# Why Religion?



## Sean K (25 May 2009)

I suppose we first need to define what religion is to then ask why it exists, so that probably needs to be established first.

But after that, why does it exist?

Philosophy and science have come up with various answers which is easy to find through a Google, but I'm very interested to hear ASF'ers perspectives.

Of course, it could exist because there is a God, and gods too.

Thoughts?

Once we get a few solid explanations I'll start a poll and we can take a survey.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (25 May 2009)

A good working definition is.


Religion is the opiate of battlers and working families.


gg


----------



## Sean K (25 May 2009)

Got this one off Wiki:

A religion is an organized approach to human spirituality which usually encompasses a set of narratives, symbols, beliefs and practices, often with a supernatural or transcendent quality, that give meaning to the practitioner's experiences of life through reference to a higher power or truth.


----------



## metric (25 May 2009)

throughout history, god was probably the first explination for everything we didnt understand...god being the 'maker of this sh#$t happening'.

i have no doubt that there is power in prayer. whether it be through creative visualisation, or the power of some universal force, ie; celestine prophecy. but whatever the source of that power, men have tried to explain it, harness it, sell it, understand it.

ancient egyptians, celtic druids, mayans, aztecs all created a culture around the belief in a universal power. all used mathematics to try and explain and even harness that power. some believe these cultures COULD harness some of it, and that s how they achieved so much..... secret societies today still practice the beliefs of these ancient cultures.

monotheistic religions have their roots in ancient egypt. many believe the jesus story is simply a representation of the stars, the birth of planets, and the sun. (see zeitgiest)

i believe in a universal power. i believe that we can tap into it. i believe there is secret knowledge regarding that power that only a few know of......

however, all religions are now money making schemes. and religion is used by the powers that be to control much of humanity. regardless of the religion.


----------



## metric (25 May 2009)

here is one persons view of christianity.....a google of 'luciferhorus' will expose the author.



> In Christianity one of the three gods decided to have one of his fellow dieties incarnated in order that he could be brutally tortured to death at the request of the religious establishment (who placed a reward on him). In Christianity, Trinitarianism is essentially monotheistic (one god) polytheism (many gods); there are three gods but only one god; those seeking to understand polytheistic monotheism are advised to stay away from philosophical analysis and logic.
> 
> 
> Having brutally tortured and murdered this Israelite Communist martyr, cultists were later encouraged to engage in ritual cannibalism where gorging on his flesh and blood was considered a sacrament (sacre mentis / sacred mind).
> ...


----------



## Sean K (25 May 2009)

metric said:


> throughout history, god was probably the first explination for everything we didnt understand...god being the 'maker of this sh#$t happening'.
> 
> i have no doubt that there is power in prayer. whether it be through creative visualisation, or the power of some universal force, ie; celestine prophecy. but whatever the source of that power, men have tried to explain it, harness it, sell it, understand it.
> 
> ...



So, 

1. An explanation for the unknown.
2. There *is* a 'universal power' - lets call it God/gods or religion. 
3. A control mechanism.

OK summaries metric?


----------



## Sith1s (25 May 2009)

This is my religion  http://www.venganza.org/

Nothing gives me greater pleasure than trying to convert all the people who come a door knocking.

They get so outraged when i try to explain it to them & makes my day.



Enjoy!


----------



## RamonR (25 May 2009)

The are parts of our brain which when stimulated give the experience of being in the presence of another being.

So I say we are hardwired to believe in things greater then us.


----------



## Sean K (25 May 2009)

RamonR said:


> The are parts of our brain which when stimulated give the experience of being in the presence of another being.
> 
> So I say we are hardwired to believe in things greater then us.



Any reason why?

Question is why...


----------



## RamonR (25 May 2009)

Believing in evolution the answer is simple.

Because it helps us to survive.

I cannot elaborate much more than this other then to say that it has been proven that people who have faith in some higher power, tend to handle catastrophic events better then others.
( not the actual event but the aftermath )


----------



## Sean K (25 May 2009)

RamonR said:


> Believing in evolution the answer is simple.
> 
> Because it helps us to survive.
> 
> ...



There is a theory that survival mechanisms have resulted in a belief in God/gods and thus religion. It's caught up the flight or fight response. This has been studied a lot recently. It can be explained further. 

The second point is a bit different I think. Can you expand?


----------



## Temjin (25 May 2009)

kennas said:


> There is a theory that survival mechanisms have resulted in a belief in God/gods and thus religion. It's caught up the flight or fight response. This has been studied a lot recently. It can be explained further.




It's quite a valid theory. I have personally see it in my Christian friends in various aspect of their life. 

The usual motto,

"Everything will be alright and be taken care of because god is with you" full stop



			
				RamonR said:
			
		

> I cannot elaborate much more than this other then to say that it has been proven that people who have faith in some higher power, tend to handle catastrophic events better then others.
> ( not the actual event but the aftermath )




Doesn't this goes back to the survival mechansim as above? If something extremely negative happened to the person, he/she will rely on the comfort that his/her faith in god, along with prayers, will strengthen their will to go through the hardship. 

But there is no hard evidences. There are certainly alot of people with no religion can go through the same process but rely on their ownself to go through it. That is, they understand "****s" happen and life is never fair, and it is far better to face the reality and look forward to the future than trying to cling on the past. It's a sign of high self-esteem and confidence.


----------



## metric (25 May 2009)

a control mechanism. funny, i was reading this when kennas mentioned it. very much worth the read. it is a 36 page explination of the world of finance supposedly by an elite banker. below is just a small excerpt of how he explains mankind is kept clueless.......i will post some more once this has been digested....



> As soon as men abandoned the life of wandering, tribal
> hunters to till the soil they needed to predict the seasons.
> Such knowledge was required in order to know when to
> plant, when to expect floods in fertile valleys, when to expect
> ...


----------



## metric (25 May 2009)

does all the failed financial commentators ring a bell? all of them, failed to see this 'global economic recession' coming? why? well here is an explination...



> The power of our finance capitalist money cult rests on a
> similar secret knowledge, primarily in the field of economics.
> Our power is weakened by real advances in economic science.
> (Fortunately, the public at large and most revolutionaries
> ...




http://ia351410.us.archive.org/3/it...owertheArcaneSecretsOfPoliticalPower/OTAP.pdf


----------



## Sean K (25 May 2009)

metric said:


> does all the failed financial commentators ring a bell? all of them, failed to see this 'global economic recession' coming? why? well here is an explination...



This has nothing to do with the topic metric.


----------



## metric (25 May 2009)

kennas said:


> This has nothing to do with the topic metric.




it is an explination of how secret knowledge, or 'religion' is used against humaniy. the second last post was an example of how secret knowledge 'the calendar' was used against early people, and was considered supernatural by them.....even though it wasnt supernatural....

the last post was how that system is still used by the elite. although kensian economics may not be considered supernatural, the trick is still being used...

you did bring up control mechanisms regarding religion. i explained how one worked in earlier times, and i showd how one is still working....

but i do take your point.....the bow was cracking..


.


----------



## dhukka (25 May 2009)

kennas said:


> Got this one off Wiki:
> 
> A religion is an organized approach to human spirituality which usually encompasses a set of narratives, symbols, beliefs and practices, often with a supernatural or transcendent quality, that give meaning to the practitioner's experiences of life through reference to a higher power or truth.




A problem with this definition is that there is an assumption that religion and spirituality go hand in hand. Some of the most religious people demonstrate no understanding of spirituality whatsoever. This extends from the practice of concretizing the narratives and symbols as 'facts', rather than what they were meant to be - metaphors for the transcendent. 

What you have with Christianity is the concretizing of the myth of Jesus Christ into a fact, when the story of Jesus Christ and his life is just a vehicle designed to open you up to the transcendent, the truth, god or whatever you want to call it. 

Another problem is that myths need to reflect what we know and understand about the world we live in, that obviously includes the science of the day. If they don't do this they lose their relevance. 2000 years ago it was would have been reasonable to assume that some dude lived in the sky and controlled things, we didn't know anything about the sky, the atmosphere or space and what or whom resided there. The idea in the old testament that the earth was only 6000 years old would have been as good a guess as any as we didn't know anything about evolution or dinosaur fossils.  

Today we  have a much better understanding of these things and thus the old myths have lost there relevance to our lives. The problem I see today is that there is nothing to replace it. We have no new myths to reflect our times and so we lurch from one ideology to the next, ie capitalism, socialism fascism etc.


----------



## derty (25 May 2009)

This excerpt from the quote in metric's post sums it up for me:



> The men who first studied and grasped the regularities of sun, moon, and stars that presage the seasons had a valuable commodity to sell and they milked it to the fullest at the expense of their credulous fellowmen.
> The occult priesthoods of early astronomers and mathematicians such as the designers of Stonehenge, convinced their subjects that they alone had contact with the gods, and thus, they alone could assure the return of planting seasons and weather favorable to bountiful harvests.




I see it arising as a means of power and control where the most successful became established and widespread belief systems.


----------



## metric (25 May 2009)

here is a cute yarn.....quite apt actually..



> Once upon a time there was a Capitalist who was listening to a revolutionary, known for his popularity with the people, who was crying out against the tyrant oppressors of the poor, against their police and their military and against the racists and against the hypocrites of religion (the priesthood) who defend them. As he listened to the man, he noticed the police came along and dragged the man away to meet his torturers.
> 
> The man thought to himself. ‘This is wonderful, this man spoke to the masses and had ideas which many seemed to agree with, but if I behaved like that, the tyrants would have me arrested and tortured as a terrorist, the racists would burn crosses on my lawn and the priests would stone me as a heretic.’
> 
> ...


----------



## sdmartin10 (25 May 2009)

Everyone has a religion it's just a matter of who you believe in. Some people believe in a god, money, family, it's seems most people in this thread believe in themselves.  Everyone worships something, and often tries to riducule the other persons God. Pretending to be different to those "religous" people is really just another way to try to elevate your god/belief over theirs.


----------



## Soft Dough (25 May 2009)

sdmartin10 said:


> Everyone worships something, and often tries to riducule the other persons God. Pretending to be different to those "religous" people is really just another way to try to elevate your god/belief over theirs.




I reserve the right to ridicule people whose religious beliefs result in their consigning me to hell.

I reserve the right to ridicule people whose religious beliefs allow them to be forgiven for their sinful activities by ritualistic means, instead of proper self reflection, improvement and punishment

I reserve the right to ridicule people whose religious beliefs result in persecution of others, even though their views are not ethical

I reserve the right to ridicule people whose religious beliefs stifle progress and consign others to hardship due the power of the minority overruling the needs of the many.

There are many more, but I won't waste my time on some people. I pray that those so entrenched in their religious beliefs and have lost touch with society think for themselves for once, and realise that it is fine to do what you do, but to press your irrational beliefs onto others goes against what religion is meant to stand for.


----------



## jonojpsg (25 May 2009)

dhukka said:


> What you have with Christianity is the concretizing of the myth of Jesus Christ into a fact, when the story of Jesus Christ and his life is just a vehicle designed to open you up to the transcendent, the truth, god or whatever you want to call it.
> 
> Another problem is that myths need to reflect what we know and understand about the world we live in, that obviously includes the science of the day. If they don't do this they lose their relevance. 2000 years ago it was would have been reasonable to assume that some dude lived in the sky and controlled things, we didn't know anything about the sky, the atmosphere or space and what or whom resided there. The idea in the old testament that the earth was only 6000 years old would have been as good a guess as any as we didn't know anything about evolution or dinosaur fossils.
> 
> Today we  have a much better understanding of these things and thus the old myths have lost there relevance to our lives. The problem I see today is that there is nothing to replace it. We have no new myths to reflect our times and so we lurch from one ideology to the next, ie capitalism, socialism fascism etc.




Jesus isn't a myth mate, no more than Julius Caesar or Pythagorous.  He is the most well documented person from ancient history.  You only have to read the Bible to know that there are quite a few scientifically valid perspectives in there, eg the world was round not flat, etc.  Not sure why the church jumped on that one, if they actually did.

Besides which, there are plenty of rational, scientifically literate people around who believe there is a God so not sure how this argument holds up?

The problem I see today is that we are trying to replace it!

BTW kennas, religion is an essential part of our being - God made us so it is a natural process for us to want to know him.  CS Lewis has some great explanations for it in Mere Christianity along the lines of our moral being is evidence of a creator or else where did we get morals from.

My


----------



## sdmartin10 (25 May 2009)

You can reserve the right to ridicule, but you can't then object to other people pressing their beliefs on to you. That's what your doing.

To disclose my position I am LT Buy (sic) on christianity. I am happy for people to question/ridicule any religion, belief or idea as long as they are open to their own beliefs being called in to question. I find the people who get the angriest about beliefs being forced on them are often the most forceful in wanting to tell other people what they can and can't do.


----------



## mastatrada (25 May 2009)

metric said:


> i have no doubt that there is power in prayer. whether it be through creative visualisation, or the power of some universal force, ie; celestine prophecy. but whatever the source of that power, men have tried to explain it, harness it, sell it, understand it.




 Thats a good point, one of the latest 'life coaching' techniques is the power of positive thought being able to influence and improve your life, so i guess prayer would be a form of this

And there's a good reason why the lord is represented as a shepherd- most of his worshippers are brainless sheep!


----------



## Happy (25 May 2009)

One of the needs for religion was explained that people could not handle the idea of finite lifespan of human being.
Without having something some people would find hard to find motivation to live life.

Another explanation was (as mentioned) method to explain everything.

As we can clearly see Christians back-peddle some of their statements to incorporate current scientific advances, Muslims on the other hand spearhead it.

I can bet that if Religions were developed now, creators would try to make it immune to future scientific advances, but too late now.

Being able to gather thought and achieve some peace of mind it is not necessary to have religion, all you need is some knowledge how to do it.


----------



## derty (25 May 2009)

jonojpsg said:


> Jesus isn't a myth mate, no more than Julius Caesar or Pythagorous.  He is the most well documented person from ancient history.  You only have to read the Bible to know that there are quite a few scientifically valid perspectives in there, eg the world was round not flat, etc.  Not sure why the church jumped on that one, if they actually did.




I am curious as to what other documented evidence of Jesus exists outside the bible? It is a bit of a circular argument to use the book that proposes his existence as the corroborating proof of his existence.

A link here to the similarities of Jesus's life to that of the Egyptian Horus 3000 years prior: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5b.htm


----------



## bassmanpete (25 May 2009)

> Jesus isn't a myth mate, no more than Julius Caesar or Pythagorous. He is the most well documented person from ancient history.




Outside of the Bible there is no historical evidence that Jesus ever existed, whereas there are several contemporary accounts regarding the other two.



> ...our moral being is evidence of a creator or else where did we get morals from.




Lots of people do the right thing because it's the right thing to do - god doesn't come into it.


----------



## dhukka (25 May 2009)

jonojpsg said:


> Jesus isn't a myth mate, no more than Julius Caesar or Pythagorous.  He is the most well documented person from ancient history.




Actually there is next to no evidence that Jesus existed except for the work of fiction called the Bible.   




> You only have to read the Bible to know that there are quite a few scientifically valid perspectives in there, eg the world was round not flat, etc.  Not sure why the church jumped on that one, if they actually did.




You only have to read the Bible to know that a lot of its story lines have been lifted from previous so-called saviours of history that came before the fictional Jesus.  



> Besides which, there are plenty of rational, scientifically literate people around who believe there is a God so not sure how this argument holds up?




I have no problem with believing in God, it just depends how you define what God is. If you are a literate adult with an IQ over 90 and you believe God is some bearded dude who created the world in 7 days 6000 years ago and knows everything we do every minute of the day then you are beyond help. 



> The problem I see today is that we are trying to replace it!




The only choice is to replace it because it is outdated and irrelevant. 



> BTW kennas, religion is an essential part of our being - God made us so it is a natural process for us to want to know him.




You know that God made you, how is that? Have you had a chat with him?


----------



## MS+Tradesim (25 May 2009)

It's amazing.

Raise the topic of religion and otherwise intelligent people resort to dribbling nonsense they heard from someone who heard from someone, or asserting uninformed opinion as fact. Happens on both sides of the divide.

Ironic that those who reject religion, and Christianity in specific, because it's made up or myth will nevertheless appeal to discredited theories and equally vacuous websites as supporting evidence for their disbelief.

For example, the assertion that the story of Jesus is a composite or variation of previous Saviours is in the same category as the view that the earth was created in 6 days, 6000 years ago. Both are unsubstantiated opinion not taken seriously by scholars in the relevant fields.

Try reading historians and scholars at the forefront of the field, not the unresearched and highly speculative blather on the internet that is passed off as fact.

James D.G. Dunn, N.T. Wright, Dominic Crossan, Richard Bauckham _et al_. Different views and different conclusions and whether or not one comes to agree or disagree with any or some, these are the kinds of researchers one needs to interact with _*if*_ one is genuinely interested in informed historical research about the birth of Christianity.


----------



## sdmartin10 (25 May 2009)

dhukka said:


> Actually there is next to no evidence that Jesus existed except for the work of fiction called the Bible.




I'll bite .. Josephus, Plutarch- romans... thousands of early manuscripts and fragments indicating a reliable transmission of the source documents. There is evidence there but not many people can be bothered looking.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (25 May 2009)

RamonR said:


> The are parts of our brain which when stimulated give the experience of being in the presence of another being.
> 
> So I say we are hardwired to believe in things greater then us.




Its called epilepsy mate.

gg


----------



## Struzball (25 May 2009)

jonojpsg said:


> CS Lewis has some great explanations for it in Mere Christianity along the lines of our moral being is evidence of a creator or else where did we get morals from.




Our morals are an evolutinary trait, without them we would not have lasted this long to become the homosapiens we are.  We'd have killed each other off millions of years ago.

