The subject of does God/gods exist or not has been a long discussed topic between atheists and theists and a conclusive satisfactory answer has never been reached, cause there doesn't seem to be direct provable evidence of the existence of a deity, but then again the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. The discussion is a dead end that leaves someone agnostic on the subject and there are multiple different threads for that, so let's look at a different topic.
Here we assume a deity(s) exists and one out of the hundreds of different religions is indeed valid(like how Islam and Christianity claim to be), so how should one expect to go about determining the validity of a faith through empirical evidence?

When people of opposing faiths debate, they tend to always be biased to their own and to talk over each other. The holy books being the usual ground work for one's position and his evidence, are highly subjective depending on the person looking at it and because of that a conclusion is never reachable.
So how about we bring the discussion into the objective and measurable realm.

"I was looking at the economic theories of capitalism, 'democratic socialism' and socialism/communism.
And how different places that applied these theories or mix of the theories into practice had different outcomes and successes and failures and through that, one could make an argument that some of these are undeniably better than others and hence would be considered more valid than the others.
(This was strictly the failures and successes of the economic theories and not government systems of the countries in question though they may be related.)
So, would it be wrong to look at religion through a similar lens and judge it by some metric.
In the case of the economic theories the measurements are:
GDP.
Investments.
Level of infrastructure.
Number of people living in abject poverty.
Industrialization.
Technological innovation.
Equality of opportunity.
Scarcity of food.
etc. From this we could reach a conclusive answer"

So by what metric(s) should one measure the validity of a religion? (I would add secularism in the comparisons despite not being a faith)

Should it be:
The number of adherents of that faith.
The level of devotion of the believers.
The logical coherency to the doctrine.
Rate of convertions.
Size of conquests.
Intellectual and technological successes.
Egalitarianism.
Pacifism.
The outcome when laws of the faith are applied into government.
Age of the faith.
Pathological behavior caused by the faith.
Scientific accuracy of the faith.
Content and happiness of the believers.
Moral character of the followers.
etc.
What measure should be appropriately added or removed?
If a God exists and is indeed good and loves good (as claimed by most faiths) and sent down a religion, one would expect that faith to have the most positive outcome on the people and society that follow it above all else?
[2023 commentary: This is flawed reasoning on my part as I'm making too many presumptions about the nature of this God, and I wasn't clear on what "positive outcome" means here in relation to the nature of this God.
So, when I say good I mean in relation to what is good for us as humans, in a material sense, aswell as in health, emotional and communal sense]

Wouldn't that be a logical conclusion?
"Even if a person can not see a flame in front of him he should be able to feel it's heat"
Discuss.

2021 Modification:
And we assume this God wants to be worshipped in a specific religion, and would punish those who don't, but is still good and loving, we should safely assume there exists an objective method to single out that religion and validate its claims, because this God wouldn't desire hell and suffering for anyone.
If not could we assume such a God doesn't exist, or is not a good God?

If "man-made" doctrines and traditions (aka religion) about God, and the things of God, is what you are after, then all you have to do is pretty much examine each religious doctrine(and applicable denominations) to find out which of them suits you best.

For me o, a true religion is the one that will not seek to kill me for not believing in its doctrine and prophet or steal my sister in chibok and kill my relative in kaduna or make me uncomfortable if I sit next to an adherent in a bus / train / plane or a public place for fear of bomb or cause tension in a peaceful world. If a religion meets all these, it a true religion because every one human being from all races and climes is my family member.

Every Religion claim to be right and others are wrong so in this case all religions cannot be right. It will always result to subjectivism. It's like arguing Superman against Batman and vice versa, there will never be a reaching conclusion, the arguments will always go in circles. My religion is right because my book said so, that's Circular reasoning fallacy.

So how do we measure which religion is true, well all what we need to use are evidences and logic.

Has any religion meet these evidences and logic? No.

It's always FAITH. Religions are built under beliefs and faiths and by definition faith is not a proof. I can also claim I've faith in Aliens that created the universe, my faith claim is as valid as Muslim saying Allah created the universe or the Hindus saying Brahma created the universe or the Ifa worshipers saying Olodumare created the universe or the Hellenist saying Zeus created the universe or the Zulus saying Unkulunkulu created the universe or the Kuba saying Mbombo created the universe or the Christians saying Yahweh created the universe and so on. These are all faith base claims without no evidence linking nor connecting to the exact God.

