I couldn’t find the old thread that asked what it would take to convince me that religion was true, but I came up with this test.
The Meme test
If all of the books and all of the memories of something could be destroyed and it could then be rebuilt, rediscovered, reinvented as it was, then it is something that truly represents reality.
If all of the books and all of the memories of a religion disappeared it would never be recovered in the same form. If all of the books and all of the memories of a scientific fact disappeared, it would only require our freedom to think to be recovered.
Examples of scientific facts being lost and re-discovered or being discovered in two disparate places actually exist. Jesus, Buddha and Muhammad only exist where someone has been told of those stories.
Neither of these can be truly tested because you need at least one person holding the books and memories while everyone else forgets or dies off. And how long should you wait before it is considered proven? Fortunately we have historical examples for scientific discoveries. There is no verified example of a visitation from Jesus anywhere outside the community of Jerusalem. He wouldn’t have needed to explain anything, simply appear, say some words that translate accurately into a Bible passage, and move on. He could still do this today to the remote tribes in South America. I’m not requiring any hard evidence, only a report from a person that shows some piece of religious data was independently discovered in two places.
That there are “spiritual" truths that are universal is not the same. I would be happy if all the religions in the world got together and decided what was really important, what they agreed was “truly godly”, and started teaching it. I’m pretty sure it would look a lot like humanism.
Some of the thinking that around.
Theory of the Akashic Records (from Skt. kša, space, void, ether) considers that any knowledge, however profound, that has ever existed, can be retrieved through deep introspection, and asking the right questions. Hence, if every sacred text ever written was destroyed the knowledge itself could be rescued, for there are always women and men of profound understanding. http://www.yogaplustherapies.com/tantra-and-christianity-2.pdf
I don’t think facts can found, but the general ideas or thinking can be theorized if it is kept simple and not over done with religious thinking. Islam is an example of religion going overboard. I have found nothing in my research that shows mankind ever spent so much time in praying and in religious ceremonies as in Islam. The Egyptians may have spent as much time in the temple, but they had fun, singing, dining and socializing. And they included both sexes.
That’s the same idea, but mis-applied. They’re saying there is such knowledge, and it’s hidden, but somehow they know what the knowledge is, or at least they know what you have to do to find it. Really no difference from any other religious belief, i.e. do what we say and you’ll be “right”.
I quote from your link, “It is through Tantra that the inner path of Christianity may be rediscovered”. How do they know there is an inner path of Christianity? It’s in the Bible.
Yea, I agree. I was looking for a book that I have, but I must have loaned it to a friend. The book had a lot of ancient quotes and then show how the quotes were reused over again up until the time of Jesus. It focused mostly on the quotes use by Jesus and others in the bible that match the Vedic religions.
So I thought I could find the name of the book on the internet, could not, but that is where this stuff popped up. I don’t agree with it, that’s why I said, I think it can only be theorized.
That’s what we are doing with the Maya and Aztec religions right now. Most of the knowledge is gone, and no deep thought is going to bring that data back.
A good thought, but it fails for history. If everything were destroyed, all of history would be lost and surely there’s a lot to be learned from history (though I suppose those lessons would be re-learned). You’ve narrowed the field to be merely scientific facts so of course only scientific facts remain. However, if God were real, then surely he would help recreate “his” particular religion if it were lost. So it’s impossible to say that it would never be recreated and “therefore” it’s not true. It’s only “obviously” forever lost when one already deems God in-existent to recreate it which is circular reasoning.
