Why not Islam?

[QuantumT]

Or Hinduism or Buddhism?

Basically, I'm wondering how, once people decide that they're going to believe in god/gods, how do they go about picking which religion? What logical basis makes one religion any more valid than another?

I might be wrong about this, but I suspect that the vast majority of people merely follow the same religion as their parents, which isn't really a good reason at all.

[Kael Hate]

Well Muslims, Jews, and Christians all have the same god.
They just have different prophets telling them the official rules based on which group of people was where at what time. Moses had Egypt as central, Jesus had Rome central and Muhammad had Mecca central.

The reason you choose one over the other is by association.


Hinduism and Buddism are based on impersonal aspects of the one true god and rather than identifify God as a single entity like Muslims, Christians and Jews, consider god to be diffuse. They tend not to have prophets but successful teachers showing you rules to make life better.

The reason you choose one over the other here is again by association.


Between these 2 main branches comes a view of realism in that you are looking for. Either a singular personality to relate to in communication represented by this -><- arrows towards each other creating a goal. Or a diffuse guide moving in the same direction towards a goal ->->




Maybe to answer the original question, persons obtain information from which they associate with. If the parents, friends, family give that information then there is not enough detail to suggest that anything but what they have experienced is correct and thus follow that path. Very rarely is someone enlighted by extracurricular exposure but doing so creates a new programmed trend.

[Daxx]

Well Muslims, Jews, and Christians all have the same god.
They just have different prophets telling them the official rules based on which group of people was where at what time. Moses had Egypt as central, Jesus had Rome central and Muhammad had Mecca central.

The reason you choose one over the other is by association.

That's a reasonable point to make, but what if we're talking about the norse pantheon rather than the abrahamic god?

[killybob]

i think people should choose from the most believable religion aka the one that provides the best answers. Hinduism is not a very believable one because of all the myths that it is generating. it ignores PROVEN scientific evidence and is more like the Greek religion with Zeus the thunder god and co. Christianity (and Judaism) on the other hand actually correspond with historical evidence an research. for example there is more evidence that Jesus existed than there is regarding Julius Caesar. (it is a true fact that the Romans were liable to invent monarchs and emperors to impress other civilizations).

[Tarias]

Christianity ignores proven scientific evidence just as much as any other religion....

[killybob]

it depends if your looking at Catholicism, Anglican, or reformed. all of the obviously deny some scientific evidence or the word miracle would have no meaning.

[Ele124]

Seconded, I have read a detailed biography of Julius Cesear, where the author has provided a wealth of evidence supporting most details of his life, but I dont remember hearing any evidence proving that Jesus exists. If any religion is going to be the most accurate, it will be an atheistic religon like Buddhism (or similar religion), where the main principles are founded in philosophy rather than people/god(s).

Getting back on topic, IMO cultural and parental influences pay a big part in the choice for most people. Most people who have grown up in a specific religion wont change because they either believe in it or they dont want to risk their social and economic status.

[QuantumT]

I cause my main point was it doesn't usually seem to be a logical reason that people choose one religion over another, but an environmental one. This makes any arguments that they have the "ultimate truth" sound rather unconvincing.

As far as Christianity's acceptance of science goes, just ask Galileo Galilei and Giordano Bruno.

[Kael Hate]

Well Muslims, Jews, and Christians all have the same god.
They just have different prophets telling them the official rules based on which group of people was where at what time. Moses had Egypt as central, Jesus had Rome central and Muhammad had Mecca central.

The reason you choose one over the other is by association.

That's a reasonable point to make, but what if we're talking about the norse pantheon rather than the abrahamic god?

Norse and Greek pantheons, are aspect related types also. Notice how Zeus isn't the god of the sea but posiedon is. Norse wise the same heirachy exists again, Odin god of poetry and battle, but Njord commands the wind and sea. None of them are all powerful Omnipotent or Omniscient in their own right but together they cover all things. The whole group is the one true god.

[Daxx]

That split of associated domains is precisely why I would argue that there is a qualitative difference between the Norse pantheon and the Abrahamic God. Not that this difference undermines your point that choice of religion tends to be associative (I agree with that), but this brings them closer to Hinduism and other religions where, to use your wording, the god concept is "diffuse".

[ArtCrusade]

Why not Islam? Basically, use Google and search for 'Islam Peaceful' and you get your answers. It's striking how much violence is already connected with the term peaceful, so that is one reason not to choose the Islam. Another is the freedom of the speech which the Islam doesn't want (1 (http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/1/6/8/8/3/5/1/irony-11074321783.jpeg)). Just a question aside, how peaceful is peaceful here? I know, I know. The Islam is not the problem, but Islamism, but that's just fighting for words. A high percentage of religous islamic people promote all this. But why do I say this? What does this have to do with the religion itself? Well, religion is not all about belief, it is about community. And the Islam doesn't have the kind of community that I'd want to be part of. 

Frankly, the only religion appealing to me is the Buddhism. It is the only religion which hasn't anything to do with violence and hate. I want to remind you of the crusades, the European witch hunting era, exorcism (which is still being practiced) and so forth. Additionaly, any religion claims itself to be the only right one, and most of them make war to force others to their belief.

Seconded, I have read a detailed biography of Julius Cesear, where the author has provided a wealth of evidence supporting most details of his life, but I dont remember hearing any evidence proving that Jesus exists. If any religion is going to be the most accurate, it will be an atheistic religon like Buddhism (or similar religion), where the main principles are founded in philosophy rather than people/god(s).

There is no biography about Jesus, because we don't know much about him. The little information about him given by the bible gives no hint about his appearance or something like that, and why should it? It's of no importance whether he was bearded, had red hair or a crooked nose. The bible focusses on the core. But Jesus is also perceived in the Jewish Antiquities by Flavius Josephus, in the Talmud, the annals of Cornelius Tacitus and in 'The life of Claudius' by Sueton. Furthermore, there is a written query  from Plinius to imperator Trajan. It is certainly true that Jesus has lived, but it's highly doubtable that the facts given by the bible are.



 

[Kael Hate]

That split of associated domains is precisely why I would argue that there is a qualitative difference between the Norse pantheon and the Abrahamic God. Not that this difference undermines your point that choice of religion tends to be associative (I agree with that), but this brings them closer to Hinduism and other religions where, to use your wording, the god concept is "diffuse".

All belief in god is belief in the same true God.

The names and traditions don't change this aspect, just your particular angle of the view. Even Evolutionists believe in God, but call it a fluke of reality. They know there is something that created a big Bang and even admit there was some force that set everything in its first motion and they know there is a set of rules by which everything works. This is their view of God.

Arguments about religion only occur because the percepeptions are different. Like looking through different coloured glasses.


Followers of the old testament, Jews, Christians, Muslims say that god created earth and at the end of a period caused man to be created. The old Testament never said god didn't create dinosaurs, attempted various different evolutions of creatures before the period of man. Both Evolutionists and Creationists views can exist at the same time but because we think that everything is direct we argue that others are wrong.