Believe X, Get Y,
Disbelieve X, Get Z
(Top Posts - Distance From Belief
in theism - 061309)



- - -

About as succinct a description of religion as
can be arrived at, with all the details fitting within
those parameters, said details (and probabilities)
varying from religion to religion, from denomina-
tion to denomination, and from person to person.

- - -

"Believe X, Get Y"

- - -

"Disbelieve X, Get Z"

Disbelieve is typically taught as any thought, be
it freethought or doubt or consideration of alter-
natives or naturalism free of supernatural forces
or non-approved opinions regarding unapproved
'magic beings' that falls short of an adequate level
of belief in X (and so-called 'critical' 'magic beings
among the gang of 'magic beings' associated with
X).

- - -

X, in most religions, equates to supernatural author-
ity figures designated as creator or creators, over-
seers, all-powerful, omniscient, omnipresent, eternal,
all good, judgers, immortality-deciders, torturers,
pain-givers, prayer-answerers, wrath-providers, etc.

Y, in most religions, equates to pleasant immortality
and to positves in this life.

Z, in most religions, equates to immortal torment
or oblivion (with some religions having a short-term
period of torment followed by oblivion) and to nega-
tives in this life.

- - -

Go ahead, give it a try, see where your religious views
fit within the X-Y-Z parameters, and how your views
compare to the views of others.\

- - -

I suspect you'll come to the conclusion that anything
can (and has) been claimed for X-Y-Z, and the most
logical, straight-forward, and evidentially supportable
position is to distance oneself from the entirety of the
X-Y-Z show.

- - -

In response to a poster who replied:

> Nope, only if you're really, really stupid.

The skilled use of reason, including the ability to learn
or understand and to apply knowledge to manipulate
one's environment or to think abstractly as measured
by objective criteria, it would be difficult for one to
assert magic beings and magic places and magic events
are "reality", and that non-supernaturalistic assessments
and taking on the challenges of a naturalistic world are
apart from intelligence, but I suppose, many within the
religious realm attempt to view non-religious views (or
views dramatically different regarding religious matters,
such as the views of catholics differing from those of
protestants, such as the views of christians differing
with one another and with the views of muslims, such
as the views of hindus differing with the views of bud-
dhists, etc.) in that way.

Many simply accept that trying to tackle naturalistic
problems intelligently is the wisest way to deal with
the challenges inherent in a natural world.

As for what religions place in X-Y-Z:

Claims without evidence
  http://prohuman.net/disbelief/claims_without_evidence.htm

Which god / supernatural postulation /
religion, if any, is verity?
  http://prohuman.net/disbelief/which_god_if_any_is_verity.htm

Should Skeptical Inquiry Be Applied to Religion?
  http://prohuman.net/science/skeptical_inquiry_religion.htm

- - -

In response to a poster who replied:

> Why should anyone accept the words of a few
> people in place of the historical evidence of 2000
> years of Christianity?

Christian Church History (022001)
  http://prohuman.net/history/christian_church_history.htm

The Jesus Doubt File (022801, updated 032809)
  http://prohuman.net/disbelief/jesus_doubt_file.htm

Witches (033001)
  http://prohuman.net/history/witches.htm

Workings of a Natural World (041001)
  http://prohuman.net/natural_world.htm

The Church as Sinner (041701)
  http://prohuman.net/history/church_as_sinner.htm

Archaeology refutes the Bible's
claim to history (043002)
  http://prohuman.net/history/archaeology_refutes_bible.htm

Indictment Against Christianity (1 of 2)
(060903)
  http://prohuman.net/history/indictment_against_christianity_1_of_2.htm

Indictment Against Christianity (2 of 2)
(060903)
  http://prohuman.net/history/indictment_against_christianity_2_of_2.htm

Archaeology and Biblical Skepticism
(061103)
  http://prohuman.net/history/archaeology_and_biblical_skepticism.htm

Origins of God(s) (061203)
  http://prohuman.net/history/origins_of_gods.htm

Ancient Salvation Cults (061303)
  http://prohuman.net/history/ancient_salvation_cults.htm

Top Books/Videos for SHANANNAREEFERS
(Religion History)
  http://prohuman.net/top_books_videos_religion_history.htm

A skeptical view of christianity (030505)
  http://prohuman.net/disbelief/skeptical_view_of_christianity.htm

Evolution, not ID (122305)
  http://prohuman.net/science/evolution_not_ID.htm

Hint at how fear is used to
promote religion (122305)
  http://prohuman.net/science/fear_used_to_promote_religion.htm

Supernatural phenomena (as if)
-- provable/disprovable via science? (033106)
  http://prohuman.net/science/supernatural_phenomena.htm

Infinite Universes, Infinite Size,
No "In the Beginning", No End (013107)
  http://prohuman.net/science/infinite_universes_infinite_size.htm

Religious faith -and- science : partners,
combatants, -or- two ships passing in the night?
(062907)
  http://prohuman.net/science/should_science_speak_to_faith.htm

Major Extinctions (072707)
  http://prohuman.net/science/major_extinctions.htm

All That Is, All That Was, All That Ever Will Be?
(050208)
  http://prohuman.net/science/all_that_is_was_ever_will_be.htm

Immortality, a non-religious approach (010908)
  http://prohuman.net/science/immortality_non-religious_approach.htm

Nature the Tinkerer (020808)
  http://prohuman.net/science/nature_the_tinkerer.htm

The Neuroscience of Illusion (060208)
  http://prohuman.net/science/neuroscience_of_illusion.htm

How does one get a pleasant immortality?
(061408)
  http://prohuman.net/disbelief/how_to_get_pleasant_immortality.htm

- - -