Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- religion [2026/02/16 10:55] – ultracomfy
+++ religion [2026/02/16 11:04] (current) – ultracomfy
@@ Line 153: / Line 153: @@
 So, the first time I seriously thought about religions and their associated doctrines and tenets are two things:\\
-. How incredibly arbitrary! If you ever ask for a justification for their doctrines/tenets, you will never get a proper response. It's either "because I feel so" or "because a book says so" or "because [High God] says so" or something to that effect. It's all circular. Individuals, ie. adherents of a religion, might actually try to justify to justify their belief in a doctrine/tenet, giving you some attempt at a [[deontology|deontological]] explanation for why their faith correctly considers some things as either right or wrong. However, the religion itself - as opposed to individual adherents - won't even go as far as to try to justify its doctrines/tenets deontologically. It will always point to someone or something else, and that something else always happens to be [[Verifiability|unverifiable]].
+\\
+. How incredibly arbitrary! If you ever ask for a justification for their doctrines/tenets, you will never get a proper response. It's either "because I feel so" or "because a book says so" or "because [High God] says so" or something to that effect. It's all circular. Individuals, ie. adherents of a religion, might actually try to justify their belief in a doctrine/tenet, giving you some attempt at a [[deontology|deontological]] explanation for why their faith correctly considers some things as either right or wrong. However, the religion itself - as opposed to individual adherents - won't even go as far as to try to justify its doctrines/tenets deontologically. It will always point to someone or something else, and that something else always happens to be [[Verifiability|unverifiable]].
+\\
+\\
+. How incredibly replaceable! There are so many doctrines and tenets in there that would be //reasonable//, but many of them are mutually exclusive. Nobody here could ever be possibly be right or wrong, yet most religions have the Righteous doctrine. This is contradictory by definition. Logically, you could quite literally just use this list to make up any kind of religion and it would be equally as valid as every other... and that's basically how it is, no? For any combination of these doctrines and tenets, odds are a religion exists matching or closely matching your choices. By defining themselves in the way that they do, religions make themselves obsolete.
+And this is really all the observations you need to go forward with your life. Until any one religion can prove any of its big claims (most crucially, that their god actually exists), this is just playing teams with your favorite celebrities.