It's so annoying that somebody can ask a question, and state the answer is proof of God, yet if they could just think for themselves for a minute they can come up with something realistic.

(Except for the babelfish)


----------



## samuely1 (25 May 2009)

sdmartin10 said:


> I'll bite .. Josephus, Plutarch- romans... thousands of early manuscripts and fragments indicating a reliable transmission of the source documents. There is evidence there but not many people can be bothered looking.




I agree, there are many other references but people can't be bothered looking.  A few more writings of the following people back up the existence of Jesus - Plinius Secundus, Cornelius Tactitus, Gaius Suetonius Tranquillas, Lucian, and then theres the Talmud.


----------



## Happy (25 May 2009)

samuely1 said:


> I agree, there are many other references but people can't be bothered looking.  A few more writings of the following people back up the existence of Jesus - Plinius Secundus, Cornelius Tactitus, Gaius Suetonius Tranquillas, Lucian, and then theres the Talmud.




I wander if I write something today, could be used in 2000 years as truth?


----------



## RamonR (25 May 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Its called epilepsy mate.
> 
> gg




results of a quick google search on what I am talking about

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/belief-and-the-brains--god-spot-1641022.html

In my experience epilepsy isn't associated with being highly religious, although it is very common amongst people with schizophrenia


----------



## waza1960 (25 May 2009)

Religion is there for those who need to believe in something which I believe is a large proportion of the population.They feel more at ease having a belief that explains the great unknowns i.e. life death etc.Myself I don't need to believe so I am free of religion but I don't mind if others get by with religion as long as they don't push it onto me


----------



## derty (25 May 2009)

samuely1 said:


> I agree, there are many other references but people can't be bothered looking.  A few more writings of the following people back up the existence of Jesus - Plinius Secundus, Cornelius Tactitus, Gaius Suetonius Tranquillas, Lucian, and then theres the Talmud.



I have had a bit of a look about and they seem to be a well trotted out group in this argument. Most of the in-detail discussion I found was in the negative camp, those presenting this group as evidence rarely provided much other than their names. If you could provide something more compelling than just their names it would be appreciated. 

a short discussion of each and their time frames;
http://books.google.com.au/books?id...X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5#PPA109,M1

Pliny's (Plinius Secundus) letter to Trajan, this is very vague and is a discussion of torturing Christians and not a contemporary discussion of Jesus.
http://www.tyrannus.com/pliny_let.html

I'm not sure if this book is for or against or purely objective but his discussion of Pliny's letter on page 28 reinforces it's obscurity as a supporting evidence as to the existence of Jesus ;
http://books.google.com.au/books?id...=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5#PPA28,M1

http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og/cindex/jesusexist1.html :


> Remsburg, in "The Christ" names 42 writers who lived and wrote during the time or within a century after the period when Jesus is said to have existed, and from all their writings only four passages are to be found that might possibly support the historicity of Jesus. And of those four passages, not a single one can stand any critical test at all.
> 
> Christians usually offer eight (8) possible
> 
> ...




Sorry for perpetuating the derailment of this thread from the original topic Kennas, but when do these discussions ever stay on topic?


----------



## dhukka (25 May 2009)

MS+Tradesim said:


> For example, the assertion that the story of Jesus is a composite or variation of previous Saviours is in the same category as the view that the earth was created in 6 days, 6000 years ago. Both are unsubstantiated opinion not taken seriously by scholars in the relevant fields.




Are you suggesting that Jesus shares no characteristics in common with previous so-called saviours? Here are a few of the main ones among many;

Born on the 25th December
Virgin birth
Birth was accompanied by a star in the east
adorned by 3 kings
Child teacher
Baptized at 30
12 Disciples
Performed miracles
Crucified 
Resurrected after 3 days


----------



## MS+Tradesim (25 May 2009)

dhukka said:


> Are you suggesting that Jesus shares no characteristics in common with previous so-called saviours? Here are a few of the main ones among many;
> 
> Born on the 25th December
> Virgin birth
> ...




I've seen these many times. Most of them derive from the discredited views of Kersey Graves. What modern, reliable *scholarly* source confirms them?

For the record, I am not interested in arguing about it. I'd rather you apply the same skepticism to "sources" of skeptical objections as you do to the claims of Christianity, or any religion. It's my experience that while followers of religions often (and rightly) get questioned or poo-pooed on their claims, the same level of critical inquiry is not applied to the objections and counter-claims against a religion. The path of least resistance applies. Where a person believes they have found support for their view, they will not apply as critical a level of questioning to that source.


----------



## weird (25 May 2009)

I'm a practicing Catholic, why religion ? ... for anyone  practicing any religion you will get many answers, one for myself that comes to mind is that it centers me, and also helps me see the best in humanity and appreciate nature, and also understand my flaws, and try to better myself.

I only know from my own personal experience of being a Catholic, and if you attend any mass, the homilies have no condemnation towards non-Christians, teaches peace among all religions and everyone else, more self-reflection and your own foot-print in the world, as well as your relationship to God.

The story of Father Chris Riley, in World Beyond Tears, is interesting starting an orphanage in Indonesia, where there was strict instruction from the authorities not to promote Christianity. 

Unfortunately in history, religion can bring out the worse and the best, but I hope it is more the latter.


----------



## darkside (25 May 2009)

RamonR said:


> results of a quick google search on what I am talking about
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/belief-and-the-brains--god-spot-1641022.html
> 
> In my experience epilepsy isn't associated with being highly religious, although it is very common amongst people with schizophrenia




See that person spazzing on the church floor babbling incoherently? That's how infinite wisdom reveals itself

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities
The Babble, I mean "bible" is a book written by men to control other men, and it has condoned slavery, genocide, murder, adultery, child bashing, etc., all in the name of  "god". If the Babble, er "bible" was portrayed as written on television, it would be x-rated, and would have to be shown on special Foxtel Late at night with truck loads of warnings,


----------



## weird (25 May 2009)

darkside said:


> See that person spazzing on the church floor babbling incoherently? That's how infinite wisdom reveals itself
> 
> Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities
> The Babble, I mean "bible" is a book written by men to control other men, and it has condoned slavery, genocide, murder, adultery, child bashing, etc., all in the name of  "god". If the Babble, er "bible" was portrayed as written on television, it would be x-rated, and would have to be shown on special Foxtel Late at night with truck loads of warnings,




I assume you are referring to the old testament, which described what it was like in those times ?  However we still have slavery, killings, stoning ... lets not forget children soldiers, arm lopping or other cruel barbaric acts that occur on a multitude and regular basis in this actual world right now ... living in Australia is good no ? Alot of areas in the world is x-rated, and it is happening right now.


----------



## darkside (25 May 2009)

The "old Testament" did not only describe the attrocitys of that time but encouraged and condoned it , and as far as an X rated society is concerned the worst nations on earth for that are the ones that adhere to organised religion.
You do NOT need a Holy Bible to tell you to give charity to the poor and sick, but you DO need the Holy Bible to tell you to persecute the Jews, burn alive witches, pagans and heretics, condone slavery, justify hostility to women and obey authoritarian dictatorships


----------



## weird (25 May 2009)

Sorry mate, but that is complete B/S, while the O/T told many 'stories' which were passed down, finally the 10 commandments was created, tell me which of any of those 10, encourage any act except respect towards God and others ?

Also what other mainstream law or authority (which united people) was competing during that time, which had fundamentally better principles and why did it not survive to be the current rules that most people live by ?


----------



## jonojpsg (25 May 2009)

dhukka said:


> Actually there is next to no evidence that Jesus existed except for the work of fiction called the Bible.




The Bible is actually the most correlated and historically verified work of writing from ancient times.




> You only have to read the Bible to know that a lot of its story lines have been lifted from previous so-called saviours of history that came before the fictional Jesus.




Which saviours are those from before Jesus?



> I have no problem with believing in God, it just depends how you define what God is. If you are a literate adult with an IQ over 90 and you believe God is some bearded dude who created the world in 7 days 6000 years ago and knows everything we do every minute of the day then you are beyond help.




God is spirit and would have no problem creating the world/universe in any period of time you want to specify.



> The only choice is to replace it because it is outdated and irrelevant.




How can something that is eternal be outdated?  And it is certainly not irrelevant to want to make our lives, ourselves, better.



> You know that God made you, how is that? Have you had a chat with him?




Yep, every day 

PS This is why we have religion kennas - it's great fun to argue about


----------



## darkside (25 May 2009)

weird said:


> Sorry mate, but that is complete B/S, while the O/T told many 'stories' which were passed down, finally the 10 commandments was created, tell me which of any of those 10, encourage any act except respect towards God and others ?
> 
> Also what other mainstream law or authority (which united people) was competing during that time, which had fundamentally better principles and why did it not survive to be the current rules that most people live by ?




Only about 10% of the Swedes believe in a deity - that it is basically an atheistic society. But this society is not amoral and they don’t, for example, have nearly the crime rate of the US, where perhaps 80-90 believe in some superpower/God based religion.

The Question "Why Religion", Ithink this sums it up.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25525963-401,00.html


Now if every decent person on this site does not find that story abhorent and offensive, then what a sick society we have become, and you are so right. !!!


----------



## MS+Tradesim (25 May 2009)

darkside said:


> The "old Testament" did not only describe the attrocitys of that time but encouraged and condoned it , and as far as an X rated society is concerned the worst nations on earth for that are the ones that adhere to organised religion.




Despite my better judgement in doing so here, the above quote is a perfect example of why I don't bother talking about religion on forums anymore. The most patently false claims are presented as dogmatic fact and supposed to constitute an objection to religion?!

For example, it is documented that the most destructive nations on earth were/are secular and often anti-religion as a matter of policy.



> You do NOT need a Holy Bible to tell you to give charity to the poor and sick, but you DO need the Holy Bible to tell you to persecute the Jews, burn alive witches, pagans and heretics, condone slavery, justify hostility to women and obey authoritarian dictatorships




...and more of the same.

It's true that you don't need a sacred text to advise on certain morals, but these 'morals' that are taken for granted by you and other modern westerns owe a huge debt to the historic Christian tradition. These morals which you applaud have not always been practiced by every society and were flatly rejected by many for much of history where 'survival of the fittest' really did reign. You possibly believe yourself to be standing in an objective observer position but if so, then incorrectly. It's highly doubtful that if you were an average adult in Domitian's Rome or Hitler's Germany or feudal Japan that you would have applauded any of these morals which you now assume should be the norm.


----------



## darkside (25 May 2009)

jonojpsg said:


> The Bible is actually the most correlated and historically verified work of writing from ancient times.
> 
> Which saviours are those from before Jesus?




Umm, lets see. Before Jesus, there were other crucified saviors: 

CRUCIFIXION OF CHRISHNA OF INDIA, 1200 B.C. 
CRUCIFIXION OF THE HINDU SAKIA, 600 B.C. 
CRUCIFIXION OF WITTOBA OF THE TELINGONESIC, 552 B.C. 
IAO OF NEPAUL CRUCIFIED, 622 B.C. 
HESUS OF THE CELTIC DRUIDS CRUCIFIED, 834 B.C. 
QUEXALCOTE OF MEXICO CRUCIFIED, 587 B.C. 
QUIRINUS OF ROME CRUCIFIED, 506 B.C. 
(AESCHYLUS) PROMETHEUS CRUCIFIED, 547 B.C. 
CRUCIFIXION OF THULIS OF EGYPT, 1700 B.C. 
CRUCIFIXION OF INDRA OF TIBET, 725 B.C. 
ALCESTOS OF EURIPIDES CRUCIFIED, 600 B.C. 
ATYS OF PHRYGIA CRUCIFIED, 1170 B.C. 
BALI OF ORISSA CRUCIFIED, 725 B.C. 
MITHRA OF PERSIA CRUCIFIED, 600 B.C. 

Do you see a pattern there????
Most of the above also have the same "history" that Jesus had: virgin mommies, dying and coming back to life, raising the dead, healing people, etc. So there. Now must we all worship the crucified saviors listed above? You could, but you'd be a fool to do so.


----------



## weird (25 May 2009)

darkside said:


> Umm, lets see. Before Jesus, there were other crucified saviors:
> 
> CRUCIFIXION OF CHRISHNA OF INDIA, 1200 B.C.
> CRUCIFIXION OF THE HINDU SAKIA, 600 B.C.
> ...




Not sure why you had to go so far back in history, there were many competing Messiah's during Jesus time, yet for some reason this one hit a cord.


----------



## darkside (25 May 2009)

weird said:


> Not sure why you had to go so far back in history, there were many competing Messiah's during Jesus time, yet for some reason this one hit a cord.




Ahh, to show that it was'nt just christianity that had a strangle hold on self appointed "mesiahs" and it was documented way back in history. Christianty just jumped on the "bandwagon", really the immitator as opposed to the innovator one could say.

"In case of rapture... Can I have your car?"


----------



## weird (25 May 2009)

darkside said:


> Ahh, to show that it was'nt just christianity that had a strangle hold on self appointed "mesiahs" and it was documented way back in history. Christianty just jumped on the "bandwagon", really the immitator as opposed to the innovator one could say.
> 
> "In case of rapture... Can I have your car?"




Lost me mate. Anyhow peace be with you.


----------



## ColB (25 May 2009)

> Originally posted by Weird:
> 
> I'm a practicing Catholic, why religion ? ... for anyone practicing any religion you will get many answers, one for myself that comes to mind is that it centers me, and also helps me see the best in humanity and appreciate nature, and also understand my flaws, and try to better myself.




I'm not a practicing Catholic or any other religion for that matter.  I have empathy for those less fortunate than some.  I am inspired by the successful.  I am inspired by those not as successful but have a go nevertheless.  I have strengths and weaknesses and also appreciate many things in life. 

I don't need religion to guide me because I can find my own way.  If I was weak minded maybe I'd need that guide, but not now.



> Originally posted by Weird:
> 
> Also what other mainstream law or authority (which united people) was competing during that time, which had fundamentally better principles and why did it not survive to be the *current rules that most people live by?*




The rules that most people live by are not from the bible.  They are rules of legislation.  Okay, so the ten commandments say thou shall not steal.  Since when did we need a book to tell us we shouldn't take something that belongs to someone else. 

Thou shall not commit adultery - at least not with one of Muhammed's seven wives.


----------



## dhukka (25 May 2009)

MS+Tradesim said:


> I've seen these many times. Most of them derive from the discredited views of Kersey Graves. What modern, reliable *scholarly* source confirms them?




How about Gerald Massey or Joseph Campbell?



MS+Tradesim said:


> For the record, I am not interested in arguing about it. I'd rather you apply the same skepticism to "sources" of skeptical objections as you do to the claims of Christianity, or any religion. It's my experience that while followers of religions often (and rightly) get questioned or poo-pooed on their claims, the same level of critical inquiry is not applied to the objections and counter-claims against a religion. The path of least resistance applies. Where a person believes they have found support for their view, they will not apply as critical a level of questioning to that source.




Since the Bible makes such absurd claims, the onus is on the believers to prove their case which they have consistently failed to do.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (25 May 2009)

RamonR said:


> results of a quick google search on what I am talking about
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/belief-and-the-brains--god-spot-1641022.html
> 
> In my experience epilepsy isn't associated with being highly religious, although it is very common amongst people with schizophrenia




You are wrong mate, I lost $100 bet with a trickcyclist mate of mine when I espoused this.

There is no association between epilepsy and schizophrenia. None.

It cost me $100 to learn that, now if you insist I'll put $200 on it that you are wrong.

There is an association between epilepsy and religious experience.

Anyone who has watched "The Reverend" in "Deadwood" knows that !!

gg


----------



## MS+Tradesim (25 May 2009)

darkside said:


> Ahh, to show that it was'nt just christianity that had a strangle hold on self appointed "mesiahs" and it was documented way back in history. Christianty just jumped on the "bandwagon", really the immitator as opposed to the innovator one could say.




Did you know your list was compiled by Kersey Graves? Did you know he lifted data from others without verifying his source? Did you know he manipulated data to fit his conclusions? Did you know he outright fabricated data?


----------



## darkside (25 May 2009)

weird said:


> Lost me mate. Anyhow peace be with you.




Sorry , shouldn't have lost you , was only trying to answer Jonojpsg question, and set the record straight. Peace be with you as well, and remember :Only the fool says in his heart: There is no god ,,,,The wise says it to the world.


----------



## MS+Tradesim (25 May 2009)

dhukka said:


> How about Gerald Massey or Joseph Campbell?




Book? Chapter? Journal?

I remember Gerald Massey. His work is not considered reputable by modern Egyptologists. And Joseph Campbell...are you referring to the modern writer on myth?



> Since the Bible makes such absurd claims, the onus is on the believers to prove their case which they have consistently failed to do.



 This is a broad unanswerable statement.


----------



## Struzball (25 May 2009)

jonojpsg said:


> How can something that is eternal be outdated?  And it is certainly not irrelevant to want to make our lives, ourselves, better.




You just proved your own point.  Something eteranal can not be outdated, and the bible has been outdated therefore the bible and christiantiy is not eteranal nor real.

This thread gives me a heavy heart to think of the closed mindedness in the world.


----------



## dhukka (25 May 2009)

jonojpsg said:


> The Bible is actually the most correlated and historically verified work of writing from ancient times.




Ahh yes and your references are?




> Which saviours are those from before Jesus?




Here's a few to get you started:

Horus - Egypt 3000 B.C.
Attis - Greece 1200 B.C.
Mithra - Persia 1200 B.C.
Krishna - India 900 B.C.
Dionysus - Greece 500 B.C. 








> God is spirit and would have no problem creating the world/universe in any period of time you want to specify.
> 
> 
> 
> How can something that is eternal be outdated?  And it is certainly not irrelevant to want to make our lives, ourselves, better.





This is the kind of nonsense that separates religious zealots from regular rational people.


----------



## weird (25 May 2009)

Good questions. 

