What makes a person choose one religion over another?

[sawthelight]

Why Christianity? or Buddhism? or any other religion?

Why do people choose the religions they choose and follow them as a way of life?

Is it because it is 100% correct?
Is it because of allegories and metaphors that give someone a sense of figuring out a puzzle while being poetic and abstract?
Does the religion not necessarily have to be correct at all but can still be the right religion?
Is it because the religion of choice addresses many moral issues where other religions fail at?
Does morality trump truth?

There has to be a reason why we choose a certain religion over another. But how do we know we are even right in the decision we make?

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 1 by intheabyss]

In my opinion, it mostly has to do with culture and upbringing. That is how we first become exposed to religion and we generally trust those close to us who tell us about religion.

Many never really dig in and question their religion, they just go with the flow. At least that is my personal observation.

Many who question and dig either change their religion (different denomination, different religion altogether) or simply drop it. Of course many also convince themselves the religion they are currently in is correct.

At the end of the day we choose what we believe to be true. How everyone arrives at that seems to vary from "believe everything you are told" all the way to "believe nothing without concrete evidence" and everything in between.

[sawthelight]

[Replying to post 2 by benchwarmer]


And I'm starting to think I should have made this thread in the Philosophy sub-forum, but seeing how it's too late, I will continue.


So it seems having the correct religion is the correct ideal according to our culture. An example of this would be that our culture loves to be politically correct. What if being correct did not matter at all for religion? Would that be of concern?

I suppose we seek out a certain religion because everything it stands for is supposed to be coherent and steeped in truth as correct. Otherwise why would being correct matter at all, right?

So if we are to seek what is correct, is there any room for being incorrect? What can justify for the benefit of being incorrect? Is it wrong to seek our own benefit? Perhaps we got it all backwards?

I personally like to think a religion should be correct and aligned in truth. Is that all that really matters though?

[OnceConvinced]

For me it was because I was indoctrinated from birth. I was taught Christianity as absolute fact and there were no other explanations. Creation was real. Evolution was a lie of the devil. There was actually no real choice involved. I believed by default. At the age of 7 however I made the decision to repent and give my life to Christ.

So by the time I was old enough to start to think for myself, I was already well and truly indoctrinated into believe that the bible was the word of God and that Jesus was the son of God.

I had fallen for all the cons:

I was taught that the feelings you felt in church, during worship and while being prayed for was the holy spirit upon you. Thus God was real!

I was taught that the deep and meaningful words that came from deep inside your mind that seemed so crystal clear and true, was actually from God rather than your own wisdom. It was God talking to you!

I was taught that the 1/10 times I got what I prayed for, that was God coming through for me. I was not taught to look at the other 9/10 and see it as proof that God was doing nothing or was non-existent.

I was conned into believing there was always an answer to prayer. Yes, no, maybe, wait... Never did I consider that it would be the same even without prayer. Or that it could just be that God is non-existent and that Kay sera sera, whatever will be, will be.

I was taught to look at the times the bible actually worked as proof the bible was the word of God, while sweeping all the times the bible didn't work, under the carpet.

Confirmation bias and cognitive dissidence was well upon me from an early age, however I didn't recognise those things. I just thought God and the bible was real! It had been proven to me!

[OnceConvinced]

[Replying to post 2 by benchwarmer]


And I'm starting to think I should have made this thread in the Philosophy sub-forum, but seeing how it's too late, I will continue.

Moderator Action

Yeah, I thought it would be better off there too, so I've moved it for you.


______________

Moderator actions indicate that a thread/post has been locked, moved, merged, or split.

[sawthelight]

[Replying to post 4 by OnceConvinced]

Oh yeah. I know what you mean. I too was born into a Christian family. I've gone through all that too. I was raised Presbyterian. I have some regrets following a religion that kind of messed me up with my socail skills.

I digress...

But still it makes me question what is right. Just because our culture says something is right, does it make it so? Just like 'time' is a man-made unit of measurement, perhaps the terms, 'right' and 'wrong' are also just man-made illusions. Perhaps saying something is 'right' or something is 'wrong' is really wrong but useful to say. Just like 'time' is useful.

