Religions : Legitimate vs otherwise

[Cain]

This was a side comment in the polygamy thread and I didn't want to derail it...thus this is born.

I am an agnostic with atheist leanings. To me, all religions and cults are the same in their belief systems mostly. To clarify what I mean - I do not believe that the possibility of the christian god existing is any more likely than the flying spaghetti monster or xenu. They are all equally likely to be fantastical in my view.

I've had this argument with a friend of mine who is a strong atheist. The problem I have with him is that he despises scientology and anything to do with it, because the premise that their religion is founded on sounds ludicrous to him. I ask him what validates christianity over scientology and he can't really reply with anything other than it is more mainstream or it is older. I don't see how either of those things lend to the credibility of a religion. As it happens in science, newer findings are abundant and often much closer to the mark than the old, so aged information is often less reliable.

So...what in your opinion makes a religion more legitimate than another? Or are they all in the same ballpark, whether you believe in one or not?

And on that note...how do we decide which ones to grant special rights to? All, none or a select few based on what?

[ok, ok,....I get it]

Flying Spaghetti Monster

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

As beleiveable as any other religion

[RougeUnderoos]

The thing with scientology is that there is some evidence (or at least rumours) that old L.Ron just made it all up and put it out there. Almost like an elaborate hoax, or maybe just to take money from gullible people.

The religions with longstanding traditions and founders who (I assume) truly believed in what they were preaching do seem more "legitimate" to me, even though I don't think any of them have a true story.

[ok, ok,....I get it]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

The thing with scientology is that there is some evidence (or at least rumours) that old L.Ron just made it all up and put it out there. Almost like an elaborate hoax, or maybe just to take money from gullible people.

The religions with longstanding traditions and founders who (I assume) truly believed in what they were preaching do seem more "legitimate" to me, even though I don't think any of them have a true story.

kind of like Joseph Smith jr.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

The thing with scientology is that there is some evidence (or at least rumours) that old L.Ron just made it all up and put it out there. Almost like an elaborate hoax, or maybe just to take money from gullible people.

The religions with longstanding traditions and founders who (I assume) truly believed in what they were preaching do seem more "legitimate" to me, even though I don't think any of them have a true story.

There is a distinct possibility that those older religions were put out for the same reasons, just much longer ago isn't there? I mean, these religions are cash cows and have huge followings...I wouldn't be surprised if a mainstream religion was actually started the same way.

[photon]

I have to say I despise Scientology above almost anything else I hate as well, they just seem so corrupt and so good at it.

But yeah I think it's a great question.

Every religion had to begin with a small group somewhere, and of course a small group going against the grain is going to be looked down on. Christianity started small and grew by small spurts until it got its big break in becoming the state religion.

So by standards of size you can't really judge what might become the next big thing.

Mormonism is a perfect example of that, it's only what, 180 years old, and it's growing faster than Christianity did in the same time span. Mormonism did a similar thing as Christianity as it leveraged off of existing holy books and religions.

I would say religions should have no special status in society other than the right to have one and practice one as long as it doesn't interfere with others' rights or break any laws. Abolish tax exempt status, make it a level playing field.

[Gozer]

Personally (this definition cannot stand up universally) I think the religion derives its legitimacy from the quality of its teachings.

Teaching you to love your brother, be kind to others...etc denotes legitimacy.
Teaching hatred and intolerance does not.

Thus Trekkies and Jedi are more legit in my eyes than hardcore Nazism or Islamofascism (Islam and the teachings of the Koran, from what I understand, do not have the same violent leanings).

[photon]

Originally Posted by Gozer

Personally (this definition cannot stand up universally) I think the religion derives its legitimacy from the quality of its teachings.

Teaching you to love your brother, be kind to others...etc denotes legitimacy.
Teaching hatred and intolerance does not.

But religion is the source of morality so that's a big loop!

[troutman]

I would make a distinction between fundementalist literal religion, and myth.

[Coach]

I'd lean towards the notion that any religion is just as legitimate as the other. Poeple can believe anything they want really. Just because Christianity has been around longer doesnt mean that its any more likely theres a big guy in the sky than me worshiping a bee because I think it has supernatural powers

[Russic]

Originally Posted by Gozer

Personally (this definition cannot stand up universally) I think the religion derives its legitimacy from the quality of its teachings.

Teaching you to love your brother, be kind to others...etc denotes legitimacy.
Teaching hatred and intolerance does not.

Thus Trekkies and Jedi are more legit in my eyes than hardcore Nazism or Islamofascism (Islam and the teachings of the Koran, from what I understand, do not have the same violent leanings).