Yet these rules or commonsense things are broken all the time.

Animal drive for the survival of oneself to procreate or perhaps the survival for the entire community, why is any variation of this broken ? 

Some broken circuity with the structured but genetic soup which will self-correct ?  

Random or drug influenced deviation of basic nature ?

Perhaps those not bound by religion, feel perhaps some comfort that others are, due to their predictable behaviour.

Because their own belief's outside of religion means that they are driven by chaos and unstructured self-discovery, with no need of remorse. And how do they try to apply their own belief on others, when their own is based on their limited exposure to things, and why do they try to judge others ?


----------



## RamonR (25 May 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> You are wrong mate, I lost $100 bet with a trickcyclist mate of mine when I espoused this.
> 
> There is no association between epilepsy and schizophrenia. None.
> 
> ...




I see how you misunderstood my post.
I did not mean to indicate a correlation between epilepsy and schizophrenia, instead I was stating that in my experience there is a much higher correlation between being very religious and schizophrenia.

Before anyone takes offense I am not inferring that you have to be crazy to believe in god


----------



## darkside (25 May 2009)

RamonR said:


> I see how you misunderstood my post.
> I did not mean to indicate a correlation between epilepsy and schizophrenia, instead I was stating that in my experience there is a much higher correlation between being very religious and schizophrenia.
> 
> Before anyone takes offense I am not inferring that you have to be crazy to believe in god




But i am sure it helps. !!


----------



## darkside (25 May 2009)

Don't ban me please "mod" i was kidding , and i love this site, and i know i will be punished in hell for what i have said ))))


----------



## dhukka (25 May 2009)

MS+Tradesim said:


> Book? Chapter? Journal?
> 
> I remember Gerald Massey. His work is not considered reputable by modern Egyptologists. And Joseph Campbell...are you referring to the modern writer on myth?
> 
> This is a broad unanswerable statement.




I see how this works, you throw out names but I am supposed to cite chapter and verse, even though I'm not the one trying to prove the existence of an immortal being. 

Yes the mythologist Joseph Campbell and his works such as "The Masks of God" and "The Hero with a Thousand Faces".


----------



## dhukka (25 May 2009)

sdmartin10 said:


> I'll bite .. Josephus, Plutarch- romans... thousands of early manuscripts and fragments indicating a reliable transmission of the source documents. There is evidence there but not many people can be bothered looking.




Josephus, is widely discredited as a fraud, the guy wrote volumes and yet mentions Christ in just one paragraph, you'd think he'd have a bit more to say on the topic of the saviour of the world.


----------



## ColB (25 May 2009)

> Originally posted by Weird:
> 
> Good questions.
> 
> ...




Jeesus!!  Starting to get a bit lost here Weird.  Forget points 1-3 but could you please expand on 4-5 with some example/s to quantify exactly what you're getting at.  I'm starting to think that maybe I have lost my way and need salvation.  I mean the Bible has an answer for everything doesn't it?

eg: Life without religion = "belief driven by chaos and unstructured self-discovery"


----------



## MS+Tradesim (25 May 2009)

dhukka said:


> I see how this works, you throw out names but I am supposed to cite chapter and verse, even though I'm not the one trying to prove the existence of an immortal being.




I'm not trying to prove anything. I am simply pointing out that skepticism can be as ill-informed as some religious claims. I keep up with New Testament scholarship because it's an area of deep interest to me. I know the scholars (secular and religious) which are taken seriously in the field, and I know the conspiracist favourites which are quoted liberally on skeptical websites and are now being touted here as supposed evidence of parallels.



> Yes the mythologist Joseph Campbell and his works such as "The Masks of God" and "The Hero with a Thousand Faces".




I know Campbell is respected and I'll have to have another look.


----------



## darkside (25 May 2009)

dhukka said:


> Josephus, is widely discredited as a fraud, the guy wrote volumes and yet mentions Christ in just one paragraph, you'd think he'd have a bit more to say on the topic of the saviour of the world.




Interesting point , but to take it one step further,  except those of biased Christian writers, there isn’t one writing outside the Bible in all of ancient history that clearly refers to Jesus of Nazareth.


----------



## weird (25 May 2009)

Just keeping it interesting


----------



## darkside (25 May 2009)

Weird, you know the deal , now answer the question : "in case of rapture, can i have your car and financial portfolio"

YES I AM an agent of Satan, but my duties are mostly ceremonial


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (25 May 2009)

Where were you 12 months before you were born in a spiritual sense.   Nowhere.

Where will you be 12 months after you die in a spiritual sense .  
Nowhere.

There is no mystery.

People are born, live and die.

They don't go anywhere because there is nowhere to go because they came from nowhere, spiritually speaking.

End of story.

gg


----------



## dhukka (25 May 2009)

darkside said:


> Interesting point , but to take it one step further,  except those of biased Christian writers, there isn’t one writing outside the Bible in all of ancient history that clearly refers to Jesus of Nazareth.




Yep and that includes Pliny the younger, Suetonius and Tacitus.


----------



## weird (25 May 2009)

darkside said:


> Weird, you know the deal , now answer the question : "in case of rapture, can i have your car and financial portfolio"
> 
> YES I AM an agent of Satan, but my duties are mostly ceremonial




lol, I don't have a Maserati, just a Holden Astra, but I put the roof rack on myself, which I am proud of, I will miss carrying mine and my mate's surfboard.

But I'll keep the financial portfolio, I can buy another car ... and roof rack. Excellent surf in Heaven, I believe.


----------



## darkside (25 May 2009)

MS+Tradesim said:


> I'm not trying to prove anything. I am simply pointing out that skepticism can be as ill-informed as some religious claims. I keep up with New Testament scholarship because it's an area of deep interest to me. I know the scholars (secular and religious) which are taken seriously in the field, and I know the conspiracist favourites which are quoted liberally on skeptical websites and are now being touted here as supposed evidence of parallels.
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly , we are not asking for you to cure cancer, split the atom, crack hexadecimal code, all we ask is that you show us one bit of existence of a god, surely it's not rocket science.


----------



## ColB (25 May 2009)

> Originally posted by GG
> 
> Where were you 12 months before you were born in a spiritual sense. Nowhere.
> 
> ...




*ANOTHER* cynic.  Don't spoil the fairytale GG!


----------



## darkside (25 May 2009)

weird said:


> lol, I don't have a Maserati, just a Holden Astra, but I put the roof rack on myself, which I am proud of, I will miss carrying mine and my mate's surfboard.
> 
> But I'll keep the financial portfolio, I can buy another car ... and roof rack. Excellent surf in Heaven, I believe.




Dave i am going to need that roof rack to carry all those heathen's into a world without religious wars and hatred of one another based on their beliefs and i might need that portfolio to pay the fines for overloading.And hey i like the "astra' it's keeping it real .Cheers


----------



## ktrianta (25 May 2009)

Why religion? If humans are created by God and had communion with God in the past, then logically there will be a belief in God which gets passed down and corrupted over the ages, but that belief is still there. Hence the answer. Whether you believe it or not is irrelevant, but that is a logical reason to explain religion. Some will be closer to its truest form, other belief will be more corrupted.

If you do not believe in God, then you need to come to some other exotic theory as to why such a belief would evolve, none of which are truly satisfactory.

As to some of the threads, please not even Richard Dawkins believes that Jesus did not exist, and he most certainly would love to prove that being a fundamentalist athiest that he is.
Simple fact is is that if Jesus did not exist in space and time, then christianity would not have got of the ground, so lets not bring up nonsense when trying to raise arguments.


----------



## darkside (25 May 2009)

ColB said:


> *ANOTHER* cynic.  Don't spoil the fairytale GG!




While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.


----------



## Dukey (25 May 2009)

Why?
... some people want power over others,
... many other people are just gullible.

Me... I'm with uncle Albert ... http://www.pantheism.net/

(PS - gotta love the flying spaghetti monster !! Luv it!!!!!!!!!!!)


----------



## weird (25 May 2009)

The whole speaking in tongues is interesting, I remember attending a fundamentalist church, and they invited people up to speak in tongues, and first time I went to this 'fundamentalist' church, I was 17, and just went up and curious, obviously not part of the 'group', I literally just went 'blar blar blar', and just got odd looks, because I wasn't part of the 'group'.

As mentioned, I am a practicing Catholic, and have fortunately have some intelligent priests as friends, that also have a 'wicked' sense of humor, but are also the most unselflish people you could meet, one told me of going to a 'charismatic' meeting of the following, and just didn't get it, the speaking in tongues.

It has been mentioned as a gift, but not one that should be 'forced'.


----------



## MS+Tradesim (25 May 2009)

So on topic...why religion?

Post inception, there are probably as many reasons as there are believers in the different religions. Some are born into one, indoctrinated and never question. Some are cultural 'believers' who belong to a certain religion in the same way that they belong to a certain society or country - it's just part of their life, not deeply held but providing some social or psychological value. Others are raised with one religion or no religion and have an experience or journey which they interpret in a way that causes them to brace another religion. Some question long held beliefs and actually embrace a different religion for intellectual reasons. Some are raised in a religion and life experiences force them to confront their beliefs - they might reject all religion, or construct a new belief system that helps them to better cope with the existential crisis, or they might come to a new deeply understood grasp and appreciation of their own religion. Some will use religion in their lust for control and power. No question. But that type of person is just as likely to  be found in any ideology, including the secular.

But why did they begin? This is unanswerable outside of structural beliefs, or top-level presuppositions. A person who denies the supernatural is forced, prior to the fact, to reject any theory of religious origin which invokes a non-material source. Religion in this view cannot be anything other than a process-derived artifact of human development.

But if there is a supernatural entity interacting with this universe then religious belief may be inevitable. It would be as natural a desire to search for something higher as it would to look for food to satisfy hunger.


----------



## darkside (25 May 2009)

weird said:


> The whole speaking in tongues is interesting, I remember attending a fundamentalist church, and they invited people up to speak in tongues, and first time I went to this 'fundamentalist' church, I was 17, and just went up and curious, obviously not part of the 'group', I literally just went 'blar blar blar', and just got odd looks, because I wasn't part of the 'group'.
> 
> As mentioned, I am a practicing Catholic, and have fortunately have some intelligent priests as friends, that also have a 'wicked' sense of humor, but are also the most selflish people you could meet, one told me of going to a 'charismatic' meeting of the following, and just didn't get it, the speaking in tongues.
> 
> It has been mentioned as a gift, but not one that should be 'forced'.





And what a wonderfull gift that would be , can you imagine how great a world it would be with a  more "jibberish " speaking world , thats just what we need, and to do that to you at age 17, well thats almost child abuse , and remember "the family that prays together is brainwashing their kids"  now wheres my "Astra" with custom roof racks !!!


----------



## weird (25 May 2009)

darkside said:


> And what a wonderfull gift that would be , can you imagine how great a world it would be with a  more "jibberish " speaking world , thats just what we need, and to do that to you at age 17, well thats almost child abuse , and remember "the family that prays together is brainwashing their kids"  now wheres my "Astra" with custom roof racks !!!




lol, no did that stint on my own, just a curious lad, no family involved there.

Just an experimental youth. Mind u how quickly we age, that was 20 years ago !


----------



## Sean K (25 May 2009)

MS+Tradesim said:


> So on topic...why religion?
> 
> Post inception, there are probably as many reasons as there are believers in the different religions. Some are born into one, indoctrinated and never question. Some are cultural 'believers' who belong to a certain religion in the same way that they belong to a certain society or country - it's just part of their life, not deeply held but providing some social or psychological value. Others are raised with one religion or no religion and have an experience or journey which they interpret in a way that causes them to brace another religion. Some question long held beliefs and actually embrace a different religion for intellectual reasons. Some are raised in a religion and life experiences force them to confront their beliefs - they might reject all religion, or construct a new belief system that helps them to better cope with the existential crisis, or they might come to a new deeply understood grasp and appreciation of their own religion. Some will use religion in their lust for control and power. No question. But that type of person is just as likely to  be found in any ideology, including the secular.
> 
> ...



Yes, this was going off topic, but not unexpected.

So, to summarise a couple of reasons for religion here:

Cultural and social indoctination/framework.
To cope with existential crisis.
A process-derived artifact of human development. (might need to expand on this MS&T)
There is/are supernatural entities interacting within this universe.
A natural desire to search for something higher. (do you mean this to be related to the point directly proceeding?)


----------



## weird (25 May 2009)

kennas said:


> Yes, this was going off topic, but not unexpected.
> 
> So, to summarise a couple of reasons for religion here:
> 
> ...




Disagree, 

Religion is more looking at something structured as opposed to new fad/unstructured, not been tested as having fundamental principles, and also having principles as opposed to being some animal which is just self-serving, and fundamentally acknowledging ... we don't know ****.


----------



## beamstas (25 May 2009)

"Ignorance is bliss"


People say they don't like religious folk preaching to them, so why do atheist feel they have to preach their belief? 

I don't think the issue here is religous people. 99% are regular people who are just the same as everyone else. No religious person is better than a non-religous person. We are all made of the same stuff, we all think the same thoughts (or similar), There are no differences.

The small majority of religous people make a bad name for everyone

Maybe we could change the topic to "Why Blacks?"

Im not being racst here. Black people could be attributed to gang related murders all across the u.s. Im sure only a small percentage of black people are bad people too, but that small percentage of people gives a bad name for the rest of them.


It is not the stereotype you fall under that determines whether you are a good person or not. Athiest, Christian, Catholic, Whatever you are, each type of religion (yes athiesm is a religion too.. a set of beliefs you hold about something) will have bad people and good people. Religous people may sit back and think that all non-believers are bad people too. Im sure all you people out there who don't believe in anything would be thinking that they are good people. They probably are! 

I think if you want to look at this topic you need to push through the arrogance and ignorance. Each "set" of people, no matter how you label them, will have good people and bad people. 

Don't give the majority a bad name because of the actions of a minority.

All people are created equal, and i don't care what you try and tell me otherwise. I don't care if you are religous or not, in my eyes you are still a human being who is prone to the same human nature as the next person.

Brad


----------



## Sean K (25 May 2009)

weird said:


> Disagree,
> 
> Religion is more looking at something structured as opposed to new fad/unstructured, not been tested as having fundamental principles, and also having principles as opposed to being some animal which is just self-serving, and fundamentally acknowledging ... we don't know ****.



Which of MS&T's points do you disagree with?


----------



## Sean K (25 May 2009)

beamstas said:


> "Ignorance is bliss"
> 
> 
> People say they don't like religious folk preaching to them, so why do atheist feel they have to preach their belief?
> ...



Brad, what's your point regarding why do we have religion? I've missed it in there. 'Human nature' perhaps. Or, is that just a general comment on previous chatter?


----------



## MS+Tradesim (25 May 2009)

kennas said:


> A process-derived artifact of human development. (might need to expand on this MS&T)




If there is no god (or gods), then religion must be a product or adapation of evolution or some other complex process in nature. However, if there is a god (of some kind), a person who rejects the supernatural prior to the fact, will be forced to conclude that religion is nothing more than some kind of evolutionary development.

There has been some fascinating movement in ethnography along these lines. The standard position of western academia is that of methodological naturalism (MN), or the presupposition of an atheistic universe. Ethnographers, like other social scientists, are trained to assess everything on the basis that it all must have a natural explanation. But a number of them, due to their experiences with non-western societies, have rejected this presupposition and exposed it for what it is - a kind of cultural imperialism, the belief that all other societies and worldviews are subject to and assessable by MN.



> There is/are supernatural entities interacting within this universe.
> A natural desire to search for something higher. (do you mean this to be related to the point directly proceeding?)




Yes. The second point might flow naturally from the first. If there is an interactive god, humans are religious because they were designed to look for something (or someone) beyond themselves.


----------



## darkside (25 May 2009)

Beamstas, well said and some good points , but just to clarify my stand  I see so many religionists rant and rave about how Atheists are “not tolerant of believers and have no respect for their faith”.  To non believers this claim is absurd.  For intolerance of various religions is the foundation of Judaism, Christianity, Muslim and many other orthodox communities.  Matter of fact, the Bible and Pentateuch commands religious intolerance in MANY verses, even to the point of KILLING people for their beliefs.


----------



## beamstas (25 May 2009)

kennas said:


> Brad, what's your point regarding why do we have religion? I've missed it in there. 'Human nature' perhaps. Or, is that just a general comment on previous chatter?




Just a comment regarding previous chatter

Here is a quote that i think people may find of interest -

"Or how can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take out the speck that is in your eye,' when you yourself do not see the log that is in your own eye?"


----------



## Julia (25 May 2009)

Well, it never fails, does it!  If you want to stir up the masses, just start a thread on religion.   


bassmanpete said:


> Lots of people do the right thing because it's the right thing to do - god doesn't come into it.






weird said:


> I'm a practicing Catholic, why religion ? ... for anyone  practicing any religion you will get many answers, one for myself that comes to mind is that it centers me, and also helps me see the best in humanity and appreciate nature, and also understand my flaws, and try to better myself.



Fair enough, weird.  But it's entirely possible for human beings to do all that you have suggested above with no adherence to religion whatever.









weird said:


> Animal drive for the survival of oneself to procreate or perhaps the survival for the entire community, why is any variation of this broken ?
> 
> Some broken circuity with the structured but genetic soup which will self-correct ?
> 
> ...



Heavens, weird, what happened between your earlier post and this one?
Any chance of a translation?



ColB said:


> Jeesus!!  Starting to get a bit lost here Weird.  Forget points 1-3 but could you please expand on 4-5 with some example/s to quantify exactly what you're getting at.  I'm starting to think that maybe I have lost my way and need salvation.  I mean the Bible has an answer for everything doesn't it?
> 
> eg: Life without religion = "belief driven by chaos and unstructured self-discovery"







RamonR said:


> I see how you misunderstood my post.
> I did not mean to indicate a correlation between epilepsy and schizophrenia, instead I was stating that in my experience there is a much higher correlation between being very religious and schizophrenia.
> 
> Before anyone takes offense I am not inferring that you have to be crazy to believe in god



I remember an interesting conversation with a forensically detained schizophrenic who was convinced he was Jesus Christ.   That was clearly a delusion rather than a correlation between schizophrenia and religion.