In every cases, Religions base their argument for God with gaps, e.g because we don't understand this therefore God exist. These gaps or ignorance are used to claim God exist without knowing the implications and fallacies of it.

So like I said evidence and logic can be the best options to measure what's true. Population doesn't prove a true religion, that's argumentum ad populum fallacy(appealing to the people), "Superman has many fans therefore Superman is true".

For now we can just agree Religions are man-made probably created to control the masses and base their claims on ignorance, using irrational fear on the people.

Apply wisdom!

Take all religious beliefs as THEORIES, figure out the PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS so as to identify the real adherents of the theory after which you will clearly and easily see the BENEFITS amongst the adherents!
With this approach i discovered that there is no sane human on planet earth that doesn't belong to a religion, it all depends on the definition each gives their religious groups.
Atheists, Agnostics, Freethinkers are all religionists underG but they may argue this fact since they're not following the tenets of their predecessors (professed religionists) and they often turn to social media and dictionaries as to prove their stand. But the fact that they hold a common view and are looking forward to or pestering others into accepting the same view makes them the same as religionists.
Only insanes (mad people) are real Freethinkers!
Nothing guides their dress code, food, drinks, bath, brushing teeth, walks, talks, sleep and gesture. They're absolutely free of what others may think about them!
So to find out if your Religion (mindset) is the Truth (best for everyone) you need to apply the wisdom:

THEORY
PRACTICAL APPLICATION
BENEFIT
Of course each psychopath we see in our neighbourhood do have his/her own Theory but how practical is the application? And is there any benefits?
Thanks!

MightySparrow:
For me o, a true religion is the one that will not seek to kill me for not believing in its doctrine and prophet or steal my sister in chibok and kill my relative in kaduna or make me uncomfortable if i sit next to a adherent in a bus / train / plane or a public place for fear of bomb or cause tension in a peaceful world. If a religion meets all this, it a true religion because every one human being from all races and clime is my family member.

Lol.....which is more dangerous?

A religion that will destroy your body for a limited time and take away your short human life for not believing in them...

OR

A religion that plans to have you tortured for all eternity for not believing in them...

Your point is weak.

Maximus69:
Apply wisdom!

Take all religious beliefs as THEORIES, figure out the PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS so as to identify the real adherents of the theory after which you will clearly and easily see the BENEFITS amongst the adherents!
With this approach i discovered that there is no sane human on planet earth that doesn't belong to a religion, it all depends on the definition each gives their religious groups.
Atheists, Agnostics, Freethinkers are all religionists underG but they may argue this fact since they're not following the tenets of their predecessors (professed religionists) and they often turn to social media and dictionaries as to prove their stand. But the fact that they hold a common view and are looking forward to or pestering others into accepting the same view makes them the same as religionists.
Only insanes (mad people) are real Freethinkers!
Nothing guides their dress code, food, drinks, bath, brushing teeth, walks, talks, sleep and gesture. They're absolutely free of what others may think about them!
So to find out if your Religion (mindset) is the Truth (best for everyone) you need to apply the wisdom:

THEORY
PRACTICAL APPLICATION
BENEFIT
Of course each psychopath we see in our neighbourhood do have his/her own Theory but how practical is the application? And is there and benefits?
Thanks!

Atheists, agnostic are not Religions, stop this nonsense.

- religion
/rɪˈlɪdʒ(ə)n/

the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

tintingz:


Atheists, agnostic are not Religions, stop this nonsense.

- religion
/rɪˈlɪdʒ(ə)n

the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

Nonsense you say!

Confused Psychopath

The definition you're quoting comes from humans like you my dear!
So if you're refuting religion that over 5 billions persons agreed upon as a valid concept how do you now count on the definition of dictionaries that's not working?

Maximus69:

Nonsense you say!

Confused Psychopath

The definition you're quoting comes from humans like you my dear!
So if you're refuting religion that over 5 billions persons agreed upon as a valid concept how do you now count on the definition of dictionaries that's not working?

What's the standard definition of religion?

Maximus69:

Nonsense you say!