A good thought, but it fails for history. If everything were destroyed, all of history would be lost and surely there's a lot to be learned from history (though I suppose those lessons would be re-learned). You've narrowed the field to be merely scientific facts so of course only scientific facts remain. However, if God were real, then surely he would help recreate "his" particular religion if it were lost. So it's impossible to say that it would never be recreated and "therefore" it's not true. It's only "obviously" forever lost when one already deems God in-existent to recreate it which is circular reasoning.I only have five minutes, but thanks for the feedback. When I say "scientific fact" I mean something that can be demonstrated scientifically, you might be confusing that with something like "cold hard facts". I think you can demonstrate with data that compassion is better for society, for example. I already addressed the problem of the difficulty of running this as an actual test. However, in science there is something called "multiples", where two or more people discover something without having actually talked to each other. There is no such equivalent in religion. Jesus did not appear in America like the Mormons say. All religious stories are local. And, I'm not assuming anything. I'm presenting it as a test. Do you believe that if Christianity was completely forgotten, any significant part of it would be recreated? Would there be a Trinity again? Would there be a new Sermon on the Mount?
I'm presenting it as a test. Do you believe that if Christianity was completely forgotten, any significant part of it would be recreated? Would there be a Trinity again? Would there be a new Sermon on the Mount?What is the application of the test though? All I'm saying is that the test in itself does not prove something right or wrong. Christianity could still be accurate despite our expectation of failure. Since, if true, I'm sure God would reproduce it. But yes, as you mentioned, compassion could again be proven useful and good. Such things are generally proven via looking back into history even if specifically the history of one's own life. Other lessons such as dealing with other countries and powers would likely have to be relearned. Treatment of women and other races may require relearning. Such learning is difficult and painful, but it would likely be recreated and thus pass your test. The trinity, however, would only be recreated IF TRUE. So the test doesn't tell us if it's true or not and it's generally coming down to our speculation. We speculate it would not be recreated based upon our bias that it is not true to begin with. And who knows, maybe we'd find repression and slavery wins out the second time around since we can get more accomplished when dominating or something. Who knows! So what is the application of the test? It all seems speculative based upon pre-conceived beliefs. Only things like math and science can be recreated with pretty much guarantee so long as people desire to seek it out and recreate it. Everything else is not applicable to the test since it requires speculation from biases. Perhaps I'm just missing your intent or application of the test though.
So what is the application of the test? It all seems speculative based upon pre-conceived beliefs. Only things like math and science can be recreated with pretty much guarantee so long as people desire to seek it out and recreate it. Everything else is not applicable to the test since it requires speculation from biases. Perhaps I'm just missing your intent or application of the test though.You seem to understand the application of the test. I'm not sure what you're resisting. As you note, we have actual data on how many cultures figured out compassion was good, helping the poor is good, not to mention observing the stars and figuring out seasons, time and gravity. What we don't have is Jesus appearing on two continents. That's the best application of the test we have. Multiple occurrences of dying and rising god stories don't count, those are allegory. Multiple occurrences of people saying we have a "spirit" don't count because no test for what a "spirit" is has been devised. That people develop similar explanations for their natural environment doesn't count because we have some explanation for why that is. People around the world don't have a variety of descriptions of something warm and life giving that passes across the sky every day. It is not a vague notion that helps to explain some other phenomenon. We have very specific explanations of the sun and no matter who developed them they can be verified. We can also trace the history of how that knowledge was developed. It took the development of the right explanatory tools to get to that and they work across all language and cultural barriers. Show me a religion that does that.
You seem to understand the application of the test. I'm not sure what you're resisting. As you note, we have actual data on how many cultures figured out compassion was good, helping the poor is good, not to mention observing the stars and figuring out seasons, time and gravity. What we don't have is Jesus appearing on two continents. That's the best application of the test we have. Multiple occurrences of dying and rising god stories don't count, those are allegory. Multiple occurrences of people saying we have a "spirit" don't count because no test for what a "spirit" is has been devised. That people develop similar explanations for their natural environment doesn't count because we have some explanation for why that is. People around the world don't have a variety of descriptions of something warm and life giving that passes across the sky every day. It is not a vague notion that helps to explain some other phenomenon. We have very specific explanations of the sun and no matter who developed them they can be verified. We can also trace the history of how that knowledge was developed. It took the development of the right explanatory tools to get to that and they work across all language and cultural barriers. Show me a religion that does that.But we can't have Jesus dying for our sins recreated on all continents since it was merely a historical event. We don't have multiple continents deriving the story of Thomas Paine writing "Common Sense" and starting a movement of abolition of slavery. That doesn't mean it didn't happen in the US, however. So if the application is to separate fact from fiction, it can indeed result in real facts but it would throw a lot away as well. Thus, it can prove a fact but it can't disprove a fact. Thus it is useless in debating religion and is useful in determining scientific facts of a sort. Though I'm not sure general scientific facts are under fire. Clearly some are--like global warming--I guess :-P. But it doesn't seem all that useful if that's all the test can do.