What evidence do you have for this?   I'm not saying it's not true, just that I've never heard of it.  Are you suggesting a causal relationship from one or the other? If so how is this postulated to work?


----------



## Sean K (25 May 2009)

Julia said:


> Well, it never fails, does it!  If you want to stir up the masses, just start a thread on religion.



 Yes, Julia, always seems to work. I was getting a bit bored just sitting on the beach reading books all day..


----------



## beamstas (25 May 2009)

darkside said:


> Beamstas, well said and some good points , but just to clarify my stand  I see so many religionists rant and rave about how Atheists are “not tolerant of believers and have no respect for their faith”.  To non believers this claim is absurd.  For intolerance of various religions is the foundation of Judaism, Christianity, Muslim and many other orthodox communities.  Matter of fact, the Bible and Pentateuch commands religious intolerance in MANY verses, even to the point of KILLING people for their beliefs.




Let's not turn this into a debate

But just let me point out one piece of history that you may find interesting.

Many religous people were killed throughout history if they were even found in possesion of a bible, or a single book of the bible.

As you can see, things go both ways again. 

That is why i posted this

_"Or how can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take out the speck that is in your eye,' when you yourself do not see the log that is in your own eye?" _

I don't care what religion you are (or none at all), you can't go around looking for a speck of sawdust in some one else's eye when you have a log coming out of your own eye. Im sure everyone can grasp why i have quoted this. I could sit here all night picking holes every religous, atheists and whatever else'ists views, But i won't, because then i'll be finding a speck of sawdust in someone elses eye when i have a log coming out of mine. 

Im not going to lean to one side or the other here. I am nuetral in this topic and will remain that way. I am simply trying to point out that both sides can sit here basically forever and point the finger at each other, and never really work anything out. I don't want anything to do with that.

Cheers
Brad


----------



## weird (25 May 2009)

Always love your posts Julia, you are a logical, pacifying and lovely force ... one I would never want to recon with, unless you tell me what bottle to bring over first, again we may leave to agree and disagree but still remain as friends ... cool person.


----------



## Julia (25 May 2009)

kennas said:


> Yes, Julia, always seems to work. I was getting a bit bored just sitting on the beach reading books all day..



I considered asking whether you were experiencing a period of existential angst, Kennas, so am relieved to know it's merely boredom.
When we return to the theme of "Why Homosexuality" I might reconsider.


----------



## Sean K (25 May 2009)

I found this article some time ago and found it quite interesting. Takes a little while to get into it, but worth a read.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/04/m...d=1&adxnnlx=1198041076-kbd5/ mI61KP62dWEBFr6Q


----------



## darkside (25 May 2009)

beamstas said:


> Let's not turn this into a debate
> 
> But just let me point out one piece of history that you may find interesting.
> 
> ...




Brad, your historical facts serve you correct, Christians  were killed for their beliefs, but not by Atheists, but once again more religious Zealots who did not share their beliefs, but held to the fact that they must kill anyone that did not pray to their “gods” , mind you, martyrdom was quite popular back then as it promised a way better afterlife


----------



## Tink (25 May 2009)

well said Beamstas, they are called extremists - be it religious, political...same deal..


----------



## MS+Tradesim (25 May 2009)

darkside said:


> Brad, your historical facts serve you correct, Christians  were killed for their beliefs, but not by Atheists, but once again more religious Zealots who did not share their beliefs, but held to the fact that they must kill anyone that did not pray to their “gods” ,



 

RUDOLPH J. RUMMEL, b, 1932, BA and MA from the University of Hawaii (1959, 1961); Ph.D. in Political Science (Northwestern University, 1963);Taught at Indiana University (1963), Yale (1964-66), University of Hawaii (1966-1995); now Professor Emeritus of Political Science, University of Hawaii.

Rummel has spent years working on the democide project and as a side-effect of his research, it can be reasonably demonstrated that the popular myth of religious destructiveness is just that, a popular myth.  Secular states in the 20th century make any religious inspired efforts at destruction look like child's play.

Attached pics from Rummel's site - simple summaries of his documented work on the site.

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/welcome.html

Kennas, your article was an interesting read.


----------



## Bobby (26 May 2009)

Religion is a form of delusion and those who suffer it are pawns of that self manipulation .

Was fed the garbage when young & evolved quickly enough to be able to think rationally .
Hate & religion go hand in hand , history is proof .


----------



## weird (26 May 2009)

Bobby said:


> Religion is a form of delusion and those who suffer it are pawns of that self manipulation .
> 
> Was fed the garbage when young & evolved quickly enough to be able to think rationally .
> Hate & religion go hand in hand , history is proof .




thanks Bobby, summarize your beliefs in 1000 words or less, which we should all adhere too.

I'm a graduate of engineering and marketing, and was taught in one  psych class, 10 rules, which mimic the 10 commandments, or we could go back to the basic golden rule, however as mentioned before this is not the reality we live in, it is only in some societies, do not blind yourself to how the entire world is evolving, it is not how it is reported on the news.


----------



## Bobby (26 May 2009)

weird said:


> thanks Bobby, summarize your beliefs in 1000 words or less, which we should all adhere too.
> 
> I'm a graduate of engineering and marketing, and was taught in one  psych class, 10 rules, which mimic the 10 commandments, or we could go back to the basic golden rule, however as mentioned before this is not the reality we live in, it is only in some societies, do not blind yourself to how the entire world is evolving, it is not how it is reported on the news.




That was kinda nice , blessing's be on you  
Take it you survived the predators then ?


----------



## Solly (26 May 2009)

*"Rudd starts every day with prayers"*

PM says religion keeps him grounded. 

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25538271-5007133,00.html

What possibly could go wrong now.


----------



## Sean K (26 May 2009)

Solly said:


> PM says religion keeps him grounded.



I'll add 'keeps people grounded' to the list of reasons.

I have seen this concept mentioned before slightly twisted. Religion prvides a framework of moral laws by which to live your life. If you can't be bothered making your own up, or a bit on the dark side of the force, this does make some sence. 

Personally, I like to make my own up according to my own environment and culture. Not what was right in the deserts of Western Asia milleniums past. 

However, it's a reason for religion, for sure.


----------



## Trevor_S (26 May 2009)




----------



## metric (26 May 2009)

did this happen to rudd? is this how his wife got 200 million from controllable government contracts?



> Q: As we talk here, I get the feeling that you have some experience with Vatican recruiting methods””undertaken, of course, through many lower-level cut-outs.
> 
> A: You’re right. I do. It’s in the area of making lay-Catholics into agents. I have known several people who were approached. The basic routine went like this. A Catholic businessman in a large city is contacted by the local chapter of one of those Catholic groups. There are scores of them. They have different names. They all seem benign or charitable or merely honorary.






> Q: So this businessman goes to a meeting.
> 
> A: Sure. A lunch, a meeting. He ends up joining the group. He’s already a successful man. Very energetic and ambitious. Wants to get ahead. So, after a year or so, an opportunity is placed in his path. One of his new friends in the group introduces him to a loan officer at a bank, and before you know it, he gets cash to expand his business. Things are starting to cook. This is a fairly slow process, and at every step the businessman (or politician and his businessman wife) is vetted. Loosely, because nothing has really happened yet. But after another year or two, he acquires a partner in a new venture. The partner is also a member of this lay-Catholic club. The new venture prospers. The businessman meets the local bishop. He is nominated for some kind of layman of the year award. He doesn’t win, but his profile is raised. After years of not going to church, he now goes. He even receives confession once a month. After three or four years, he is introduced to a “financial expert” who is also from the same local group. The expert is really a Jesuit, but very few people know that. The Jesuit becomes his friend. He takes him on a trip to Rome, and they have an audience with a cardinal. Brief. On and on it goes. The businessman is vetted every step of the way. He buys into a construction company. He is now becoming rich. He doesn’t think much about it, but his new lifestyle is really dependent on his acquired Catholic friends. And all they have done for him. He of course would never want to give up the new lifestyle.


----------



## metric (26 May 2009)

sound familliar...?



> And ten years later this man is really all the way in the pocket of his Jesuit friend. And in the case I’m describing, we eventually get to political office. Running for office. And winning.






> And down the road, with a lot of money in the bank, and many political favors later, this businessman is offered a post in a federal agency. Has to do with foreign trade. He takes the job, on the strong recommendation of his Jesuit friend. And finally, after several more turns of the wheel which I won’t describe, this businessman becomes an ambassador. And is completely beholden. He takes orders, although he may not think of it that way. And he is an agent. He passes along information to his friend. Lots of information. And he becomes trusted. And now he is told of a larger program. It involves making the Church more prominent in the lives of many people. The expansion of the influence of the Church-because that’s really what it’s all about, isn’t it? And this businessman joins another Catholic group, and is made a knight. The businessman is never considered to be an insider, because he has certain scruples. So he is used as he can be used. And one day, for three minutes, he meets the Pope, as part of a group.


----------



## metric (26 May 2009)

> And one day, for three minutes, he meets the Pope, as part of a group.


----------



## Sean K (26 May 2009)

Metric, please provide links to the quotes. 

Thanks.


----------



## RamonR (26 May 2009)

Julia said:


> I remember an interesting conversation with a forensically detained schizophrenic who was convinced he was Jesus Christ.   That was clearly a delusion rather than a correlation between schizophrenia and religion.
> 
> What evidence do you have for this?   I'm not saying it's not true, just that I've never heard of it.  Are you suggesting a causal relationship from one or the other? If so how is this postulated to work?




What I am saying from my 24 years of experience in mental health is that religious delusions are very common amongst schizophrenics.

I don't understand why you do not see this as a correlation between schizophrenia and being highly religious, just because it has been labeled a delusion.


----------



## metric (26 May 2009)

the article traces back to ...www.scribd.com/word/removal/7197144 

however, the site no longer has the article....it says, 







> This content was removed by the Scribd copyright management system.




the article is on 

http://www.peasantresearch.com/test...74&t=1853&start=0&hilit=how+the+vatican+works 

but you must register to view.......thats why i didnt show a link. im cautious that i'll get accused of my links being called spam...instead of links..

i can copy and paste the full article if anyone would like it...
.


----------



## bowman (26 May 2009)

Religion is not funny and neither is Rove.


----------



## metric (26 May 2009)

bowman said:


> Religion is not funny and neither is Rove.






> He attended Orana Catholic Primary School and Corpus Christi College, Bateman.




great observation bowman....


----------



## bowman (26 May 2009)

LOL

I knew there was a fit there somewhere.

I had the misfortune of 3 years of boarding in a Catholic school.

Totally screwed up my formative years and I think I'm still in recovery in some ways.


----------



## metric (26 May 2009)

still digging...

hes done a lot in a short time with no talent...



> Rove McManus on offending viewers
> "People said because I am Catholic it was disgraceful that I made jokes about the Pope, but to me, if I am a Catholic, I can laugh at it."






> Worst guest
> American comedian Scott Capurro talked in 2001 about having sex with the Virgin Mary. "Until this day, there are parts of me that will never be OK with that incident."






> With a tonight show as its flagship, Rove McManus created a youthful media empire. .






> But look below the surface and you'll find a successful businessman (ranked nine on last year's BRW rich entertainers list),






> McManus's television career began at community TV Channel 31




http://www.smh.com.au/news/TV--Radio/Knight-of-nights/2005/03/24/1111525274115.html



> Channel 31 community TV in Brisbane. RCTA is a local non-profit Catholic spiritual apostolate.




http://www.rcta.com.au/RCTADonorAppeal.pdf


.


----------



## Sean K (26 May 2009)

Any addition to *why* we have religion out of all that?


----------



## mastatrada (26 May 2009)

I think it is a case of the tail wagging the dog to say that religion is the cause of wars- human nature is the cause of wars and religion is just another excuse to kill each other. The fervour of the masses is manipulated by cunning politicians such as Islamic imams and the pope, but usually just to expand their own power base and wealth.


----------



## metric (26 May 2009)

kennas said:


> Any addition to *why* we have religion out of all that?




it is as its always been. someone looking to profit from confusion and ignorance. science cant answer everything and 'god done it' fills the void.

ive no doubt that the ignorant status quo of the masses is promoted by religion. scientific advances are smothered, new technologies are hidden, and religious stooges (or the beholden) are advanced in business, entertainment and politics.

.


----------



## Sean K (26 May 2009)

metric said:


> it is as its always been. someone looking to profit from confusion and ignorance. science cant answer everything and 'god done it' fills the void.
> 
> ive no doubt that the ignorant status quo of the masses is promoted by religion. scientific advances are smothered, new technologies are hidden, and religious stooges (or the beholden) are advanced in business, entertainment and politics.
> 
> .




So:



> someone looking to profit from confusion and ignorance.




I can't see that from what you posted, but OK.


I'm sure some of the gazillion dollar born again TV evangelists in the US suit this.

So, it's a profit stream. 

On the list.


----------



## metric (26 May 2009)

kennas said:


> So:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





im saying they PROMOTE confusion and ignorance. 



> The very atmosphere in which the Vatican thrives. Chaos ALWAYS equals new followers who are looking for a way to assuage their fear.



http://www.peasantresearch.com/test...jfile=viewtopic.php&f=74&t=1853&hilit=vatican


----------



## Sean K (26 May 2009)

metric said:


> im saying they PROMOTE confusion and ignorance.
> 
> http://www.peasantresearch.com/test...jfile=viewtopic.php&f=74&t=1853&hilit=vatican



OK, I'll add that.

They PROMOTE confusion and ignorance. (from metric)

So, how much do we have to pay to join this web site metric?


----------



## metric (26 May 2009)

kennas said:


> OK, I'll add that.
> 
> They PROMOTE confusion and ignorance. (from metric)
> 
> So, how much do we have to pay to join this web site metric?




its free mate...lol

i suspect a few asf members are also members there....



.


----------



## Sith1s (26 May 2009)

You all need to see the light of the true Creator!

I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.

Some find that hard to believe, so it may be helpful to tell you a little more about our beliefs. We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written accounts of it. We have several lengthy volumes explaining all details of His power. Also, you may be surprised to hear that there are over 10 million of us, and growing. We tend to be very secretive, as many people claim our beliefs are not substantiated by observable evidence. What these people don’t understand is that He built the world to make us think the earth is older than it really is. For example, a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this. He is of course invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease.

It is absolutely imperative that they realize that observable evidence is at the discretion of a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Furthermore, it is disrespectful to teach our beliefs without wearing His chosen outfit, which of course is full pirate regalia. I cannot stress the importance of this enough, and unfortunately cannot describe in detail why this must be done as I fear this letter is already becoming too long. The concise explanation is that He becomes angry if we don’t.

You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. For your interest, I have included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature.







In conclusion, thank you for taking the time to hear our views and beliefs. 

P.S. I have included an artistic drawing of Him creating a mountain, trees, and a midget. Remember, we are all His creatures.


----------



## Sean K (26 May 2009)

Sith1s said:


> You all need to see the light of the true Creator!
> 
> I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.



Thanks Sith1s,

So, why does the Flying Spaghetti Monster exist?

That is the question.

He does exist? Or, is he created by someone else? Or what?


----------



## Sith1s (26 May 2009)

He exists and we have numerous texts proving that he exists!

Infact he's watching over us all.

I'm sure you as have I have had many times when you've had a close call where he has influenced the outcome with His Noodley Appendages.


----------



## Sith1s (26 May 2009)

But to answer your question logically..

He exists simply because we believe he does.  Isn't that the same regardless of chosen said diety.  Regardless of who or what you believe in and what texts, books, "proof or evidence" you may have.

I think it just comes down to that.

Now how the said diety is created or comes into fruition, there's another debate.  I mean who would own up to founding Scientology or Christianity and be able to have a logical, reasonable discussion without the fanatical talk.

Oh you do not support our beliefs, therefore you're a non believer.  

I hope i'm making sence as i feel i'm going around in circles.


----------



## Sean K (26 May 2009)

Sith1s said:


> But to answer your question logically..
> 
> He exists simply because we believe he does.  Isn't that the same regardless of chosen said diety.  Regardless of who or what you believe in and what texts, books, "proof or evidence" you may have.



I'm trying to get a handle on this to condense it into a statement.

Please help me.

He exists because we believe he does?

Is this some sort of deep emotional/psychological/spiritual enlightenment experience? Like being born again?

But, why?


----------



## Sith1s (26 May 2009)

> He exists because we believe he does?




I think that somes it up in one line.

What is a diety without anyone to worship or follow them?

Thoughts?


----------



## Sean K (26 May 2009)

Sith1s said:


> I think that somes it up in one line.
> 
> What is a diety without anyone to worship or follow them?
> 
> Thoughts?



I'm confused.

Either, you're saying he created us to worship Him.

or,

We created Him in our own image.


I saw a great quote about God and who he was recently.

It said, 

'If we were triangles, then God would be eminently triangular'...


Still, off topic a bit.


----------



## Sith1s (26 May 2009)

I'm more inclined to go with the latter of the two.  That we created him in our own image/imagination.

I mean there are so many faiths out there how can we all be right?

Just my opinion


----------



## Sean K (26 May 2009)

Sith1s said:


> I mean there are so many faiths out there how can we all be right?
> 
> Just my opinion



Nice point.

Can we count the ways?

There are too many existing dieties to list right now.

Or, are they all the one and the same?


They might be, except for blind dogmatic faith crippling us.


Still off topic.


