[umvi]

> If the world were reset somehow, you'd end up with a completely different set of religious beliefs that would nonetheless have a similar role as a social bonding agent, whereas you would have a decent chance of the same research being done again if the scientific method does end up being developed in the world.

This statement is made from the assumption that God doesn't exist and that all religions are equally false. From my perspective, I would argue that if you reset the world, yes, purely man-made religions would disappear and be replaced by different (man-made) ones, but ultimately God's true religion would always re-emerge.

For example, in my completely biased opinion, religions like Scientology and Buddism would disappear on world reset to possibly be replaced with some roughly equivalent man-made belief systems under different names (or not). But Christianity (insert the "true" religion here) would persist on world reset (perhaps even under the same name), and the entire Abrahamic-family of religions would re-emerge under different names. They might not be known as "Judaism" or "Islam" or "Protestantism" but basically God would call Abraham-esque prophets to establish his religion, the religion would go off the rails, false prophets would emerge, people would try to restore the church to it's previous state, God would re-establish with new prophets, etc., and you would be left with hundreds of similar prophet-based religions all in the same family of religions, all worshiping the same God, all acknowledging a common set of scripture (which would have the same core religious beliefs as the pre-reset world did), all acknowledging a common set of (ancient) prophets, but with varying dogmatic differences due to aforementioned corruptions.

[NeedMoreTea]

What makes Buddhism clearly man made whilst christianity is not? They seem to share similar tenets based on old stories and teachings of some personalities (or prophets if you prefer). The success of Abrahamic religions stems from historic use of missionaries and enforced conversion which makes them unavoidably deeply entwined with history. History that's written by the battle winners...

If there is such a thing as a default religion that emerges some point after intelligence evolves next time around, I'd expect it to have a similar journey but in no way a similar destination. Start with something of a gaia / earth-centred spirits, and maybe on to polytheistic paganism. I doubt there would be another Thor, Isis or Eostre. One true religion is likely to come only after society has developed enough to encourage personalities that can proselytise, no? I'd be astonished if what then emerged was even remotely comparable to anything that went before though.

[umvi]

> What makes Buddhism clearly man made whilst christianity is not?

Well, it may just be my ignorance, but I thought Buddists didn't believe in God. I thought it was more a bunch of good philosophies that a man named Buddha came up with. Even the religion itself is named after a man (named Buddha).

[NeedMoreTea]

Well there's the plains of existence that one can be reincarnated to - the heavenly, human and hell (Not sure what they are properly called). Without the need for a creator god. From a 21st century perspective that's probably a feature not a bug, as that doesn't need hand waving around where god came from, geology, evolution and what not.

Personally I can't see much difference between that and the Christian heaven and hell, or even Valhalla and Freja's field in Asgard, with Midgard and Hel (sic) - albeit with far less battle to get there. Heck, even The Apocalypse compared to Ragnarok. Just as there are commonalities in the Abrahamic there are commonalities in the Indian religions like karma and reincarnation, and surprising commonalities across the lot. They all seem to speak of the same basic needs - perhaps a sign of an innate inclination for religion - and very similar concepts, like of going somewhere after. Maybe there's a basic truth underlying every one of them, but I incline to them all being man made.

Which is why I would tend to think restarting the level would give a very similar journey through common ideas but entirely different destinations. Interesting to imagine, but I'm not likely to find out. :)

> Even the religion itself is named after a man

Christianity is named after a man called Jesus Christ. Islam used to be called Muhammadism, after Muhammad, though I am not sure if that was a Western name or actually used by believers.

[chanon]

Buddha is not his name, his name is Siddhārtha Gautama.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddha_(title)

[lalaland1125]

How can you tell what "God's true religion" is? I'm sure you would get very different answers from a Buddhist or Scientologist.

[umvi]

> How can you tell what "God's true religion" is?

Are you asking my opinion? My opinion is that the only way to tell is to ask God directly, study it out in your mind, and follow your gut. If God exists, he should be the only one that can tell a person what His true religion is and will confirm his true religion in a way that you recognize.

I believe it is also possible to have reproducible spiritual experiences/impressions confirming your choice.

[mikeash]

The trouble is that many Buddhists and Scientologists and others would say exactly the same thing.

[umvi]

I actually doubt it in those two cases. Most religious people believe only because of tradition; they haven't confirmed it for themselves. Many religions convert people with fellowship (i.e. they are converted because they like the new friends they have made) or by using confidence tricks on vulnerable people to tell them what to believe. I doubt there are many that tell prospective converts to go out on their own and ask God and decide for themselves.

At any rate, I believe it worked for me and I believe anyone would come to the same conclusion given enough earnest searching.

[mikeash]

There aren’t many Christians who tell prospective converts to go out on their own and ask God either. That sort of thing is in a minority everywhere.

Of course you believe anyone would come to the same conclusion. And the fervent Hindu/Buddhist/Scientologist/Sikh/Zoroastrian who went through the same process believes the same thing about their religion.

I imagine you’ll say that such people didn’t do it right... because they didn’t reach the conclusion you did?

[umvi]

> And the fervent Hindu/Buddhist/Scientologist/Sikh/Zoroastrian who went through the same process believes the same thing about their religion.

You are just assuming here. Like I said before, I think you would be extremely hard pressed to find a Scientologist who was converted by praying to the Eighth Dynamic, studying it out, and then receiving an answer that they recognized, confirmed Scientology is true. As long as we are throwing out assumptions, I would assume nearly 100% of Scientologists are converted by: birth (tradition of parents), peer pressure/fellowship (esp. in celebrity circles), or confidence tricks ("auditing").

> I imagine you’ll say that such people didn’t do it right... because they didn’t reach the conclusion you did?

Well that's the thing about religion. People can say anything they want. They might even tell a little lie and say "yes" if you asked them if they received an answer from God that their religion is true, hoping it will convince you to join. There's no way of knowing if they are telling the truth or not. More generally, there is no empirical evidence someone else can present to prove their religion is correct. The only evidence to be had is anecdotal, and thus religion is a very personal and individual journey. You have to actually go through the process yourself if you want your own anecdotal evidence that God exists, etc.