Confused Psychopath

The definition you're quoting comes from humans like you my dear!
So if you're refuting religion that over 5 billions persons agreed upon as a valid concept how do you now count on the definition of dictionaries that's not working?

He's an atheist so for you to have grouped him along with religionists whom he feels are psychopaths makes him sick.

They're all mad my brother, you'll see them quoting Dictionaries and Wikipedia as if those books weren't written by humans like themselves. Some times i wonder why they're saying religious book should not be taken seriously because 'they are written by humans' but at the same time they will start quoting books fabricated by humans to back their useless arguments.
Doesn't that sound preposterous?

TATIME:

He's an atheist so for you to have grouped him along with religionists whom he feels are psychopaths makes him sick.

They're all mad my brother, you'll see them quoting Dictionaries and Wikipedia as if those books weren't written by humans like themselves. Some times i wonder why they're saying religious book should not be taken seriously because 'they are written by humans' but at the same time they will start quoting books fabricated by humans to back their useless arguments.
Doesn't that sound preposterous?

Since dictionaries are meaningless to you.

So what's the definition of religion?

tintingz:


What's the standard definition of religion?

If you're not mad Sir, you atheists often say "humans don't need any sky daddy to tell them what is right or wrong" why not apply the same method on all matters?
Can't you use your own head to distinguish the right from the wrong?

Whatever makes people think of anything as right and expecting or pestering others around them to do the same is RELIGION!

Stop this nonsense of referring to books made by humans to validate the definition of concepts my dear, apply wisdom!

If you guys refute the concept of God that's agreed upon by over 90% of humans, what the hell makes you now think it's OK to count on the definition of few humans simply because they're influential?

Maximus69:


If you're not mad Sir, you atheists often say "humans don't need any sky daddy to tell them what is right or wrong" why not apply the same method on all matters?
Can't you use your own head to distinguish the right from the wrong?

Whatever makes people think of anything as right and expecting or pestering others around them to do the same is RELIGION!

Stop this nonsense of referring to books made by humans to validate the definition of concepts my dear, apply wisdom!

If you guys refute the concept of God that's agreed upon by over 90% of humans, what the hell makes you now think it's OK to count on the definition of few humans simply because they're influential?

My question doesn't require this jargons.

I asked a simple question, what's the STANDARD definition of religion?

tintingz:


Since dictionaries are meaningless to you.

So what's the definition of religion?

Use your own brain!

Don't depend on dictionaries, they are also book written through man's wisdom and if you're also a man you can do better!

RELIGION is whatever makes you think in a certain direction and expecting or pestering others to think alike!

It has led to killings in most places, it has led to stife between intellectuals, it's the same reason you're always here arguing endlessly over what should be upheld as right or wrong regarding standards. And you already have people taken up the same concept and going about spreading it.
Please what makes it differ from the activities of those you're calling religionists?
All humans are religionists as long as you upholds an ideology and anticipating as well as pestering others to join you!

Only madmen on your streets are totally free from this concept you and i perfectly know this. So stop deceiving yourself as if you don't have a RELIGION!

tintingz:


My question doesn't require this jargons.

I asked a simple question, what's the STANDARD definition of religion?

Don't you have brains?
We don't need an standard definition from any book Sir!
Sorry i've forgotten that the white man has turned your brains to cookies, but you can still go back home and ask your father!

You never attended school just for the white man to continue telling you this or that is the standard my dear!
That's what all of you have been saying about Religion so cut that crap and go use your brains or better still ask your Papa at home!

TATIME:


Use your own brain!

Don't depend on dictionaries, they are also book written through man's wisdom and if you're also a man you can do better!

RELIGION is whatever makes you think in a certain direction and expecting or pestering others to think alike!

It has led to killings in most places, it has led to stife between intellectuals, it's the same reason you're always here arguing endlessly over what should be upheld as right or wrong regarding standards. And you already have people taken up the same concept and going about spreading it.
Please what makes it differ from the activities of those you're calling religionists?
All humans are religionists as long as you upholds an ideology and anticipating as well as pestering others to join you!

Only madmen on your streets are totally free from this concept you and i perfectly know this. So stop deceiving yourself as if you don't have a RELIGION!

Ok, why should I take your definition of religion instead of the consensus and standard ones in the dictionaries?