----------



## Sith1s (26 May 2009)

> Or, are they all the one and the same?
> 
> 
> They might be, except for blind dogmatic faith crippling us.





Exactly!

They probably are. (Getting extremely off topic now ) I mean take Christianity for example.  There are probably at least 12 different variations. (Methodist, Catholic, Protestant ect)

Well if you want my personal opinion it's not a matter who or what your faith is, I think it's just the fact you have faith...

I mean you could believe that a Flying Spagetti Monster created the world!


----------



## Sean K (26 May 2009)

Sith1s said:


> Exactly!
> 
> They probably are. (Getting extremely off topic now ) I mean take Christianity for example.  There are probably at least 12 different variations. (Methodist, Catholic, Protestant ect)
> 
> ...



Do you see a common denominator drawing all the 'faiths' together? 

This is probably going to add quite some weight to the 'why' factor of religion. 

You say 'faith', but that's pretty vague. What is it, and why? 


(sidebar: 12 different Christian faiths? Could be in the hundreds by now....)


----------



## Sith1s (26 May 2009)

Good question!

Will have to put some thought into it and will post later.  (At work at the moment)

Will post later this arvo, but enjoying the discussion!


----------



## jonojpsg (26 May 2009)

dhukka said:


> This is the kind of nonsense that separates religious zealots from regular rational people.




How exactly does that make me a religious zealot?  Because I believe that a practically infinite universe, if created by a preexisting being, must have been created by a being of unimaginable power.  How does that make me a zealot?

I'm a perfectly rational regular person - I just happen to believe in one God.


----------



## Tink (26 May 2009)

If you dont have 'faith' you dont have much...
Faith equals belief in many things.....even in yourself..

Do you always need proof for everything you believe?

Religion/Spirituality - science - medical - they all have their place..
I dont see everything so black and white as what you do...


----------



## Sith1s (26 May 2009)

kennas said:


> Do you see a common denominator drawing all the 'faiths' together?
> 
> This is probably going to add quite some weight to the 'why' factor of religion.
> 
> ...




Here's my reply (after much thought)

What my definition of faith is...  A belief in someone/something that ultimately has a greater plan for us & that realistically we have no control over our own destiny.  I mean how often have you heard that we are all part of God's plan.  Or God has a plan.

Why we have faith?
Why else but to explain things that we cannot logically explain?  Some questions that come to mind are... Why am I here?  What is my purpose?  Why did I survive that horrible car accident (it must have been an act of God)

But what is the common thing that draws them all together... Haven't figured that one out yet.

What do you think Kennas?


----------



## Sith1s (26 May 2009)

Tink said:


> If you dont have 'faith' you dont have much...
> Faith equals belief in many things.....even in yourself..
> 
> Do you always need proof for everything you believe?
> ...




Tink what I think we're getting at is not the proof of what you believe in, but why do people believe.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (26 May 2009)

Sith1s said:


> Tink what I think we're getting at is not the proof of what you believe in, but why do people believe.




Mate I've read your above posts.

Many years ago I was travelling through India and as the servants were tired from pushing the car, stopped beside a holy man's cave.

As they prepared the tent and meal, I asked him,

What is the secret of life?

And he said Spaghetti.

So it must be true.

gg


----------



## Sith1s (26 May 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Mate I've read your above posts.
> 
> Many years ago I was travelling through India and as the servants were tired from pushing the car, stopped beside a holy man's cave.
> 
> ...




Then that must be it!

And to think the so called global warming problem could be solved by simply increasing the number of pirates around the world.  I even have a graph so it must be true! :  (going incredibly off topic)

Perhaps i should be posting in your climate change weather thread?


----------



## AlterEgo (26 May 2009)

kennas said:


> You say 'faith', but that's pretty vague. What is it, and why?




Faith is believing something that has not been proved. ie. assuming something is true, even if there is no evidence to support it - which can be a very dangerous thing.


----------



## AlterEgo (26 May 2009)

Tink said:


> If you dont have 'faith' you dont have much...
> Faith equals belief in many things.....even in yourself..




But what if your belief is wrong? If there is no proof, then your assumption is most likely to be wrong.



Tink said:


> Do you always need proof for everything you believe?




How can you believe something without proof??!! I find that absolutely incredible!! And *why* would you believe something that has no proof? Just believing something doesn't make it true. Just imagine what sort of state our justice system would be in if it relied on 'belief' rather than 'proof' for determining guilt!


----------



## MS+Tradesim (26 May 2009)

AlterEgo said:


> But what if your belief is wrong? If there is no proof, then your assumption is most likely to be wrong.




It does not follow from a lack of proof (or rather evidence) supporting an assumption to the conclusion that the assumption is wrong. At worst, one can rationally doubt. At best, one could believe tentatively and still be rational.



> How can you believe something without proof??!! I find that absolutely incredible!! And *why* would you believe something that has no proof?




Humans do it every day. There is no proof the sun will rise tomorrow. Just the  repeated past making it statistically likely that it will. There is no proof that on the assumption of a purely material universe (no transcendant entities) that our belief forming faculties are geared at arriving at truth. Yet every day humans make decisions and inferences on the belief that they are acting on what is true and that they are coming to true conclusions. 



> Just believing something doesn't make it true.




True. As with its reverse. Just disbelieving something does not make it untrue.



> Just imagine what sort of state our justice system would be in if it relied on 'belief' rather than 'proof' for determining guilt!




How many cases are decided on the basis of testimony when forensic evidence is lacking or inconclusive? Testimony is the belief of the witness. It is not forensic evidence. Part of the process is determining whether a witness's testimony (beliefs about a situation) is credible. The decision maker (judge or jury) then need to form beliefs about what happened, based on other people's beliefs.


----------



## AlterEgo (26 May 2009)

MS+Tradesim said:


> True. As with its reverse. Just disbelieving something does not make it untrue.




Of course not. I agree with you.




MS+Tradesim said:


> How many cases are decided on the basis of testimony when forensic evidence is lacking or inconclusive? Testimony is the belief of the witness. It is not forensic evidence. Part of the process is determining whether a witness's testimony (beliefs about a situation) is credible. The decision maker (judge or jury) then need to form beliefs about what happened, based on other people's beliefs.




True, "beyond reasonable doubt". *Reasonable *being the operative word.

If someone came before court today making similar claims to what is in the bible, ie, that he is the son of god and has risen from the dead, etc, would you regard his testimony as credible? If not, then how could you regard some document written 1000's of years ago as any more credible than him? Why don’t people subject the bible to the same level of scrutiny as they would subject this person to?


----------



## MS+Tradesim (26 May 2009)

AlterEgo said:


> True, "beyond reasonable doubt". *Reasonable *being the operative word.




"Beyond reasonable doubt" is a subjective concept based on the belief that  a human with normally functioning cognitive abilities will come to conclude a given thing. This is based on the belief that normal cognitive function is geared towards discovering truth. It's hopelessly circular at its core. But we rely on it because it's the best we have. 



> Why don’t people subject the bible to the same level of scrutiny as they would subject this person to?




Some of us have. I have my beliefs based on research and experience. But I'm not going to enter a protracted debate here about philosophy of religion, epistemology, historiography and textual criticism. I'm not here to argue for any religious position. My more modest goal is to offer some balance in a topic which is more often marked by dogmatism on both sides.


----------



## RamonR (26 May 2009)

Sith1s said:


> Then that must be it!
> 
> And to think the so called global warming problem could be solved by simply increasing the number of pirates around the world.  I even have a graph so it must be true! :  (going incredibly off topic)
> 
> Perhaps i should be posting in your climate change weather thread?




I disagree with this this theory.
Pirate attacks have increased dramatically off late but I see no signs of climate cooling


----------



## Temjin (26 May 2009)

Self-esteem and religion DO NOT MIX.

You cannot claim yourself to have a high self-esteem and be extremely faithful to a religion at the same time, period. 

This is why objectivism flourish amoung the younger population who rejects religion as a form of value/beliefs. 

To sacrifice for others selflessly and to reject greed as being immoral would automatically mean all the economic achievements gained through the application of captialism since the industrial ages are done through "immoral" acts, and therefore, should be rejected.

It's funny how some people who embrace religion are adhered to their set of virtue codes but do not see the positive side of those "immoral" thinking. 

Ahhh, I'm married with a modified Objectivism view now.


----------



## Sith1s (26 May 2009)

RamonR said:


> I disagree with this this theory.
> Pirate attacks have increased dramatically off late but I see no signs of climate cooling




Since you've brought this up, try this link.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23583376-7583,00.html

Proof that we may actually be heading towards global cooling! :


On topic though - if you look hard enough people will always have a way to provide some kind of proof or evidence for their beliefs...


----------



## jonojpsg (26 May 2009)

AlterEgo said:


> If someone came before court today making similar claims to what is in the bible, ie, that he is the son of god and has risen from the dead, etc, would you regard his testimony as credible? If not, then how could you regard some document written 1000's of years ago as any more credible than him? Why don’t people subject the bible to the same level of scrutiny as they would subject this person to?




Jesus did not make that claim without backing it up though - at the time there were plenty of eyewitnesses to his miracles which he referred to when claiming that he was the son of God.  This is the whole basis for the Bible, the *fact* that there were eyewitness accounts of what happened, from a range of sources; and also that completely separate (both in time (over 1000 years!!!) and space) documents all consistently refer to Jesus and his miracles.  Take that to any court today and ask the judge to rule on it


----------



## derty (26 May 2009)

jonojpsg said:


> Jesus did not make that claim without backing it up though - at the time there were plenty of eyewitnesses to his miracles which he referred to when claiming that he was the son of God.  This is the whole basis for the Bible, the *fact* that there were eyewitness accounts of what happened, from a range of sources; and also that completely separate (both in time (over 1000 years!!!) and space) documents all consistently refer to Jesus and his miracles.  Take that to any court today and ask the judge to rule on it



You cannot use a document that proposes the existence of something as the proof of it's existence. The witnesses of Jesus's miracles are contained in the bible. 

Can you provide some links to these completely separate documents that corroborate these miracles?

Also the benefit of doubt may be good enough for the courtroom, but science demands much more, it demands the elimination of doubt.


----------



## MS+Tradesim (26 May 2009)

derty said:


> You cannot use a document that proposes the existence of something as the proof of it's existence.




Really? That would come as a surprise to any classical historian.



> Also the benefit of doubt may be good enough for the courtroom, but science demands much more, it demands the elimination of doubt.




There is no homogenous 'science' that demands any such thing. For example, Karl Popper, the very influential philosopher of science, was instrumental in the rise of the idea within science that a theory is never proven. It is either falsified (then modified or discarded), or remains unfalsified and held with a higher degree of confidence.

This view is exemplified by Stephen Hawking, _"Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory."_ (A Brief History of Time, p.11)

What is ironic is that many claims purportedly countering religion are held with a religious fervour and continue to be believed even when demonstrably false. I don't think questioning _"Why religion?"_ will go far enough without tacit acknowledgement and exploration of the prior _"Why anything?"_


----------



## darkside (26 May 2009)

So Derty , get it out there, are you trying to say that there is no credible scientific or factually reliable evidence for the existence of a god, gods or the supernatural, just a strangle hold of what can only be described as blind faith ?????.
 I'm just trying to clarify a point


----------



## darkside (26 May 2009)

I also see that Benny Hinn, is offering a way out of the financial crisis , by just sending him bucket loads of "happiness" well ok money , he will ensure that your financial woes are taken care of, perhaps if all the storm followers and religious zealots send him truckloads of money all our cares will be swept away. So come on everone PM me your Bank details and i will pass it on to good old Benny, have some blind faith , you know you want to.


----------



## Julia (26 May 2009)

Sith1s said:


> Why did I survive that horrible car accident (it must have been an act of God)



Usually when this is trotted out, the obvious rejoinder is quoted, i.e.
why did he die in that horrible car accident (it must have been an act of God).
In the one instance, God is a loving being who saves us from evil and in the other he is the opposite.




MS+Tradesim said:


> How many cases are decided on the basis of testimony when forensic evidence is lacking or inconclusive? Testimony is the belief of the witness. It is not forensic evidence. Part of the process is determining whether a witness's testimony (beliefs about a situation) is credible. The decision maker (judge or jury) then need to form beliefs about what happened, based on other people's beliefs.



Are we talking about "beliefs" in court?  I don't think so.   Witnesses are called upon to describe what they actually saw, i.e. to present facts.
It doesn't go to their "beliefs" at all.


----------



## beamstas (26 May 2009)

Nothing is going to come of this thread


----------



## weird (26 May 2009)

Julia said:


> Usually when this is trotted out, the obvious rejoinder is quoted, i.e.
> why did he die in that horrible car accident (it must have been an act of God).
> In the one instance, God is a loving being who saves us from evil and in the other he is the opposite.




Death is a horrible experience for the living, I remember having someone in the hospital that was very close, and the thought of their death felt like my insides had been torn out ... literally.

People deal with this everyday, and this is an incredibly sad experience, we all die, perhaps something scientifically may prevent this in the future but it is not here and now, so we can all assume we will die at some point.

Religion can provide some additional strength to cope with this pain. Anti-depressants and counseling can help here too, do what ever is required to get you through it.

I think, if you are religious, and if you have some fortunate luck (perhaps surviving a near death or gaining a job, etc), then you may attribute this to God whether there was any intervention or not, sometimes he may 'intervene', however the inevitable fate of our existence , is that we are human, **** happens, and we die or some other event occurs if not speaking about death.

I can not speak for other religions, but with Christianity, one wants to be prepared for, and accept our inevitable fate. However I want to add, death is probably one of the one difficult things to talk about, and I feel sad just writing this, as I have experienced some of the pain.

Probably not much will come of this thread, however I think we are all searching, and sometimes someone's writing, clicks or gives one an idea to further research something which might help one in their own journey.


----------



## Sean K (26 May 2009)

beamstas said:


> Nothing is going to come of this thread



I am taking notes on *why* there is religion. The rest is interesting banter. 

Maybe you could add something?


----------



## billhill (27 May 2009)

On an evolutionary perspective religions could serve to enhance survival of both individuals and societies. In fact some studies show that religious people live longer then non religious people on average. possibly due to reduced stress although the real factors are unknown. see linkhttp://www.webmd.com/news/20000809/religious-people-live-longer-than-nonbelievers
In the past religions have been very useful in instilling social structure and stability to human populations. It may be that a societies where strong religious systems developed were better able to survive over time and hence this specific genetic or social wiring of the brain becomes common and predisposes populations to believe in religions. 
However i wholly admit that real gods are a possibility and the above hypothesis is wrong.


----------



## nunthewiser (27 May 2009)

kennas said:


> I am taking notes on *why* there is religion. The rest is interesting banter.
> 
> Maybe you could add something?




perhaps its so the masses have something to fight over

intresting link worth checking out the map and the spread


http://www.mapsofwar.com/images/Religion.swf


----------



## motorway (27 May 2009)

Have not read all the thread

Things that tend to generate religion

Self awareness
esp of dreams

ability to identify agency
when  a rock hits you, you look for who threw it

when a wind blows ?
When a storm rages ?

Also connection of death and Life
planting of seeds
eg corn

Able to realize the difference between
A Live Person and a Dead Body

Live Person breathes
with the last exhalation Death

breath = Soul stuff 
When it leaves the body and does not come back
death ----connection to dreams... dream body


When you smash a person open
red stuff flows out person dies

The red stuff drys --- something essential evaporates

red stuff = spirit stuff

Life is breath / Soul
Life is Blood  / Spirit

Spirit in a body is an agent
When  gone agency gone

hmmm Bodies in dreams
Must be spirit/soul stuff 

dream of dead parents children etc
dead animals

agency in world
what causes rain sunshine Thunder
must be same thing that is the creative principle in people

Breath /Soul
Blood / Spirit

Strong emotions cause nightmares
FEAR of place and events ,of strangeness

Evil spirits / Whole supernatural world
springs into being

gods and devils

All things have agency
Good and bad Fortune
Curses
etc

etc etc

And then evolution 
utilizing such resource
social bonding
good and bad
censorship
inhibition ( no good eating oneself to death etc  Taboos )

Good reasons for why religious ideas form 
and once formed made use of and come under natural selection..

whatever provides fitness 

motorway

PS none of the above means religion is false or true



motorway


----------



## disarray (27 May 2009)

motorway posting
insight in a haiku form
genius or nut?


----------



## jonojpsg (27 May 2009)

derty said:


> You cannot use a document that proposes the existence of something as the proof of it's existence. The witnesses of Jesus's miracles are contained in the bible.
> 
> Can you provide some links to these completely separate documents that corroborate these miracles?
> 
> Also the benefit of doubt may be good enough for the courtroom, but science demands much more, it demands the elimination of doubt.




Sorry derty, I should explain that the Bible is actually a compendium of separate documents written by some 30+ authors over a time period of more than 1000 years.  The *fact * that these all corroborate essentially the same story about Jesus is proof enough for me that it is true.

And I think we're getting heaps out of this thread - thanks kennas


----------



## Sith1s (27 May 2009)

jonojpsg said:


> Sorry derty, I should explain that the Bible is actually a compendium of separate documents written by some 30+ authors over a time period of more than 1000 years.  The *fact * that these all corroborate essentially the same story about Jesus is proof enough for me that it is true.
> 
> And I think we're getting heaps out of this thread - thanks kennas




Hey Jono,

I'm trying to understand how the ancient religions came up with their bibles and actually take the text written in them as gospel. (and this isn't personally directed at Christianity or you, but it's the main religion being discussed at the moment)

I mean sure there were 100's of witnesses for the "miracles" performed back then, but how backwards were people back then?

A couple of examples...

The world was still flat.
People actually believed in magic. (I mean we were still burning witches at the stake for practicing witchcraft until a couple of hundred years ago)

And regardless of the time frame, people exagurate stories, even today.  Who lets the truth get in the way of a good story?