Perhaps there are better ways to find the truth and the correct way of life. Is something deemed correct because the thing in question, actually exists? rather than not exist? therefore be correct because it exists? So for example, a person tries to persuade someone that the pizza exists. So the only way to be correct or tell the truth is by showing, in plain sight to the other person, that a pizza exists. Therefore the truth is being told because it exists.

So because a pizza exists, we can then use words: 'true', 'right', 'wrong', or 'correct' to talk about the pizza. "No, you're wrong, that's not pizza. That's a sub." Or, "Yup, you got the right pizza this time, good job."

Wouldn't it seem what is right or wrong is really secondary? Wouldn't it seem the primary issue is whether something really exists or not? It seems to be like the chicken or egg paradox. Does existence trump truth or does truth trump existence? Which one is first?

To me, something would have to exist to confirm it. Maybe that's why we choose the supposed correct religion we choose,to see whether god exists or not.

Perhaps existence trumps truth.

[sawthelight]

Moderator Action

Yeah, I thought it would be better off there too, so I've moved it for you.

Yeah, thanks for that. I appreciate it. I was starting to second guess myself. Lol.

[OnceConvinced]

Wouldn't it seem what is right or wrong is really secondary? Wouldn't it seem the primary issue is whether something really exists or not?

Yes. It indeed would be the primary issue.

Christians seems to miss this point. Whether we deem God to be malevolent or not... whether we decide we don't want to follow his rules or not... all that is pretty much irrelevant because we just don't know whether this god exists or not. If this god could be proven to be real, then and only then can we really make a decision based on this god. We can say whatever we like about him until then, but faced with proof it may make us take a completely different stance. I know it would for me.

[sawthelight]

Yes. It indeed would be the primary issue.

Christians seems to miss this point. Whether we deem God to be malevolent or not... whether we decide we don't want to follow his rules or not... all that is pretty much irrelevant because we just don't know whether this god exists or not. If this god could be proven to be real, then and only then can we really make a decision based on this god. We can say whatever we like about him until then, but faced with proof it may make us take a completely different stance. I know it would for me.

That's what I think. Then I guess it's then safe to say I am right when I debate with people about the bible being corrupted and flawed. Since the god of Abraham doesn't exist as the Christians claim, I can keep telling them they are wrong with scripture to persuade them. Only because the god doesn't exist.

And I guess you can't really talk about the existence of god because no one can see him (at least not on in this life). So all we have left are religious textbooks that claim they are on the right path to god. So since words do exist as well as books, we can use what does exist to prove itself right or wrong. So I guess it is right to prove the bible, quran, torah, vedas, etc... either right or wrong. Since we don't have the primary source (god), we can move to the secondary source (books and words) to make sense of this world.

And so it is not wrong to use words such a 'right' or 'wrong' even if they are human constructs (even I have to use these words; there is not much room around it). Even if we are unsure whether or not god or some supernatural being gave us these words as absolute truth to start out in life, we can be sure that humans have used words and made up new languages. Perhaps we deviated from the original language god gave us or perhaps there is no such thing. Still, we got words and they exist.

So to use 'right' or 'wrong', regardless if they are actually the correct thing to say shouldn't really matter as much because it is useful to say these words to describe and express feelings. Perhaps there is a real word for 'right' but we don't know it or it got lost in translation from ancient times, however, we just use the word 'right' and know it's meaning. Same for 'wrong'.

So I guess this too shows us we are right in our methodology or proving things right or wrong. And that seems like it will stay like that for the rest of eternity until god shows up?

Anyhow, I guess our words have meaning too. Not just god.

And that means that since god does not exist or no proof of his existence can be shown with most of our 5 senses, it is wrong to try to keep assuming he exists unless to the contrary can happen. And if it could, all of us would be believers. So yeah, it does seem like existence is the most important issue as to why some people choose what they choose.

[checkers]

[Replying to post 1 by intheabyss]

It all started in the planning department and each person was created to join a certain group but some were planned to join many groups.