We don't have multiple continents deriving the story of Thomas Paine writing "Common Sense" and starting a movement of abolition of slavery. That doesn't mean it didn't happen in the US, however.Abolition of slavery has indeed happened in many places and under different cultures. "Common Sense" included a long section about the US Navy so I'm assuming you don't mean that part. The parts about human rights can be shown to be directly connected to specific words from earlier philosophers. Things like The Golden Rule are claimed by Christianity as if Christ invented it. They claim to be spontaneous creations of a being that has a direct link to God. They aren't. The Golden Rule isn't even the best expression of the idea of compassion and it is far from the first. If "Do unto to others as you have them do unto to you" appeared somewhere else in even similar words you'd be onto something like a message from God. But they don't, they appear as "Do unto others as they would like to be done to". Or they come from a guy like Confucius, who didn't claim a mystical source. If God was beaming these ideas into his head, why wouldn't he say so? Why wouldn't more people get that sensation?
Abolition of slavery has indeed happened in many places and under different cultures. "Common Sense" included a long section about the US Navy so I'm assuming you don't mean that part. The parts about human rights can be shown to be directly connected to specific words from earlier philosophers. Things like The Golden Rule are claimed by Christianity as if Christ invented it. They claim to be spontaneous creations of a being that has a direct link to God. They aren't. The Golden Rule isn't even the best expression of the idea of compassion and it is far from the first. If "Do unto to others as you have them do unto to you" appeared somewhere else in even similar words you'd be onto something like a message from God. But they don't, they appear as "Do unto others as they would like to be done to". Or they come from a guy like Confucius, who didn't claim a mystical source. If God was beaming these ideas into his head, why wouldn't he say so? Why wouldn't more people get that sensation?Right, but I'm referring to the man Thomas Paine. He didn't visit all the continents and write a book on them all. Similarly, we wouldn't see tales of the appearance of Jesus on all continents. So perhaps the things either or both of them discussed would reappear, but not the acts of the people themselves. We would lose all knowledge of previous wars, people, and places. Such knowledge that "Columbus sailed the ocean blue" would be gone. That doesn't mean it didn't happen, just that we would lose the knowledge that it did. So the test wouldn't be good for informing us if indeed Jesus walked the Earth and taught a message, that he was God, or that he died for our sins. The fact is, they could certainly be true no matter what any of us think should have occurred if God were X, Y, or Z and whether or not they could be recreated if all info were lost. This test can't disprove that these things occurred. That's why I ask, though, if that's the intent of the test to begin with. Perhaps you had different ideas in mind on how to use it?
Look what has be going on in religion for some time now. Take “Sin" for example. Part of the Egyptian curse that follows your off spring if you break your contract with the Pharaoh (god). Then look how it gets entered into the Christian religion. It only got entered into a couple of Jewish branches because Eve was Adams second wife in some of the Jewish religious branches. Therefore the children of Adam and Lilith would not have sinned. The stories always end up with new twists and names. If Jesus’s mission had been is Spain and not Jerusalem, we most likely would not have sin in the form it is in today. You end up using what will work the best for your task and Jesus would have left sin alone and not added to its meaning if he was Spain as compared to what he did in the Middle East because of the religious beliefs he had to work with. What I am trying to say is that, people change or add to the meanings of words to enforce their ideas.
But take the measurement of the circumference of the earth. Items of scientific facts can be rediscover with the same results. No need for the human factor.