How can we take everything that these people wrote so long ago as true?


Once again, it's not an attack on Christianity or your beliefs because everyone is entitled to believe in what they like.  I've always been curious why/how people believe what they do when (in my opinion) most religion is based on an ancient story.


----------



## Sean K (27 May 2009)

Not surprisingly this has developed into a conversation about The Religions of the Book, but let's not forget all those other isms out there. Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, etc, as well as many indigenous and pagan religions/beliefs still practiced today such as those in the Andes and throughout Central America, and by Australian Aboriginals. 

They all probably have a reason for coming into existance. 

Are the gods worshipped by the Incas the same God who sporn JC? If not, why not I wonder.

Just a side point...carry on.


----------



## Sith1s (27 May 2009)

kennas said:


> Not surprisingly this has developed into a conversation about The Religions of the Book, but let's not forget all those other isms out there. Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, etc, as well as many indigenous and pagan religions/beliefs still practiced today such as those in the Andes and throughout Central America, and by Australian Aboriginals.
> 
> They all probably have a reason for coming into existance.
> 
> ...




Kennas i think the main problem you will have in finding a more well rounded answer will be the limited sample of people here and the limited beliefs.

I think it would be fair to say that the main exposure to religion amongst the group here would be Christianity, which is why most of the discussion is directed towards that one religion.

In order to get a more well rounded answer you may have to seek discussion from the more travelled people (I haven't been out of Australia so i can't comment) who have had alot of exposure to other countries cultures.

(Still really enjoying the discussions and ideas though )


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (27 May 2009)

Sith1s said:


> Then that must be it!
> 
> And to think the so called global warming problem could be solved by simply increasing the number of pirates around the world.  I even have a graph so it must be true! :  (going incredibly off topic)
> 
> Perhaps i should be posting in your climate change weather thread?




Both threads are very similar.

Climate change or weather. 
Its a matter of belief. 

We die and go somewhere else or we don't
Its a matter of belief

The godbotherers have their texts extrapolating forward.

The global warmeners have their computer models extrapolating forward.

Weather and the wonders of nature are intertwined.

One does not have to be religious to have a sense of timelessness of the world nor to have a moral compass.

Nor does one need to be a warmener to grow organic veggies, enjoy good food, drink and sex, and care about the environment in which one lives.

Perhaps we should shoot the messengers and start a new Religious/Warmening Church.

For want of a better word I'll call it Garpalchurch.

For a weekly donation of $50 per person or $40 per family, I the Chief Pastor of Garpalchurch will ensure all paid up members of the Church get to heaven, money back guarantee.

I will also ensure that the tides will not rise to wipe out all the mansions of the rich nor inundate the cabins of the poor, and that we will still have weather good and bad.Again a money back guarantee.

To join Garpalchurch please contact me.

gg


----------



## MS+Tradesim (27 May 2009)

Julia said:


> Are we talking about "beliefs" in court?  I don't think so.   Witnesses are called upon to describe what they actually saw, i.e. to present facts. It doesn't go to their "beliefs" at all.




That's a simplistic reduction. Can you explain how a person might be able to describe a bare fact without it being filtered through their cognitive processes and biases? There is no such thing as a brute fact expressed by a person. There is only a perception of an event stored in some form and then recollected.

A witness's memory might be generally reliable but it is not just a regurgitator of facts.


----------



## MS+Tradesim (27 May 2009)

Sith1s said:


> How can we take everything that these people wrote so long ago as true?




There are historigraphical tools and methods which are applied to artifacts from history. They allow one to form an opinion about what happened to a greater or lesser degree of confidence.


----------



## Sith1s (27 May 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Both threads are very similar.
> 
> Climate change or weather.
> Its a matter of belief.
> ...






So long as you make every Friday a religious holiday I'm in.  I'll then declare as this is a sacred day for me that I cannot work on my holy day. If the boss tries to deny it i'll cause a massive fuss and say they're discriminating against my religion!  Sound familiar?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (27 May 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Both threads are very similar.
> 
> Climate change or weather.
> Its a matter of belief.
> ...






Sith1s said:


> So long as you make every Friday a religious holiday I'm in.  I'll then declare as this is a sacred day for me that I cannot work on my holy day. If the boss tries to deny it i'll cause a massive fuss and say they're discriminating against my religion!  Sound familiar?




Sith1s,

May I ask you to close your eyes, you may leave your monitor on, but take your hands off the keyboard and place them on your knees, the right upon the right and the left upon the left.

Repeat after me.

" I Sith1s, agree to become the first bishop of Garpalchurch in the bishopric of ( put in where you live) and to uphold the tenets of Garpalchurch, the first being that henceforth all Fridays will be for the observance of Garpalchurch's sacred mission, it being a sin to work upon a Friday"

Then take your hands from your knees and place it upon your keyboard. You are now the first bishop of Garpalchurch.

Once we have a dozen members I'll apply for tax exempt staus.

gg


----------



## Struzball (27 May 2009)

MS+Tradesim said:


> There are historigraphical tools and methods which are applied to artifacts from history. They allow one to form an opinion about what happened to a greater or lesser degree of confidence.




So when the evidence points against the bible..  (world is round, people evolved were not created) How can we take everything that these people wrote so long ago as true?


----------



## MS+Tradesim (27 May 2009)

Struzball said:


> So when the evidence points against the bible..  (world is round, people evolved were not created) How can we take everything that these people wrote so long ago as true?




This is a complex question based on caricatured assumptions. Similar to expecting "yes" or "no" as a response to "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

For one, where did I claim that everything they wrote is true? And why would I proceed on the basis that everything in the bible must be factually true or false without respect for genre, culture, idiom, intent, etc?

I refer you back to my statement that you quoted. There are tools that allow one to form historical hypotheses.


----------



## Struzball (27 May 2009)

MS+Tradesim said:


> This is a complex question based on caricatured assumptions. Similar to expecting "yes" or "no" as a response to "Have you stopped beating your wife?"
> 
> For one, where did I claim that everything they wrote is true? And why would I proceed on the basis that everything in the bible must be factually true or false without respect for genre, culture, idiom, intent, etc?
> 
> I refer you back to my statement that you quoted. There are tools that allow one to form historical hypotheses.




So to sum it up, you have faith.  And I don't think any of us could argue with that (just wouldn't agree with it).


----------



## AlterEgo (27 May 2009)

MS+Tradesim said:


> Some of us have. I have my beliefs based on research and experience. But I'm not going to enter a protracted debate here about philosophy of religion, epistemology, historiography and textual criticism. I'm not here to argue for any religious position. My more modest goal is to offer some balance in a topic which is more often marked by dogmatism on both sides.




Fair enough. All I'm trying to get across is that people shouldn't be mindless sheep believing everything they hear without question. I'm not just referring to religion, but every facet of our lives. We shouldn't automatically believe what our politicians tell us, what rumours our friends have heard, what ancient writing say, etc, without questioning.


----------



## AlterEgo (27 May 2009)

jonojpsg said:


> Jesus did not make that claim without backing it up though - at the time there were plenty of eyewitnesses to his miracles which he referred to when claiming that he was the son of God.  This is the whole basis for the Bible, the *fact* that there were eyewitness accounts of what happened, from a range of sources; and also that completely separate (both in time (over 1000 years!!!) and space) documents all consistently refer to Jesus and his miracles.  Take that to any court today and ask the judge to rule on it




Well I was trying to remain objective in what I was saying and avoid taking sides, but that drivel is complete rubbish! Unfortunately we can’t interview the author(s) to find out:
1. If they actually saw the event with their own eyes
2. If they only heard about it (ie. a rumour they wrote as fact)
3. Was it never intended to be anything more that a work of fiction just to get across a particular point.
4. etc.

Virgin birth? No rational person would believe that. The rational explanation would be that she’d been knocked up, but wanted to hide the fact.

Rising from the dead? No rational person would believe that. The rational explanation would be that some people moved the body and others later invented an explanation for the body’s disappearance.

Anyone in modern times making those sorts of claims would be sent to the mental asylum! But because it’s from some old writings it becomes more mystical and therefore believable?? Imagine if Jesus was never born in those times, but was born in present times, say 20 years ago, would you believe his claims? I’d think not. The older some claims are the *less *accurate they are likely to be, not more accurate! Something doesn’t become more true and accurate the older it is! The older some story is the more inaccurate, exaggerated, modified, it’s likely to be.

There are many thousands of witnesses to UFO sightings, therefore they must be true, right? Many witness to voodoo magic, ghosts, clairvoyance, astrology, Loch Ness monster, Big Foot, etc, etc. So by your logic they must all be true!


----------



## AlterEgo (27 May 2009)

jonojpsg said:


> Sorry derty, I should explain that the Bible is actually a compendium of separate documents written by some 30+ authors over a time period of more than 1000 years.  The *fact * that these all corroborate essentially the same story about Jesus is proof enough for me that it is true.
> 
> And I think we're getting heaps out of this thread - thanks kennas




You can’t be serious! They don’t corroborate anything! They are the same story regurgitated over and over. Say someone today reads the Harry Potter story to his kids, that kid passes that story on to his kids, who passes it on to his kids, etc,….. over 1000’s of years. Some people 3000 years in the future may think the events actually happened, and start a religion based on it. Texts from many different countries, in different languages all speak of the same story, right, therefore they must have actually happened, right?


----------



## MS+Tradesim (27 May 2009)

Struzball said:


> So to sum it up, you have faith.  And I don't think any of us could argue with that (just wouldn't agree with it).




 

Back on topic...

"Why religion?" A reason is that it provides a meta-narrative and structure for a person's life, defining purpose and significance.


----------



## Sean K (27 May 2009)

MS+Tradesim said:


> "Why religion?" A reason is that it provides a meta-narrative and structure for a person's life, defining purpose and significance.



Yes, this is a good one. 

Structure provides people with a framework for simple existance. What should I do on a day to day basis.
A Purpose for existance. Why am I here? To serve God.
I am Significant. I did not evolve from pond scum, but am a direct descendant of Adam and Eve, and therefore God. The Earth is just 6m years old and I am related to all arround me. I am a significant part of the world. 

Seems like some good reasons to believe.


----------



## jonojpsg (27 May 2009)

AlterEgo said:


> Well I was trying to remain objective in what I was saying and avoid taking sides, but that drivel is complete rubbish! Unfortunately we can’t interview the author(s) to find out:
> 1. If they actually saw the event with their own eyes
> 2. If they only heard about it (ie. a rumour they wrote as fact)
> 3. Was it never intended to be anything more that a work of fiction just to get across a particular point.
> ...





Let's get something straight here - if I, a rational reasonable human being, decide that on the basis of the evidence that I have available that God is real and created the universe, then it is obviously not insane or irrational to believe in the virgin birth or Jesus rising from the dead.  If I believe in an all powerful God, then anything is possible for him.  There is nothing irrational or unreasonable about believing in God.


----------



## Happy (27 May 2009)

kennas said:


> ...
> 
> I am Significant. I did not evolve from pond scum, but am a direct descendant of Adam and Eve, and therefore God.
> ...





How do you populate the planet Earth using just 2 people and not have some inbreeding problem?


----------



## Julia (27 May 2009)

kennas said:


> Yes, this is a good one.
> 
> Structure provides people with a framework for simple existance. What should I do on a day to day basis.
> A Purpose for existance. Why am I here? To serve God.
> ...



Can't you have structure and purpose in your life without involving a God?


----------



## jonojpsg (27 May 2009)

AlterEgo said:


> You can’t be serious! They don’t corroborate anything! They are the same story regurgitated over and over. Say someone today reads the Harry Potter story to his kids, that kid passes that story on to his kids, who passes it on to his kids, etc,….. over 1000’s of years. Some people 3000 years in the future may think the events actually happened, and start a religion based on it. Texts from many different countries, in different languages all speak of the same story, right, therefore they must have actually happened, right?




Sorry Alter, the Bible is not the same story regurgitated over and over.  The first part (apart from some of Genesis) is a verifiable historical record of the nation of Israel.  If you want to argue against that, you need to come up with some other reasonable explanation for that particular group of people.

The prophets are all similarly embedded within the history of Israel, and are certainly not simply regurgitated versions of each other as they follow through different time periods in that history so could not be.

The new testament is written by a number of different authors at different times and in different places, and documents events that were predicted/prophecied about throughout the old testament.

The fact that all these various and separate documents hold together the way they do is a key element in why I believe what I do.

It is simply not credible that it could be made up.


----------



## MS+Tradesim (27 May 2009)

Julia said:


> Can't you have structure and purpose in your life without involving a God?




Obviously. But the question is "Why religion?" Some people might follow a certain belief system for the purpose and direction it provides; because they find meaning in it.


----------



## Sean K (27 May 2009)

Happy said:


> How do you populate the planet Earth using just 2 people and not have some inbreeding problem?



This is basic Juduchristianislam ABC, Happy. It's in the book. It really happened like that. Up until about the 19th Century.... 

Actually, Genesis is still being taught as history isn't it?

Anyway, sidetrack. 

It's still an example of why we have religion. To explain the origin of being.

The Big Bang is just a good story right now too. One day a flying spaghetti monster might actually land and tell us he did it.


----------



## Sean K (27 May 2009)

Julia said:


> Can't you have structure and purpose in your life without involving a God?



Of course, but didn't say that. Just that's it's a reason for religion.


----------



## Happy (27 May 2009)

kennas said:


> ...
> The Big Bang is just a good story right now too. One day a *flying spaghetti *monster might actually land and tell us he did it.





Looks awfully close to string theory.


----------



## Sith1s (27 May 2009)

kennas said:


> This is basic Juduchristianislam ABC, Happy. It's in the book. It really happened like that. Up until about the 19th Century....
> 
> Actually, Genesis is still being taught as history isn't it?
> 
> ...




That made me laugh!

Thanks for the free plug, it seems you have been touched by His noodley appendage

Allow me to share with you some of our sacred art work


----------



## Julia (27 May 2009)

kennas said:


> Of course, but didn't say that. Just that's it's a reason for religion.



But how is it therefore a *reason for religion* if you can have it perfectly well without religion?


----------



## Sean K (27 May 2009)

Julia said:


> But how is it therefore a *reason for religion* if you can have it perfectly well without religion?



The point was that religion can provide structure and purpose to your life, not whether there was any other way to achieve it. I think in some societies in the 21st century you can have purpose in your life without religion. Of course. But, looking around, it seems that a lot of the world is still very religious. And 2000 years ago, religion probably came about and flourished because it gave structure and purpose at a time when democtratic government and the rule of law was not on the agenda. Understanding of our part in the world was also a bit misunderstood perhaps. And that continued on until only very recently in the scheme of things. This is just about the _why_ Julia, not whether it's right or not. You know me. I'm going to hell 10x over for my blasphemies!


----------



## imajica (27 May 2009)

Religion arrogantly purports itself to be absolute truth, however truth itself masks the fact that there is none.


----------



## derty (27 May 2009)

MS+Tradesim said:


> Really? That would come as a surprise to any classical historian.



To have one of the foundational beliefs of Christianity based on circular reasoning leaves it wide open to questions of validity. It ends up as a regress argument where any supporting evidence relies on the presupposition that the initial foundational belief is true. I have yet to see any contemporary evidence that corroborates the existence of Jesus.



MS+Tradesim said:


> There is no homogenous 'science' that demands any such thing. For example, Karl Popper, the very influential philosopher of science, was instrumental in the rise of the idea within science that a theory is never proven. It is either falsified (then modified or discarded), or remains unfalsified and held with a higher degree of confidence.
> 
> This view is exemplified by Stephen Hawking, _"Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory."_ (A Brief History of Time, p.11)



You are right MS+T I trotted that last statement out too quickly and it is entirely incorrect. It should of at least said that 'science strives for the elimination of all doubt' . The point I was trying to get across is the the level of confidence required in the courtroom is insufficient for the requirements of science. The quote from Hawking is a much better summation as it outlines how water tight all contemporary scientific theories have to be and that they have not had a single observation that disagrees with them.  



darkside said:


> So Derty , get it out there, are you trying to say that there is no credible scientific or factually reliable evidence for the existence of a god, gods or the supernatural, just a strangle hold of what can only be described as blind faith ?????.
> I'm just trying to clarify a point



darkside, I am an atheist and as such God for me is a myth. I am very interested in history and while I don't not believe there is a God, Christianity, the belief system, is real and has had a profound effect on Western Culture and the direction it has taken. Until recently I assumed that Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical figure. Though, the more I look into it, the less I find that supports his existence. Maybe he was real, though just some charismatic guy that ran afoul of the Romans and was executed. Maybe it was St Peter who made the whole thing up or vastly embellished the life of some minor cult leader? The jury is still out on that for me.


----------



## vincent191 (27 May 2009)

If you believe that creation is a result of the Big Bang then you should also accept that the works of Shakespeare is the result of an explosion in a printing factory !!!

The marvels of creation is just too fantastic to be purely accidental don't you think ???


----------



## Sith1s (27 May 2009)

Has the upbringing of someone been raised yet?

I mean for an example (probably more applicable for the older generations) it would have been quite common for your parents to have been strict Catholics, therefore you always went to mass with them ect.

And since it's family tradition and expected you follow the family ways & it's always been that way it continues.

It may not be so applicable with the generations of today.  If you want an example for that just look at me.  My grandparents were very strict Jehova's Witnesses on one side, and strict Catholics on the other.  But i don't share or follow their beliefs (much to their disappointment)

Having 2 different, but important sets of people of my life trying to preach different rules for their religion has probably turned me into the sceptic i am today..


----------



## Sean K (27 May 2009)

Sith1s said:


> Has the upbringing of someone been raised yet?



Added to the list. Cheers. Probably related to culture/socialisation issue...

Funny how if you're born to Catholic parents you become a Catholic, and not a Jew.


