About
A community for the most based memes from atheists, agnostics, antitheists, and skeptics.
Rules
No Pro-Religious or Anti-Atheist Content.
No Unrelated Content. All posts must be memes related to the topic of atheism and/or religion.
No bigotry.
Attack ideas not people.
Spammers and trolls will be instantly banned no exceptions.
No False Reporting
NSFW posts must be marked as such.
Resources
International Suicide Hotlines
Non Religious Organizations
Freedom From Religion Foundation
Ex-theist Communities
Other Similar Communities
This logic is not sound. Why couldn't be the case that only one religion is right?
Three people looking at a triangle might have different opinions about what shape it is. It is inconceivable that they are all right, but that does not imply that they are all wrong.
I think the part that’s left out is “since they all can’t be right, yet use the same standard of authority for truth, the most likely scenario is that none of them have a reasonable claim to truth”.
If only one religion is right, then the God of that religion is either evil or an asshole or not all knowing and all powerful.
If you think about it, and all knowing all powerful God that allows a gigantic portion of his beloved children to live in complete and total ignorance for their entire lives without even the chance of ever knowing the truth would be a terrible asshole at best, and that's only assuming that he doesn't throw everyone that doesn't get the truth he didn't give them into hell forever.
Of course that only covers the abrahamic religions. I feel like Zoroastrianism would probably still be okay because as little of it as I understand it seems to be more like the world is a stage where a chess game is being played and each piece moves as it will and the battling deities over watching the game can only make so many moves each to keep it fair.
Buddhism can't really complain about it other than that it sucks that we're all currently stuck in hell and having to live tens of thousands of lives until we're allowed to get out, seems like more people should make it out as time goes by.
Either way though, if there is one true religion it would be amazing if the god of that religion would occasionally pop onto the planet and remind everybody that they exist, maybe give us the bread and circuses show to catch us back up, maybe throw out a couple of worldwide hey I forgive everybody's and then pop back off just to remind us.
A thousand years without a reappearance of the God of all gods is a long time to keep the torch burning.
He just stepped out to grab some milk and cigarettes, he'll be back soon.
The logic seems sound to me.
If they all look at thin air, and claim there is different kinds of magical beings, and as evidence they say they imagined it, isn't it reasonable to conclude there actually is none of the magical beings they claim? Since they use the same vastly erroneous process to make similar extraordinary claims.
As Richard Dawkins say: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
That's why it says "most reasonable conclusion." If all of these religions have the same level of evidence of their existence, all have people who are certain that their religion is real and all others are false, and they all claim to be the "truth" then what's most reasonable?
Obviously it's possible that any given religion is correct about the world, but if you ask me which is more probable: that every human religion is wrong except the 1 that is correct, or that every human religion is wrong? I think I agree with the original quote
or they each see a different face of the same truth
The reasonable conclusion comes from the vast range of possibilities of what is true, which is exponentially larger than the range of possibilities specifically expressed in the world's popular religions, even if we were to assume that every human being has their own understanding of what is true. The range of possibilities not conceived of by one of eight-billion human beings is vastly greater, so the chances of one person getting it right is akin to winning the lottery.
If we assume that any two people agree on religious truth, that number of religions becomes less, and the odds it is not one of those becomes even greater.
Note that there are about (not quite) 40,000 denominations of Christianity (and then all the non-denominational churches, some of which are megachurches that stay ND so they are not recognized as an NRM, which law enforcement presumes is a potentially-dangerous cult-or-sect) so we get very specific as to what religious truth is, and we fight wars or litigate over these specifics.
Considering the scope of the universe compared to the scope of life on earth (let alone human life), it's highly more likely the Milky Way galaxy (including the solar system and everything in it) is incidental to any divine purpose of the cosmos. The difference between the chances that we're special or important, and the chances mold under a specific Sequoia tree in central California is special or important is infinitesimal.
So even when we only consider theistic possibilities within the universe as we see and understand it, any popular religion that has a non-zero possibility of being true still doesn't have much more than that.
Correct. By their very nature of certain religions being mutually exclusive, they can't all be correct, but they could all be wrong.
They aren't wrong because some are mutually exclusive. That's a non-sequitur. They are false or at least not true, because the evidence either falsifies the claims or doesn't prove them to be true.
Say I have 6 people all guessing a different result of a roll of a D6. It's inconceivable that they are all right, and it's absolutely not a "reasonable conclusion" that they are all wrong.
Additionally, if we include the people who believe they know there is no god (a position held with no proof) as a religion (which is not much of a stretch) then it's also included in the " they are all wrong" group.
I lack a belief in a god because I've been provided no evidence that own exists, but the logic in this picture is full of holes.
If you think his logic is bad here, wait till you read his position on the Iraq War.