It's an interesting criteria but immediately I wonder about religions that teach love and kindness but it's followers are known to skew the teachings to suit their own intolerant feelings. I would say Christianity is at it's heart a belief system built on love and compassion yet it's not hard to find followers of Christianity that have extremely intolerant attitudes. Many people that fall into this category have destroyed my view of Christianity.

[Kipper is King]

I'm a Catholic. When I was about 8 or so, I really considered the fact that "because my parents had me baptized when I was a baby" should not be the one reason a person may state they are of a particular faith. So I thought a lot about things like the existence of God and Jesus, eternal life and other aspects of Christian religion in general (including, but not exclusive to Catholic ideas). I concluded that I do in fact believe in God, and in Jesus among other things, and that I am perfectly content being a Catholic.

I realize I went a little off track there, but I wanted to premise my post so I don't give the impression of being close-minded.

I think history certainly does play a role in how "legitimate" a religion is, like it or not. When you look at major faiths, they have been around for hundreds or thousands of years. Religions take time to become established- maybe scientology will become mainstream in a 100 years or so, maybe it will fizzle out. There's no telling what would happen as far as I can see. But, in that case, things like the Oprah-couch jumping Tom Cruise being a major supporter, well, that doesn't help it. I think history and the number of followers ultimately are the keys to which religions gain special rights. I think that holds true for granting rights for anything, usually.

I think another principle to look at in terms of how "legitimate" a faith is is how the followers treat others. Now, I totally understand that there have been some very dark and bloody aspects to Catholic history. I'd be naive not to acknowledge that. But, in recent years the church has cleaned up it's act. That helped me stay a Catholic. Recent anti-homosexual comments by Pope Benedict bothered me though, but with things like that I keep in mind: The Catholic Church is comprised of human beings, no human being is perfect, therefore the Catholic Church (or any faith) is not perfect.

I respects all faiths except for devil worship. Being a Christian and being alright with devil worship is like cheering for both the Flames and Oilers. It's inconcievable, and I personally can't tolerate it.

Except for that, if you tell me you genuinely believe in the flying spaghetti monster, and most of the monster's followers are respectful towards others, then you have just as much a right to practice your religion as I do mine.

That's the thing about faith. If it were absolutely, 100% undeniably certain, we'd call it knowledge. Therefore, there has to be concessions for different schools of thought AKA different religions.

That's my two cents. I hope I contributed something worthwhile!

[Bagor]

In the last UK census there were 390000 declared Jedis making it the 4th largest religion ahead of Judaism, Sikhism and Buddhism

New Zealand has the highest % of Jedis in the world per capita at 1.5%. Must be all the hobbits and elves.

[ok, ok,....I get it]

Originally Posted by Bagor

In the last UK census there were 390000 declared Jedis making it the 4th largest religion ahead of Judaism, Sikhism and Buddhism

New Zealand has the highest % of Jedis in the world per capita at 1.5%. Must be all the hobbits and elves.

you are mixing you geeks......

[koop]

With Scientology specifically I'm not entirely convinced these people actually believe their own religion. Whereas with most other religions people do actually believe the teachings of their religion. I guess the whole being founded by a science fiction author thing kind of does it for me.

[evman150]

Originally Posted by Kipper is King

.....

So this bag of dog **** in my hand, if I let it grow and develop for a couple thousand years, becomes a ham and cheese on rye?

[koop]

Originally Posted by evman150

So this bag of dog **** in my hand, if I let it grow and develop for a couple thousand years, becomes a ham and cheese on rye?

You're a smart guy, and generally make some good points in these type of threads. Unfortunately, you're such a dick that most people don't even pay attention to the good points you make, and rather focus on how much of an ass you are.

[Kipper is King]

Originally Posted by evman150

So this bag of dog **** in my hand, if I let it grow and develop for a couple thousand years, becomes a ham and cheese on rye?

I'm going to make you look even stupider than your statement seems on the surface, which is saying a lot:

religion x to mainstream religion x = the same thing, only more intensified.

doggy poo to sandwich = completely different things, a significant transformation

Faulty logic!

[nik-]

I think if your "religion" forces you to pay money to achieve higher "levels" of membership then it's a joke.

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by Gozer

Personally (this definition cannot stand up universally) I think the religion derives its legitimacy from the quality of its teachings.

Teaching you to love your brother, be kind to others...etc denotes legitimacy.
Teaching hatred and intolerance does not.

Thus Trekkies and Jedi are more legit in my eyes than hardcore Nazism or Islamofascism (Islam and the teachings of the Koran, from what I understand, do not have the same violent leanings).

I picked up an English verison of the Koran at McNally Robison this one time, opened it to a random page, and the first thing I read was:

"Do not befriend Christians or Jews for they are unholy and not to be trusted."

Not exactly violent, but definately not about teaching love your brother and kindness to others.