----------



## Bobby (27 May 2009)

Just a thought !
As your reading this someone is being tortured , raped , murdered & bashed , now whats  *Scary*  is a supreme being ( God ) that just lets this happen but could intervene .
God bless  ???


----------



## AlterEgo (27 May 2009)

jonojpsg said:


> Let's get something straight here - if I, a rational reasonable human being, decide that on the basis of the evidence that I have available that God is real and created the universe, then it is obviously not insane or irrational to believe in the virgin birth or Jesus rising from the dead.  If I believe in an all powerful God, then anything is possible for him.  There is nothing irrational or unreasonable about believing in God.




Ahhh, belief in a god. I wasn’t actually talking about whether there is a god or not. I was talking about the bible and the claims it makes. The stories written in the bible were written by normal people, like you and me, not written by the hand of god. People are flawed, make mistakes, exaggerate, distort the truth to further their own cause, etc - that’s human nature. And the bible has been changed over the centuries, and sections modified, omitted and/or deleted, so you shouldn’t believe everything in it without question. Archaeologists have found other documents written in the time of Jesus’s life, supposedly written by one of Jesus’s disciples, which paints a very different picture of Jesus than the bible does. Sorry, don’t have a link to a source off-hand, it was on a program on tele the other night. No, I’m not saying it’s right and the bible is wrong, but it’s certainly food for thought. Your mind seems closed to any other possibility.


----------



## AlterEgo (27 May 2009)

jonojpsg said:


> Sorry Alter, the Bible is not the same story regurgitated over and over.  The first part (apart from some of Genesis) is a verifiable historical record of the nation of Israel.  If you want to argue against that, you need to come up with some other reasonable explanation for that particular group of people.




Yes, it’s loosely based on historical events, sure. Just because some things may be true, it doesn’t follow that every other detail in it is 100% correct though. I recall that some events in it have been discredited by archaeologists in recent times anyway.




jonojpsg said:


> It is simply not credible that it could be made up.




I don’t think I went as far as to say it’s all made up, but anyway what do you think about other religions then? Do you think it’s credible that some parts of their religions may be wrong/inaccurate? Why do you feel that your religion is more credible than any other religion? If you were born in another country, you’d most likely be just as passionate about their local religion instead of the one you are now.


----------



## Sean K (27 May 2009)

Bobby said:


> Just a thought !
> As your reading this someone is being tortured , raped , murdered & bashed , now whats  *Scary*  is a supreme being ( God ) that just lets this happen but could intervene .
> God bless  ???



Ah, but Bobby, this is where the 'free will' argument comes in. Bad things happen because God let us choose. Makes some sence I suppose. If we didn't get to choose to do anything, then, it'd all just be God playing with his puppets. That would be boring for Him. Although, maybe he could have designed us better so we were just generally nice to each other and the environment. Again, where's the fun in that? I'm sure he enjoyed watching WWI and it's sequal. I'm sure he's gagging for the third one to come out. And then prequals, starting with Deuteronomy, and then the Crusades I, II, III... etc.


----------



## Sith1s (27 May 2009)

kennas said:


> Ah, but Bobby, this is where the 'free will' argument comes in. Bad things happen because God let us choose. Makes some sence I suppose. If we didn't get to choose to do anything, then, it'd all just be God playing with his puppets. That would be boring for Him. Although, maybe he could have designed us better so we were just generally nice to each other and the environment. Again, where's the fun in that? I'm sure he enjoyed watching WWI and it's sequal. I'm sure he's gagging for the third one to come out. And then prequals, starting with Deuteronomy, and then the Crusades I, II, III... etc.




And Bobby you have just started another tangent to this conversation.
Here's a question to throw a spanner into the works. 

We all assume our almighty god is good.  What if this so God is actually Neutral, or worse Evil?  And our pure purpose is that we are like ants in an ant farm and he's just a 5 year old kid with a magnifying glass?


----------



## AlterEgo (27 May 2009)

vincent191 said:


> If you believe that creation is a result of the Big Bang then you should also accept that the works of Shakespeare is the result of an explosion in a printing factory !!!
> 
> The marvels of creation is just too fantastic to be purely accidental don't you think ???




I don't think it necessarily follows that the big bang was an accident. It's entirely plausible/possible that the big bang may be the mechanism by which god (if there is one) may have created everything.


----------



## Sean K (27 May 2009)

Just on evolution, it's important to put the Earth's years into perspective.

Western religion places the Earth at 6000 years old, or something. It seems to be quite a bit more than that from what we now understand.

Billions perhaps. 

We need to pause to put that into some perspective. 

Perhaps some fantastic things develop over billions of years.

And, AlterEgo, If God was omniscient etc, he would have just popped it out how he did in Genesis, surely. Why wait so long for the cake to bake?

Off topic again....


----------



## derty (27 May 2009)

AlterEgo said:


> I don't think it necessarily follows that the big bang was an accident. It's entirely plausible/possible that the big bang may be the mechanism by which god (if there is one) may have created everything.



The universe and life are so staggeringly amazing on their own. The more we learn about it the more amazing it gets. Why the need to complicate it more with the addition of a supernatural figure?

But that I guess is why Kennas started this thread. Was the world just that incomprehensible to folk in the past that they needed to invent/believe in gods for it to have reason?


----------



## Sith1s (27 May 2009)

derty said:


> The universe and life are so staggeringly amazing on their own. The more we learn about it the more amazing it gets. Why the need to complicate it more with the addition of a supernatural figure?
> 
> But that I guess is why Kennas started this thread. Was the world just that incomprehensible to folk in the past that they needed to invent/believe in gods for it to have reason?




That's what i'm inclined to believe in also.  What else i find interesting is the evolution of religion.  

We've come from having gods for almost everything (Roman, Greek, Norse, Egyptian, Babalonian gods ect) for death, love, war ect to now a universal 1 God.  

I wonder why that is and what made people move away from these "pagan" religions into what is more commonly accepted today.

And more so, what will the religions be in another 2000 years time.


----------



## Sean K (27 May 2009)

Sith1s said:


> I wonder why that is and what made people move away from these "pagan" religions into what is more commonly accepted today.



Good question.

You need to have a general understanding of Mesopotamian cults of theday, but here goes..

(can't remember where I stole this from)

*Reasons for monotheism*

The first involves the changes in Israel's social structure of the family. At Ugarit, social identity was strongest at the level of the family. Legal documents were often made between the sons of one family and the sons of another. The divine situation followed suit. The divine family was expressive of Ugarit's social structure. The same was true in ancient Israel through most of the monarchy. Hence, the story of Achan in Joshua 8 suggests a picture of the extended family as the major social unit. However, the family lineages went through traumatic changes beginning already in the eighth century with major social stratification, followed by Assyrian incursions. In the seventh and sixth centuries, we begin to see expressions of individual identity (Deuteronomy 26:16; Jeremiah 31:29-30; Ezekiel 18). A culture with a diminished lineage system (deteriorating over a long period from the ninth or eighth century onward), one less embedded in traditional family patrimonies, might be more predisposed both to hold to individual human accountability for behavior (as suggested by the passages just cited) and to see an individual deity accountable for the cosmos (as suggested by monotheistic statements in this period). In short, the rise of the individual as a social unit next to the traditional family unit provided intelligibility to the rise of a single god rather than a divine family. 

The second major set of conditions apparent in forming this change involved the rise of the neo-Assyrian and neo-Babylonian empires. As long as Israel was, from its own perspective, on par with the other nations, it made sense to have a religious outlook that saw Israel on par with the other nations, each one with its own patron god. (This is the basic picture described above with Deuteronomy 32:8-9.) The assumption behind this worldview was that each nation was as powerful as its patron god. However, the neo-Assyrian conquest of the northern kingdom in ca. 722 altered this religious way of looking at the world, for, if the neo-Assyrian empire were so powerful, so must be its god; and conversely, if Israel could be conquered (and later Judah ca. 586), it would imply that its god in turn is hardly as powerful as Israel had traditionally taught. As a result, new thinking separated the correlation of heavenly power and earthly kingdoms. Even though Assyria and later Babylon were so powerful, the new monotheistic thinking in Israel reasoned that despite its own weakness, its god was not weak. Moreover, just as Israel's fortunes fell, those of Assyria and then Babylon rose; inversely, Israel's monotheists now reasoned that Yahweh stood at the top of divine power, and correspondingly, the gods of Mesopotamia were reckoned to be nothing. As a result, Assyria had not succeeded because of the power of its god; instead, it was Yahweh now directing all the nations. In short, the conditions of human empires provided the model for divine empire; the Assyrian and Babylonian empires pointed now not to their own power and the power of their divine patrons but to Yahweh’s guiding all the events of Israel's life. Their exile was not their shame from the power of other nations and their deities, but rather was seen now as Yahweh's plan to punish and purify the one nation which Yahweh had chosen. Accordingly, the notion arose that the new king who might help redeem Israel might not be a Judean as traditionally thought in older biblical literature (see Psalm 2). Now, even a foreigner such as Cyrus the Persian could serve as the Lord's anointed (Isaiah 44:28, 45:1). One god stood behind all these world-shaking events.


----------



## Bobby (27 May 2009)

kennas said:


> Ah, but Bobby, this is where the 'free will' argument comes in. Bad things happen because God let us choose. Makes some sence I suppose. If we didn't get to choose to do anything, then, it'd all just be God playing with his puppets. That would be boring for Him. Although, maybe he could have designed us better so we were just generally nice to each other and the environment. Again, where's the fun in that? I'm sure he enjoyed watching WWI and it's sequal. I'm sure he's gagging for the third one to come out. And then prequals, starting with Deuteronomy, and then the Crusades I, II, III... etc.




Kennas the free will bit always amused me " God must love that set-up for the reasons you stated  
Gee he can turn it anytime to watch his favorite horror shows !


----------



## AlterEgo (27 May 2009)

Sith1s said:


> And more so, what will the religions be in another 2000 years time.




Jedi perhaps? Apparently many people already list themselves as 'Jedi' as their religion on the census. Might be the next major religion. Who know?


----------



## Bobby (27 May 2009)

Sith1s said:


> And Bobby you have just started another tangent to this conversation.
> Here's a question to throw a spanner into the works.
> 
> We all assume our almighty god is good.  What if this so God is actually Neutral, or worse Evil?  And our pure purpose is that we are like ants in an ant farm and he's just a 5 year old kid with a magnifying glass?




Well if he exists & knowing what happens on his watch , I don't want anything to do with the sicko .


----------



## MS+Tradesim (27 May 2009)

kennas said:


> (can't remember where I stole this from)




Probably here. http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/MSmith_BiblicalMonotheism.shtml


----------



## AlterEgo (27 May 2009)

kennas said:


> And, AlterEgo, If God was omniscient etc, he would have just popped it out how he did in Genesis, surely. Why wait so long for the cake to bake?




Perhaps the creator (if there is one) is not omniscient. I should use the term ‘creator’ instead, as the term ‘god’ conjures up other images of an omniscient figure, etc. It’s difficult to believe in an omniscient creator, because if there were he wouldn’t let people suffer and die needlessly, unless he doesn’t care about us, or enjoys watching us suffer of course.


----------



## MS+Tradesim (27 May 2009)

derty said:


> To have one of the foundational beliefs of Christianity based on circular reasoning leaves it wide open to questions of validity. It ends up as a regress argument where any supporting evidence relies on the presupposition that the initial foundational belief is true. I have yet to see any contemporary evidence that corroborates the existence of Jesus.




If you are genuinely interested in the issue, I would recommend this book as a useful starting point. The authors are Christians but their scholarship is impeccable despite a few quibbles. The footnoting, cross-referencing and interdisciplinary work makes it well worth the read even as a starting point for further research.

Nb. I am not proselytising. It's just a very useful resource based on the sheer breadth of other research it employs - even if your interest is only academic.

The Jesus myth has been broadly rejected by the majority of researchers (religious and secular) working in the field of early Christian studies.

There is plenty of credible research to review. I've spent 10 years on the question so far which is another reason why I'm reluctant to spend much time  responding to the wide range of objections on a forum. I'd rather read and compare researchers in the field.


----------



## Struzball (27 May 2009)

Kennas, one you may not have on the list.

My mum and sister went to Kenya to build houses in slums for poor people.
Not with a church, I don't think they are overly religious, if at all. 
I hate it when church groups go overseas to build houses, it's almost like they have an agenda even if they are changing someone's lives.

But anyway, all the people they met in the slums in Nairobi, people with the crappest lives they could ever imagine, also had the strongest belief and praise of god of anybody they'd ever met.

So why religion for these people with nothing?  I can only imagine "blind hope".  I don't think anything else comes into the equation for them.

I feel very lucky that I don't need religion.


----------



## darkside (27 May 2009)

derty said:


> To have one of the foundational beliefs of Christianity based on circular reasoning leaves it wide open to questions of validity. It ends up as a regress argument where any supporting evidence relies on the presupposition that the initial foundational belief is true. I have yet to see any contemporary evidence that corroborates the existence of Jesus.
> 
> 
> You are right MS+T I trotted that last statement out too quickly and it is entirely incorrect. It should of at least said that 'science strives for the elimination of all doubt' . The point I was trying to get across is the the level of confidence required in the courtroom is insufficient for the requirements of science. The quote from Hawking is a much better summation as it outlines how water tight all contemporary scientific theories have to be and that they have not had a single observation that disagrees with them.
> ...





Derty, Your no different to the rest of the world,  everyone is born an Athiest with no belief in God until the adults it trusts, attempt to indoctrinate it with whatever religious cult to which they happen to subscribe. This is a form of child abuse i believe. Kids will believe anything adults tell them , hence why they should ban religious education in schools.

No-one becomes an Atheist. Instead, they un-learn the lies they have been told and revert to a more natural state. Rarely does it affect the way they feel about themselves; it can, however, lead to suspicion of those who have shown themselves to be untrustworthy. Just thought i would clear that up for you , the best we can hope for is the others get better .


----------



## Happy (27 May 2009)

Struzball said:


> ...
> 
> But anyway, all the people they met in the slums in Nairobi, people with the crappest lives they could ever imagine, also had the strongest belief and praise of god of anybody they'd ever met.
> 
> ...






Trick is, some religions promise great after life if you suffer in the Earthen life, some religions even chuck in virgins if you die for the cause.


----------



## darkside (27 May 2009)

Happy said:


> Trick is, some religions promise great after life if you suffer in the Earthen life, some religions even chuck in virgins if you die for the cause.




Are "happy" so true just remember the 1st and 2nd  commandments of religion , "the more you give the better you live" and the more you pay the better your stay"

So in answer to Kennas question , "why religion" because it's a multi billion dollar business and helps control and keep the population in fear and as some of the "posters" have pointed out , if they were given unequivical proof that there was no god, then they would have to all of a sudden act immoral because the only reason they do good things is because of their christian beliefs.


----------



## weird (27 May 2009)

Bobby said:


> Well if he exists & knowing what happens on his watch , I don't want anything to do with the sicko .




So whatever the source of a religion, the head dude, is supposed to be a bouncer, prison warden, policeman or something else ... perhaps a promotion girl at the Formula One, that is good on the eye ?

Whenever a pigeon takes a crap, the head dude should 'move' the crap to the pavement, instead of some poor soul's head ... **** happens ?

Why religion ? Good question ... weakness or the need to hold onto something solid 'which apparently' religion isn't, could be replaced by, why alcoholism ? The latter substance does exist, it is real, and has a hold on many. 

Most people agree shakiness of hands, not turning up to work, destroyed relationships ... this is a train wreck waiting to happen , so what is the solution ? We could replace this with another physical substance, perhaps Valium ? Where do we separate the real, from a chemical reaction, and also lies/stupidity/brainwashing .... to finding something that seems to work and makes someone functional and not a harm to others or themselves, perhaps even happy ?


----------



## kgee (27 May 2009)

I'm thinking if God doesn't have a sense of humour then surely thats why he invented it....


----------



## kgee (27 May 2009)

Happy said:


> Trick is, some religions promise great after life if you suffer in the Earthen life, some religions even chuck in virgins if you die for the cause.




Why not practicality if it makes you fell better (and with no adverse side effecttts) why not do it?? Is it Occams razorz the simplest solution?


----------



## Tink (27 May 2009)

_**chuckles how people view spirituality**_

This is a never ending thread lol


----------



## Hedders (28 May 2009)

derty said:


> To have one of the foundational beliefs of Christianity based on circular reasoning leaves it wide open to questions of validity. It ends up as a regress argument where any supporting evidence relies on the presupposition that the initial foundational belief is true. I have yet to see any contemporary evidence that corroborates the existence of Jesus.
> 
> 
> You are right MS+T I trotted that last statement out too quickly and it is entirely incorrect. It should of at least said that 'science strives for the elimination of all doubt' . The point I was trying to get across is the the level of confidence required in the courtroom is insufficient for the requirements of science. The quote from Hawking is a much better summation as it outlines how water tight all contemporary scientific theories have to be and that they have not had a single observation that disagrees with them.
> ...




Some interesting comments here. I agree that there are few contemporary corroborations of Jesus' existence, however some do exist- Josephus (at least one reference seems to be considered genuine), and then there's the writings of Pliny the Younger and Tacitus (primarily describing the "problem" Christians posed to the Roman way of life). There are several others, including Lucian (admittedly a 2nd century Roman- not exactly contemporary, but neither is he pro-Christian. He talks of Christians as misguided creatures who "worship a man to this day").

But here's a worthwhile point to make- there are no contemporary writings refuting the existence of Jesus, even though the Romans didn't hold back on ridiculing Christians in other ways. As far as I know, the first documents denying Jesus' existence were written in the 17th/18th century, some 1700 years after his lifetime. Had they cropped up in the 1st or 2nd centuries there would be more reason to speculate.