The Christopher Hitchens style of atheism is very heavy on the pithy one-liners and very light on real philosophy, reason, or ethics. Neoconservatism in a nutshell.
Say I have 6 people all guessing a different result of a roll of a D6. It’s inconceivable that they are all right, and it’s absolutely not a “reasonable conclusion” that they are all wrong.
In this strawman, you are correct as you 1) already know there are only 6 possible answers to choose from; 2) you know at least 1 of the participants will get it right as you set the conditions to be "different results" and 3) the result is discrete and absolute.
None of the above conditions apply to religions in general... 1) we do not know how many possible right answer are there; 2) the options are endless and can overlap and 3) if one of them is right in someway, it would 100% be a matter of perspective and context
- already know there are only 6 possible answers to choose from; 2) you know at least 1 of the participants will get it right as you set the conditions to be “different results” and 3) the result is discrete and absolute.
You are pointing out how a 6D dice is different than picking/defining a religion. I'm not saying they are the same thing, I'm giving you an example where just because it is inconceivable all answers are correct, that doesn't mean no answer can be correct. There is no strawman in my argument, I'm just applying the logic to something we would all agree one.
- we do not know how many possible right answer are there; 2) the options are endless and can overlap and 3) if one of them is right in someway, it would 100% be a matter of perspective and context
This is expanding, by leaps and bounds, the argument in the OP's image. You are now introducing a bunch of other things. Unprovable, of course. Seriously, how could you know that being correct about a religious would be "100% a matter of perspective and context"? Why couldn't it be just objectively and patently correct? The fact that some might be partially correct doesn't change the fact that one could be completely correct.
People are attacking this as if it’s a hard deductive proof and if is very clearly a statement of what is “most reasonable.”
The most reasonable conclusion is that they aren't all correct.
I don't think that's an accurate comparison, it's more like a few hundred people guessing a different result of a practically infinite-sided die. For all we know, the origin of the universe can be anything, and it's maybe (who are we kidding, definitely) something even beyond our imaginations. For all we know, we're trapped in Charlie's Chocolate Factory. What are the odds that anyone who ever wrote a book about a diety/universal origins actually got it right? Hint: it's not 1/6 odds, or even 1/1,000,000,000, it's 1/∞. Technically not zero, but c'mon, it's practically zero.
The argument put forth is not that the chances of them being right is small, but that because they can't all be right, they must all be wrong. I gave a counter example that demonstrates, pretty clearly, that this logic doesn't make sense. I'm not comparing religious beliefs to a D6, but giving a demonstration as to why the logic is bad.
Isn't it just as likely that one religion across c all of human history was right than absolutely none from like a 'logic' standpoint?
I'm not a religious person, but the conclusion that all are wrong because all can't be right is just bad logic and doesn't follow from the premise.
Since it is inconceivable all scientific theories are correct, the most logical conclusion is they are all wrong.
I like the explanation of AI with a pencil and googly eyes. Give the pencil some googly eyes and call it Mohammed, or Carl, and talk to someone with it, using ventriloquism or something, doesn't have to be good. They will form an emotional connection to the pencil and react, some even violently, if the pencil is broken midconversation in front of them.
That is the reason why people think AI is a thing. That is also why people think a god is a thing. They are wrong in both cases.
Gods are never real in a sense of natural science, they have no body, no voice; they aren't existant. They exist as an idea, a thought people have.
Gods never work in the physical world, none of them have a will, they can only be used to steer people through the people's thoughts.
They are all wrong... only Doug Forcett got it right
Since it's inconceivable that everything on TV is true, then everything on TV must be false!
Seriously what terrible quote from a terrible chud.
While Hitchens is a bit of an arrogant blowhard. He's not wrong, they are all mostly wrong with Buddhists being an interesting outlier. The truth is much easier and obvious than "some guy sitting in a cloud smiting us for being what it created us to be". Think how boring that would eventually get. You want your projects to work, how frustrating would it be to be so incompetent this was all unintentional. God(the admin of this little zone) does not play dice.
How are buddhists an outlier?
I'd guess because they aren't theists, or at least not as a rule. As a religion it trends more philosophical than mystical.
I mean yes, but that logic is pretty awful. By that logic, there's no way creationism and evolution could both be right, so they both must be wrong.
Edit: yes yes I fucking get it. This was just me being pedantic about some guy's statement, no need to get your fedoras in a knot.
This argument only really works against non-syncretic religions, and there's a whole lot of syncretic ones. It makes sense it would resonate to a British atheist though.
As a religious/spiritual person I agree, and I don't see how that's a bad thing. In science we understand that our models are all wrong, and only the next most accurate representation of a part of reality until a newer discovery or testing allows us to make even more refined models.
All religions can benefit from an application of the scientific method.