And also with your claim, the definition of CUPS can mean white crazy goats, right?

Maximus69:


Don't you have brains?
We don't need an standard definition from any book Sir!
Sorry i've forgotten that the white man has turned your brains to cookies, but you can still go back home and ask your father!

You never attended school just for the white man to continue telling you this or that is the standard my dear!
That's what all of you have been saying about Religion so cut that crap and go use your brains or better still ask your Papa at home!

Like I asked someone, the definition of Cups can mean white crazy goats, correct?

tintingz:


Like I asked someone, the definition of Cups can mean white crazy goats, correct?

If it's working out what is benefitial for one and all "YES SIR"!
It's just words remember?
So what really matters is the usefulness not it's useless definition Sir!

Maximus69:

If it's working out what is benefitial for one and all "YES SIR"!
It's just words remember?
So what really matters is the usefulness not it's useless definition Sir!

Abegi teach him how to make the best use of his own brains!
Cups means crazy goats.
And of what use is the word or definition if it's not benefiting anyone?

Walahi Talahi he no go better for Oyinbo!

Test or try the spirits, not the uniform called religion

karo93:


Lol.....which is more dangerous?

A religion that will destroy your body for a limited time and take away your short human life for not believing in them...

OR

A religion that plans to have you tortured for all eternity for not believing in them...

Your point is weak.

Any religion that can destroy temporarily can destroy permanently

tintingz:
Every Religion claim to be right and others are wrong so in this case all religions cannot be right. It will always result to subjectivism. It's like arguing Superman against Batman and vice versa, there will never be a reaching conclusion, the arguments will always go in circles. My religion is right because my book said so, that's Circular reasoning fallacy.

So how do we measure which religion is true, well all what we need to use is evidences and logic.

Has any religion meet this evidences and logic? No.

It's always FAITH. Religions are built under beliefs and faiths and by definition faith is not a proof. I can also claim I've faith in Aliens that created the universe, my faith claim is as valid as Muslim saying Allah created the universe or the Hindus saying Brahma created the universe or the Ifa worshipers saying Olodumare created the universe or the Hellenist saying Zeus created the universe or the Zulus saying Unkulunkulu created the universe or Kuba saying Mbombo created the universe or the Christians saying Yahweh created the universe and so on. These are all faith base claims without no evidence linking or connecting to the exact God.

In every cases, Religions base their argument for God with gaps, e.g because we don't understand this therefore God exist. These gaps or ignorance are used to claim God exist without knowing the implications and fallacies of it.

So like I said evidence and logic can be the best options to measure what's true. Population doesn't prove a true religion, it's ad populum fallacy, "Superman has many fans therefore Superman is true".

For now we can just agree Religions are man-made probably created to control the masses and base their claims on ignorance, using irrational fear on the people.

My premise was if an all good God exists and he created a religion that is good and perfect in all dimensions, shouldn't we be able to see or prove such, by simply looking at the people and societies that follow it (putting the myths aside) Shouldn't such a society and people be the best of the best morally, philosophically, intellectually etc.
Or if such a God made it obvious which faith was the right one, shouldn't it be empirically provable by some metric(s) we may agree upon and not just faith and intuition which are flawed and subjective?
If not then what does that say about such deity(s)?
Or would such a God leave us to our own devices and to figure out the best mode of living on our own and would judge us based on our virtues?
And if it's not any of that, we may go back to questioning the existence of such deity(s)

James 1 v 27;

Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

Good deeds from a loving and selfless heart, and shunning evil vices is the true religion.

OkCornel:


Good deeds from a loving and selfless heart, and shunning evil vices is the true religion.

This I can agree with.

Maximus69:

If it's working out what is benefitial for one and all "YES SIR"!
It's just words remember?
So what really matters is the usefulness not it's useless definition Sir!

Words and definitions are used to describe a act or thing which logically follows = semantic.

So..

- What do you call people that group themselves and worship God or gods and also have divine dogmas?

- And what do you call people that lack belief in God or gods?