Look what has be going on in religion for some time now. Take “Sin" for example. Part of the Egyptian curse that follows your off spring if you break your contract with the Pharaoh (god). Then look how it gets entered into the Christian religion. It only got entered into a couple of Jewish branches because Eve was Adams second wife in some of the Jewish religious branches. Therefore the children of Adam and Lilith would not have sinned. The stories always end up with new twists and names. If Jesus’s mission had been is Spain and not Jerusalem, we most likely would not have sin in the form it is in today. You end up using what will work the best for your task and Jesus would have left sin alone and not added to its meaning if he was Spain as compared to what he did in the Middle East because of the religious beliefs he had to work with. What I am trying to say is that, people change or add to the meanings of words to enforce their ideas. But take the measurement of the circumference of the earth. Items of scientific facts can be rediscover with the same results. No need for the human factor.I can only say you're right based on the fact that I already agree with you. If God were real and sin were real then it wouldn't matter at all where Jesus was plopped down. We only perceive it would differ because we already believe there to be no God. If God were real, he'd be consistent. Given this test, however, I would certainly say God himself would be reinvented and, in less civilized areas, so would sacrifice. We can see this all over the globe. God was invented and required sacrifice all over. Does that make any of it real? The versions of God differ, but the concept is everywhere.
Given this test, however, I would certainly say God himself would be reinvented and, in less civilized areas, so would sacrifice. We can see this all over the globe. God was invented and required sacrifice all over. Does that make any of it real? The versions of God differ, but the concept is everywhere.I wish I had more time for this conversation because I want to understand the objections to this, but brown stuff is coming in contact with the oscillating air current distribution device at work. The key above is "reinvented". The CONCEPT of God and the PRACTICE of sacrifice would most definitely be reinvented. Those are real. Their invention proves the human desire to do them. That is already an argument against the idea of any god being real, that there are many versions of religion, all claiming to be true. It's not possible. But that's a dead end. What I like about this test is you can apply it to any religious idea, and if it's true that, as C.S. Lewis says, we all receive these ideas "in our personal mail" then we go into the public square already knowing how to be good, then we can verify that. I never received any message that said I should sacrifice myself. Except from some people who would profit by my sacrifice, not from God. If you believe your religion has a universal message, fine, show me. Catholics? Universalism is heretical. Shut down the Vatican, revoke their religious exemptions. And it keeps going. We'd get down to Buddhism and they'd have some 'splaining to do about karhma. Thing is, this is actually happening. Very few people can look at the list of beliefs that their home church says they are supposed to have and agree with all of them. The only thing left is for all of those people to realize that they aren't getting anything from that organization that they couldn't get if they created a new organization without the dogma.
The key above is "reinvented". The CONCEPT of God and the PRACTICE of sacrifice would most definitely be reinvented. Those are real. Their invention proves the human desire to do them. That is already an argument against the idea of any god being real, that there are many versions of religion, all claiming to be true. It's not possible. But that's a dead end. What I like about this test is you can apply it to any religious idea, and if it's true that, as C.S. Lewis says, we all receive these ideas "in our personal mail" then we go into the public square already knowing how to be good, then we can verify that. I never received any message that said I should sacrifice myself. Except from some people who would profit by my sacrifice, not from God. If you believe your religion has a universal message, fine, show me. Catholics? Universalism is heretical. Shut down the Vatican, revoke their religious exemptions. And it keeps going. We'd get down to Buddhism and they'd have some 'splaining to do about karhma. Thing is, this is actually happening. Very few people can look at the list of beliefs that their home church says they are supposed to have and agree with all of them. The only thing left is for all of those people to realize that they aren't getting anything from that organization that they couldn't get if they created a new organization without the dogma.I must simply be misunderstanding something. Since you're fine with the recreation of God and sacrifice, I guess I'm missing a pillar of this test. Is it just because it's not a discovery but rather a recreation? Because again I go back to the fact that we can't rediscover all of history but that doesn't mean it didn't occur. Are you more concerned with the principles of any religion? Perhaps we should take Christianity specifically and get some examples. The Trinity may or may not be recreated. If God exists, however, and if indeed he were in Trinity, I would have to suspect it would resurface. We know God himself will resurface along with all the good teachings of the golden rule. We know prayer will come back. The book probably wouldn't come back but neither would all Shakespearean plays. Of course, if God were real, he might very well bring the book back word for word. We agreed that sacrifice would likely come back, but that Jesus and Thomas Paine probably would not. So perhaps give some examples like I did that is applicable for religion and yet not for true facts. I think I'm still just misunderstanding something.
