, I am unconvinced that they exist also.

I think the 'how could we possibly choose the right God' has some value. I don't believe that the intention is to equate the likelihood of Christianity and Greek Pagan beliefs. If that were the case, you could count me as considering the Christian God as more likely than Zeus.

1. I think the argument intends to point out that billions of people have lived and died believing in the 'wrong' Gods and gods. And among those billions would have been brilliant minds, philosophers, and honest/sincere believers. It is obviously soooooo easy to be "wrong". Most people who have lived are "wrong". Most people alive today are "wrong". . . . . So, maybe you are wrong also?

My perception is that the vast majority of religious people find it exceptionally easy to wholly discount and wave off the religious experience of other religions as 'wrong' while considering it absurd that anyone could possibly deny their own.

2. The argument hints at the fact that humans have been inventing thousands of gods for thousands of years and to point at the one you were born into and say 'this one is real' seems awfully convenient.

3. Lastly, I think the argument suggests a claim that, if there is a God, then it is not readily apparent which God there is and what this God wants. And I think this argument is particularly valuable when you consider the proposed stakes. If Christianity is true, then it is, by an infinite margin, the single most important thing for us to know and it has infinite eternal consequences. Yet, 2/3 of people don't follow Christianity and the 1/3 that do fight about everything. For all religion does to promote humility in our behavior, it seems to have forgotten to promote humility in what we are to claim to know.

It has been explained to me that to know or believe in God is not an exercise in science and empiricism, that God is not found through study of history, or through study of language and culture, but that it is an experienced spiritual 'evidence' derived from a relationship which gives people their faith. And then it is assumed that everyone must have the same experiences or else 'we are doing it wrong'. I've had different experiences and they have not lead me to believe in the Christian God. To say I did not try hard enough or was not sincere is simply insulting.

Ultimately, I think, the 'how can we choose. . . ' argument is meant to attack the hubris of those who assume with perfect certainty, that they can't be wrong.

Understand, most atheists are not atheists because we've rejected God. Most of us are atheists because we are simply not convinced Christianity is true.

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Perhaps these religions didn't spread because of the dominance of their powers but instead they had powers because the Lord said He'd make them great nations.

---

How far do we take this line of thinking? If the spreading of Christianity is due to God imparting powers on favored nations, why is Christianity not spread everywhere?

Again, we can come up with reasonable historic narratives to explain how Christianity spread into Europe, then accross to the Americas and parts of Africa etc. But, if God is driving the ship, why is Christianity not the dominant religion everywhere?

What I worry about is that this becomes an exercise in confirmation bias whereby we say that God imparting power to great nations is evidenced by the spreading His word to the Americas. But then we do not look at the lack of Christianity in other parts of the world as counter evidence.

---

I do think Christianity is everywhere, to be clear, though as you stated, not the dominate religion. I'm not referencing specific countries. I'm not saying God said he'd make America a great nation. I'm saying God told Abraham he would make him a great nation and we know that refers to Christians. Same with Ishmael from which the Muslims arose.

---

How do you know this?