IMAliyu:

My premise was if an all good God exists and he created a religion that is good and perfect in all dimensions, shouldn't we be able to see or prove such, by simply looking at the people and societies that follow it (putting the myths aside) Shouldn't such a society and people be the best of the best mortally, philosophically, intellectually etc.
Or if such a God made it obvious which faith was the right one, shouldn't it be empirically provable by some metric(s) we may agree upon and not just faith and intuition which are flawed and subjective?
If not then what does that say about such deity(s)?
Or would such a God leave us to our own devices and to figure out the best mode of living on our own and would judge us based on our virtues?
And if it's not any of that, we may go back to questioning the existence of such deity(s)

I get what you're saying and I've pointed out why all Religions cannot be true if they base their claims on...,

1. Subjectivism, circular reasoning
2. Faiths
3. God of gaps, argument from ignorance
4. Ad populum fallacy

Religions usually base their claims on the listed above, which cannot reach any true conclusion.

So what should we use? The best options are,

1. Evidence
2. Logic

Has any religion meet this? No.

If God is true,

1. There should be evidence of his existence and all other mythological claims
2. Everything about the Religion claims should logically follow.


So maybe we should pick a God and religion to use for the experiment.

I think Judaism by far amongst the world religion is the most obvious one that holds much truth..

It clearly defines our human situation in line with reality..
It holds like 98% true reflection of life..

tintingz:


I get what you're saying and I've pointed out why all Religions cannot be true if they base their claims on...,

1. Subjectivism, circular reasoning
2. Faiths
3. God of gaps, argument from ignorance
4. Ad populum fallacy

Religions usually base their claims on the listed above, which cannot reach any true conclusion.

So what should we use? The best options are,

1. Evidence
2. Logic

Has any religion meet this? No.

If God is true,

1. There should be evidence of his existence and all other mythological claims
2. Everything about the Religion claims should logically follow.


So maybe we should pick a God and religion to use for the experiment.

Oh, ok I get you.
Most religions base their evidence on unprovable claims and if we use evidence and logic to scrutinize them they usually break down.

Hmm.. maybe Buddhism, but Buddhism bases it's premise on reincarnation which is still not provable, but I do like the philosophy.

tintingz:
Every Religion claim to be right and others are wrong so in this case all religions cannot be right. It will always result to subjectivism. It's like arguing Superman against Batman and vice versa, there will never be a reaching conclusion, the arguments will always go in circles. My religion is right because my book said so, that's Circular reasoning fallacy.

So how do we measure which religion is true, well all what we need to use is evidences and logic.

Has any religion meet this evidences and logic? No.

It's always FAITH. Religions are built under beliefs and faiths and by definition faith is not a proof. I can also claim I've faith in Aliens that created the universe, my faith claim is as valid as Muslim saying Allah created the universe or the Hindus saying Brahma created the universe or the Ifa worshipers saying Olodumare created the universe or the Hellenist saying Zeus created the universe or the Zulus saying Unkulunkulu created the universe or Kuba saying Mbombo created the universe or the Christians saying Yahweh created the universe and so on. These are all faith base claims without no evidence linking or connecting to the exact God.

In every cases, Religions base their argument for God with gaps, e.g because we don't understand this therefore God exist. These gaps or ignorance are used to claim God exist without knowing the implications and fallacies of it.

So like I said evidence and logic can be the best options to measure what's true. Population doesn't prove a true religion, it's ad populum fallacy, "Superman has many fans therefore Superman is true".

For now we can just agree Religions are man-made probably created to control the masses and base their claims on ignorance, using irrational fear on the people.

Those are different names of the same thing..forget the story, it is a lie,dwell on the messages in the story..but the truth is that we are gods on a human journey.

No body was eye witness to anything.

sonmvayina:
I think Judaism by far amongst the world religion is the most obvious one that holds much truth..

It clearly defines our human situation in line with reality..
It holds like 98% true reflection of life..

How so?
Mind to explain.

sonmvayina:


Those are different names of the same thing..forget the story, it is a lie,dwell on the messages in the story..but the truth is that we are gods on a human journey.

No body was eye witness to anything.

At the bases of most faiths the massage is usually this, do good and be a good person and avoid evil and anything that can taint you.

Though the definition of what is good and evil varies.

sonmvayina:


Those are different names of the same thing..forget the story, it is a lie,dwell on the messages in the story..but the truth is that we are gods on a human journey.

No body was eye witness to anything.

So we should skip the contradictions?

Like the contradictions isn't something we should look into?