If God were real and sin were real then it wouldn't matter at all where Jesus was plopped down. We only perceive it would differ because we already believe there to be no God. If God were real, he'd be consistent.Stick with me a minute Code Monkey and let me try and explain a different view point. God is real, we know that because man created god. God was understood in the beginning as man’s knowledge. It was man’s knowledge that domesticated earth so mankind could survive in great numbers on earth, in other words, God created earth. This was all done in pre-history. As mankind entered the Age of Deities, god was taken over by men and idols. Would you agree that knowledge (god) has value? Well, if all rulers and idols have god, then what makes one any better than the other? Why would you agree to a contract with one ruler or idol over another? Maybe, more members for security, better food, better entertainers or maybe a better health care package. Greed by the rulers and idols was a problem. If they used the wealth on the people, then it was less wealth for them. But if they did not use the wealth on the people, the people would leave and go to other rulers and idols who did. This is where the contracts come into use. You pledge your life to me and the lives of your children and I would grand you wealth, health and protection from your enemies. Break that contract and your life will become a living hell and I will make all your offspring for generations to come a living hell too. This contract concept work out great for the rulers and idols, they could now keep all the wealth and the people would not leave because of the curse of bad things that would happen. Knowledge (god) was so powerful that all the rulers and idols started calling themselves god. When knowledge was written down, it had power. Both the bible and the Egyptian religions say that earth and everything on it was created by the “Word". Or in other words, created by knowledge. Point being, your concept of God, and my concept of God are really different. I am an atheist because I don’t believe in deities. The deities having the power of god has only been around for less than five thousand years. God being the knowledge of man has been around for at least forty thousand years. I do believe in god as the knowledge of mankind. And that god is in everyone. You want to talk about God and sin. Sin has only been around for 4,400 years and only as you know it for maybe 1,200 years. The same amount of time as the god you know, about 1,200 years. As the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew stated on the 60 minutes news show. Christianity at the beginning would not be recognized by Christians today as Christianity. Try reading the bible in Gnostic form and the meanings will be much clearer. People today who believe in god almighty, do so because they lack knowledge (god). Knowledge is more than just facts, it also includes the way mankind thinks. For example at one time in the Middle East man believed that all knowledge was controlled by god and god lived in the sun. And god sent knowledge to you by sunlight. That’s why the bible is full of statements regarding 'light'. Point being, that god sent you part of himself. Worked, great for keeping the wealth at the top, by giving you a piece of god as payment. In my opinion you’re on the right step, by not getting caught up in the “belief in faith" thinking of mankind today.
If God were real and sin were real then it wouldn't matter at all where Jesus was plopped down. We only perceive it would differ because we already believe there to be no God. If God were real, he'd be consistent.Stick with me a minute Code Monkey and let me try and explain a different view point....... Nope, that's not it
If God were real and sin were real then it wouldn't matter at all where Jesus was plopped down. We only perceive it would differ because we already believe there to be no God. If God were real, he'd be consistent.Stick with me a minute Code Monkey and let me try and explain a different view point....... Nope, that's not it Are you sure, what I am seeing is that you are arguing if god can be reinvented if all data was wiped out today. For that to happen, then you would have to understand the god of the past or you would never know if it was or ever has been reinvented already. If you are only talking about the way god is used today, as a faith. Then I would have to say that god is reinvented all the time in faith based ideas.
I must simply be misunderstanding something. Since you're fine with the recreation of God and sacrifice, I guess I'm missing a pillar of this test. Is it just because it's not a discovery but rather a recreation? Because again I go back to the fact that we can't rediscover all of history but that doesn't mean it didn't occur. Are you more concerned with the principles of any religion? Perhaps we should take Christianity specifically and get some examples. The Trinity may or may not be recreated. If God exists, however, and if indeed he were in Trinity, I would have to suspect it would resurface. We know God himself will resurface along with all the good teachings of the golden rule. We know prayer will come back. The book probably wouldn't come back but neither would all Shakespearean plays. Of course, if God were real, he might very well bring the book back word for word. We agreed that sacrifice would likely come back, but that Jesus and Thomas Paine probably would not. So perhaps give some examples like I did that is applicable for religion and yet not for true facts. I think I'm still just misunderstanding something.The Trinity is a good example. Augustine himself admitted he couldn't really explain it. Nevertheless people think he did and they think they can explain Augustine. Muslims use Abrahamic texts but have no Trinity at all. Protestants have different versions of it. Given all that, what are the odds that if all information about Trinities were deleted, we would get back to where we are now? Since we can't delete information like that, it's the only way to apply the test. The question is, is it discoverable? The age of the universe is discoverable. We know this because we came up with a way to do it, then we taught it to the next generation. Each generation refines it, using similar methods. They don't write long treatises that end with a vague statement that they might be wrong. Theodosius claimed to have discovered the Trinity and set about killing anyone who disagreed with him. He didn't find a way to teach it so that it could be visualized in anybody's mind if they did enough of the work. He couldn't "show is work" as we are asked to do in grade school. The answer to every theological mystery is, "read the scriptures and pray". We know that method fails, unless you are coerced into saying it did work. Therefore, it is not real. It failed the test.
The Trinity is a good example. Augustine himself admitted he couldn't really explain it. Nevertheless people think he did and they think they can explain Augustine. Muslims use Abrahamic texts but have no Trinity at all. Protestants have different versions of it. Given all that, what are the odds that if all information about Trinities were deleted, we would get back to where we are now? Since we can't delete information like that, it's the only way to apply the test. The question is, is it discoverable? The age of the universe is discoverable. We know this because we came up with a way to do it, then we taught it to the next generation. Each generation refines it, using similar methods. They don't write long treatises that end with a vague statement that they might be wrong. Theodosius claimed to have discovered the Trinity and set about killing anyone who disagreed with him. He didn't find a way to teach it so that it could be visualized in anybody's mind if they did enough of the work. He couldn't "show is work" as we are asked to do in grade school. The answer to every theological mystery is, "read the scriptures and pray". We know that method fails, unless you are coerced into saying it did work. Therefore, it is not real. It failed the test.I wouldn't call the Trinity merely a claim of discovery from Theodosius. The Bible alludes to the concept itself in having Jesus be God, sending a Holy Spirit, and being separate from the Father who also sends the Spirit. If a person believes in God then believes in God becoming man (a common theme) and God imbuing a person with power or to perform as God, I can see the Trinity being re-"discovered" by combining those three items. Seeing as the Trinity was once created before, I wouldn't call it unlikely to be created a second time. Especially if it's true. If it's true, it would quite probably be re-"discovered". So are we simply talking about religious dogma? Man might "discover" many coincidences of prayer affecting his life. He might "discover" that the rains came when he killed goats three times in a row. He might "discover" that good things happen to him when he's good and bad things happen when he's bad. He might "discover" that God punishes with sickness and death when he touches roadkill. I'm not sure what parts of religion you think are not re-creatable or re-"discoverable" via lack of understanding seeing as everything we have today was indeed created or "discovered" to be what it is now. And I can't stress enough that, if God exists, he could certainly make anything come back if all things were destroyed. Assuming he couldn't is already assuming God doesn't exist. I'm not sure if we're understanding each other any better. I feel like we're just repeating ourselves and spinning in circles. Often, that happens due to definition issues or talking about two different things but not realizing it. Or just plain not paying attention I guess :-P. I don't know which is the culprit here.