The reason vast amounts of contemporary literature fail to mention Jesus at all is pretty straightforward- Jesus was not a significant figure during his lifetime for the Romans or Greeks etc. Not bothering to write about Jesus is one thing, denying he was real is another. To Pilate, he was simply another criminal that needed to be eliminated because he claimed to be a king. 

Lastly, I find it hard to believe that so many early Christians would suffer martydom for a mythical figure.


----------



## Sean K (28 May 2009)

Struzball said:


> Kennas, one you may not have on the list.
> 
> My mum and sister went to Kenya to build houses in slums for poor people.
> Not with a church, I don't think they are overly religious, if at all.
> ...



OK, I will add 'hope'.


----------



## Bobby (28 May 2009)

weird said:


> So whatever the source of a religion, the head dude, is supposed to be a bouncer, prison warden, policeman or something else ... perhaps a promotion girl at the Formula One, that is good on the eye ?
> 
> Whenever a pigeon takes a crap, the head dude should 'move' the crap to the pavement, instead of some poor soul's head ... **** happens ?
> 
> Why religion ? Good question ... weakness or the need to hold onto something solid 'which apparently' religion isn't, could be replaced by, why alcoholism ? The latter substance does exist, it is real, and has a hold on many.




Hello Weird , see your point !  I,m into some real stuff  

Kinda ironic the supreme being of the universe has done more harm then good .
Praise the lord  ? ? yes sir thanks for all the monstrosities .
Guess he knows I'm not a fan


----------



## Sith1s (28 May 2009)

Happy said:


> Trick is, some religions promise great after life if you suffer in the Earthen life, some religions even chuck in virgins if you die for the cause.




Well if you want a chuckle the Flying Spaghetti Monster in all His great noodliness has a Beer Volcano & a Stripper Factory in our heaven!

Ha top that!


----------



## Sith1s (28 May 2009)

kgee said:


> I'm thinking if God doesn't have a sense of humour then surely thats why he invented it....




Of course our God must have a sence of humor.

One example - The Platypus.

Enough said lol


----------



## darkside (28 May 2009)

weird said:


> So whatever the source of a religion, the head dude, is supposed to be a bouncer, prison warden, policeman or something else ... perhaps a promotion girl at the Formula One, that is good on the eye ?
> 
> Whenever a pigeon takes a crap, the head dude should 'move' the crap to the pavement, instead of some poor soul's head ... **** happens ?
> 
> ...




Not a harm to other's , do you live in the real world, do you own a TV , some woman just let her child die , while she thought the power of prayer would help her , people are killing each other in Gaza daily in the name of religion ,priests are tampering with kiddies like there is no tommoro and you think it's no harm to others , perhaps you should have a look at your moral compass, or at the very least , eat those valium like smarties. And Weird maybe you should just hand over the keys to the "astra with modded roofracks, i think your a danger to yourself and the public with those beliefs.


----------



## gordon2007 (28 May 2009)

*Re: Leave Religion Off ASF*

I've got a bit of a twisted reason as to why religion was created. 

I honestly believe that in much older times  it was easier to explain something you do not understand as a consequence of religion. ie since back in ancient times they had no idea why a cyclone happened and neither did they have much warning. Without that knowledge they just believed it was something they did wrong that pissed off the gods. 

Basically, to me religion was something used to answer questions that ancient civilization didn't have an answer for. It has since over the many years taken on it's life and changed in many ways. But in a way it's still so simple, mankind still does not know the true beginning of itself, and as a consequence many people choose to believe we were created by god. 

Is this the way you wanted this thread to go kennas?




kennas said:


> *why* we are religious as a species, ...
> 
> I've been compiling the reasons _why_, and will have a consolidated list out shortly.


----------



## Mr J (28 May 2009)

*Re: Leave Religion Off ASF*



kennas said:


> My intent was for this to be a constructive discussion on *why* we are religious as a species, not to argue the good and bad of it all. Obviously that was wishful thinking, and poor moderation...




There's nothing wrong with trying to be thought-provoking. You have to rely on people carrying it through with an open mind though.


----------



## Sean K (28 May 2009)

*Re: Leave Religion Off ASF*



gordon2007 said:


> I've got a bit of a twisted reason as to why religion was created.
> 
> I honestly believe that in much older times  it was easier to explain something you do not understand as a consequence of religion. ie since back in ancient times they had no idea why a cyclone happened and neither did they have much warning. Without that knowledge they just believed it was something they did wrong that pissed off the gods.
> 
> ...



Yes, will move this across to the thread, and include on the list.

Assign cause to the function of the environment. 
Explain the unexplainable.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (28 May 2009)

AlterEgo said:


> I don't think it necessarily follows that the big bang was an accident. It's entirely plausible/possible that the big bang may be the mechanism by which god (if there is one) may have created everything.




On the other hand you could argue that the big bang created god, if you were a godbotherer who doubted the parable of the chicken and the egg.

gg


----------



## MS+Tradesim (28 May 2009)

Here's a cat for the pigeons...

Why religion?

It's intellectually, emotionally and experientially fulfilling.

I was raised in a cult, became an atheist, started looking at the foundational level with logic, then epistemology and philosophy, then history and eventually formed conclusions that lead me to where I am now.


----------



## darkside (28 May 2009)

MS+Tradesim said:


> Here's a cat for the pigeons...
> 
> Why religion?
> 
> ...




I suppose i should consider myself lucky that my parents didn't try too hard to brainwash me with their evil beliefs and of course i would not even consider inflicting that form of child abuse on my own children as i find the 
idea that a man had to die for my sins revolting. If God was truly omnipotent he could have simply forgiven us. What kind of God, would execute one child in order to forgive it’s others? Every free thinking reasonable person would call an individual like this sadistic, insane and cruel. So why would you worship a child killer, What about a judge that would allow my child to be executed in lieu of my sins? I can't see judge Judy allowing that, yet your Mesiah thinks it's cool !!!!!


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (28 May 2009)

This thread reminds me that I must pop off to confession before I take my journey to Kazakistan. They used be on Saturday mornings before they changed the name to reconciliation I think.

gg


----------



## gordon2007 (28 May 2009)

OH, you're going to look at monitor's puddles of oil to see first hand for yourself?





Garpal Gumnut said:


> This thread reminds me that I must pop off to confession before I take my journey to Kazakistan.
> gg


----------



## Sean K (28 May 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> This thread reminds me that I must pop off to confession before I take my journey to Kazakistan. They used be on Saturday mornings before they changed the name to reconciliation I think.
> 
> gg



gg, for some cultural enlightenment, perhaps you could do a bit of research in Kasahkstan and it's religious history and why they believe in a God or gods and make a report on return.


----------



## happytown (28 May 2009)

in 'the god part of the brain' alper contends that we are hard-wired to believe in god/religion literally as a defence to our greatest fear/threat, that being death

cheers


----------



## Julia (28 May 2009)

happytown said:


> in 'the god part of the brain' alper contends that we are hard-wired to believe in god/religion literally as a defence to our greatest fear/threat, that being death
> 
> cheers



Ah, I've been waiting for someone to move onto the 'life after death' thing.
i.e. it's just too frightening to think that when we die that's the stone cold final end.  Much easier to imagine some comfy warm heaven to which we have earned entry by our struggles to please God during our earthly tenure.

Pretty powerful motive to behave well if we believe God is judging our behaviour on earth and then deciding whether to let us into Heaven or consign us to the fires of Hell.

And many religious devotees do really believe in a literal Heaven or Hell.


----------



## StockPiles (28 May 2009)

Julia said:


> Ah, I've been waiting for someone to move onto the 'life after death' thing.
> i.e. it's just too frightening to think that when we die that's the stone cold final end.  Much easier to imagine some comfy warm heaven to which we have earned entry by our struggles to please God during our earthly tenure.
> 
> Pretty powerful motive to behave well if we believe God is judging our behaviour on earth and then deciding whether to let us into Heaven or consign us to the fires of Hell.
> ...




Why dont you jump on a CHATROOM !! This forum is for Stocks and Shares discussions -- You really are such a spec in the scope of the universe - an insignficant piece of dust with a life span not worth mentioning. Only your ego keeps you alive, without it you would surely kill yourself as soon as you become aware of your own existence !


----------



## GumbyLearner (28 May 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> On the other hand you could argue that the big bang created god, if you were a godbotherer who doubted the parable of the chicken and the egg.
> 
> gg




I think it's because discussions about the second law of thermodynamics and chaos theory are just too difficult. We just all live in the cosmos of random order and congregate in groups to worship a deity. 

Are there any other examples in nature of groups of animals worshipping deities?
This question has always baffled me. :venus:


----------



## Julia (28 May 2009)

StockPiles said:


> Why dont you jump on a CHATROOM !! This forum is for Stocks and Shares discussions -- You really are such a spec in the scope of the universe - an insignficant piece of dust with a life span not worth mentioning. Only your ego keeps you alive, without it you would surely kill yourself as soon as you become aware of your own existence !



So why are you posting on the subject?

Why not stick to the Stocks and Shares, huh?


----------



## Duckman#72 (28 May 2009)

StockPiles said:


> Why dont you jump on a CHATROOM !! This forum is for Stocks and Shares discussions -- You really are such a spec in the scope of the universe - an insignficant piece of dust with a life span not worth mentioning. Only your ego keeps you alive, without it you would surely kill yourself as soon as you become aware of your own existence !




Stockpiles, hopefully judging by your avatar this might mean something to you.....

EXTERMINATE!  EXTERMINATE! EXTERMINATE!

Duckman


----------



## Bobby (28 May 2009)

Julia said:


> So why are you posting on the subject?
> 
> Why not stick to the Stocks and Shares, huh?




Probable god himself working his mysterious ways through some poor dick-head ?


----------



## Sean K (29 May 2009)

happytown said:


> in 'the god part of the brain' alper contends that we are hard-wired to believe in god/religion literally as a defence to our greatest fear/threat, that being death
> 
> cheers



Will add that to the list.

Is tied up in anything else mentioned though?

I'm trying to categorise all the reasons at the moment.


----------



## Sean K (29 May 2009)

StockPiles said:


> Why dont you jump on a CHATROOM !! This forum is for Stocks and Shares discussions --



The irony of this post is killing me.


----------



## Sith1s (29 May 2009)

Hey Kennas,

I don't think this has been raised yet. (and will probably get some form of nasty reply back for having the nerve to think of this)

What about as being used as some kind of control method for the masses.  The ancient Egyptian Pharohs were worshiped as gods ect, and probably exists in some of the minor cults...


----------



## Sean K (29 May 2009)

Sith1s said:


> What about as being used as some kind of control method for the masses.  The ancient Egyptian Pharohs were worshiped as gods ect, and probably exists in some of the minor cults...




Control mechanism

I don't think it's been raised.

I'm not sure if this is why religion originated, but it could certainly well be a reason why it has survived. People in power have used religion as a tool to control people. I think it is the key tool Moses used to keep the Israelites going while they wandered the desert for all those years. And Yahweh would have been pretty handy when they marched back into Canaan and slaughtered most of the tribes living there. In fact, Yahweh ordered this I think. According to Moses, anyway.


----------



## jonojpsg (29 May 2009)

kennas said:


> The irony of this post is killing me.




hehehe good one kennas  love comments about irony



Sith1s said:


> Hey Kennas,
> 
> I don't think this has been raised yet. (and will probably get some form of nasty reply back for having the nerve to think of this)
> 
> What about as being used as some kind of control method for the masses.  The ancient Egyptian Pharohs were worshiped as gods ect, and probably exists in some of the minor cults...




Are you serious??  Amazing that no-one has mentioned Marx yet - opiate of the masses and all that?


----------



## spooly74 (29 May 2009)

kennas said:


> Control mechanism
> 
> I don't think it's been raised.
> 
> I'm not sure if this is why religion originated, but it could certainly well be a reason why it has survived. People in power have used religion as a tool to control people.




If you backtrack that thought, couldn't religion be an Essential mechanism?
Perhaps humans needed religion as a tool to control themselves.


----------



## Sean K (29 May 2009)

spooly74 said:


> If you backtrack that thought, couldn't religion be an Essential mechanism?
> Perhaps humans needed religion as a tool to control themselves.



Could be a tool to control ourselves. Might be imprinted.

An article I posted earlier discussed a scientific/Darwinian reason for religion related to the flight/fight response.

If you perceive a thread, our flight sensor makes us run, even though there might not be anything there. Similar to a rustling of bushes in the jungle. The automatic response is to be believe it might be something. It's a survival mechanism.

So, maybe that's another reason why religion has come about. 

It's a flight response, just in case a God/gods are sitting in judgement. Better to err on the side of caution, than to be eaten by that tiger!


----------



## mastatrada (30 May 2009)

AlterEgo said:


> Perhaps the creator (if there is one) is not omniscient. I should use the term ‘creator’ instead, as the term ‘god’ conjures up other images of an omniscient figure, etc. It’s difficult to believe in an omniscient creator, because if there were he wouldn’t let people suffer and die needlessly, unless he doesn’t care about us, or enjoys watching us suffer of course.




To ask the question "why does god let bad things happen" is a form of anthropomorphism- if there was a god he would have a completely different range of morals to the humans of today. In fact the humans of 100 years ago had a completely different assumption of what was kosher, and it has changed much through history, while the same god has been worshipped.


----------



## Sean K (31 May 2009)

mastatrada said:


> In fact the humans of 100 years ago had a completely different assumption of what was kosher, and it has changed much through history, while the same god has been worshipped.



I'm not too sure if religion has stayed too static over the past few millenia. In fact much has changed. We are predominantly a cafeteria religious lot. There are hundreds of rules in the bible, that if followed would make us all look quite mad. Rules like: not trimming the edges of your beard, wearing all white, not mixing cotton and linnen, strictly following the Sabbath, blowing a horn at he start of each month, shooing away a pidgeon off it's nest holding up the egg and making a prayer, the list is endless. Add in some animal sacrifices here and there, or maybe a human or two to appease the gods, and we'd all be in jail. 

So, while the title of the big cheese has remained 'God', a damn lot of his laws have been overlooked or interpreted in a more modern way to suite the day. As they should be.


----------



## Sean K (1 June 2009)

Here's a summary of some of the answers so far. Some cross over and some more scholarly than others.


An explanation for the unknown.
There is a 'universal power' – let’s call it God/gods or religion. 
A control mechanism.
We are hardwired to believe in things greater than us.
Because it helps us to survive.
A means of power and control where the most successful became established and widespread belief systems.
Religion is an essential part of our being - God made us so it is a natural process for us to want to know him.
One of the needs for religion was explained that people could not handle the idea of finite lifespan of human being. Without having something some people would find hard to find motivation to live life.
Religion is there for those who need to believe in something which I believe is a large proportion of the population. They feel more at ease having a belief that explains the great unknowns i.e. life death etc.
For anyone practicing any religion you will get many answers, one for myself that comes to mind is that it centers me, and also helps me see the best in humanity and appreciate nature, and also understand my flaws, and try to better myself.
If humans are created by God and had communion with God in the past, then logically there will be a belief in God which gets passed down and corrupted over the ages, but that belief is still there. 
Cultural and social indoctination/framework.
To cope with existential crisis.
A process-derived artifact of human development. 
There is/are supernatural entities interacting within this universe.
A natural desire to search for something higher. 
Religion is a form of delusion and those who suffer it are pawns of that self manipulation.
PM says religion keeps him grounded. 
Religion provides a framework of moral laws by which to live your life.
He exists simply because we believe he does.
To identify agency
It provides a meta-narrative and structure for a person's life, defining purpose and significance.
For the purpose and direction it provides; because they find meaning in it.
If you're born to Catholic parents you become a Catholic.
Because it's a multi billion dollar business and helps control and keep the population in fear.
Hope.
Assign cause to the function of the environment. 
Religion was something used to answer questions that ancient civilization didn't have an answer for. 
Explain the unexplainable.
The big bang created god.
It's intellectually, emotionally and experientially fulfilling.
Much easier to imagine some comfy warm heaven to which we have earned entry by our struggles to please God during our earthly tenure.
A flight response to aid in survival.


----------



## jonojpsg (1 June 2009)

kennas said:


> I'm not too sure if religion has stayed too static over the past few millenia. In fact much has changed. We are predominantly a cafeteria religious lot. There are hundreds of rules in the bible, that if followed would make us all look quite mad. Rules like: not trimming the edges of your beard, wearing all white, not mixing cotton and linnen, strictly following the Sabbath, blowing a horn at he start of each month, shooing away a pidgeon off it's nest holding up the egg and making a prayer, the list is endless. Add in some animal sacrifices here and there, or maybe a human or two to appease the gods, and we'd all be in jail.
> 
> So, while the title of the big cheese has remained 'God', a damn lot of his laws have been overlooked or interpreted in a more modern way to suite the day. As they should be.




Cmon kennas, if you're going to talk about the Bible, let's keep it all connected and well defined.  There is a New Testament and an Old Testament, and it's pretty clear in the New Testament that most of the laws that you mention here are only valid for the times in which they were given, that is prior to Jesus.  Example being law to not eat meat from cloven hoofed animals, birds, etc. which Jesus clearly debunks, "It's not what go into a man that matters, it's what comes out."

Of course if you're a Jew and only stick to the Old Testament then yep, you'd be doing some pretty strange things!

BTW your list is looking pretty comprehensive - good work!  Oh and out of interest, what is the record reply rate for a thread on ASF, coz 250+ replies in a week has gotta be up there.


----------



## Sean K (1 June 2009)

jonojpsg said:


> Cmon kennas, if you're going to talk about the Bible, let's keep it all connected and well defined.  There is a New Testament and an Old Testament, and it's pretty clear in the New Testament that most of the laws that you mention here are only valid for the times in which they were given, that is prior to Jesus.  Example being law to not eat meat from cloven hoofed animals, birds, etc. which Jesus clearly debunks, "It's not what go into a man that matters, it's what comes out."
> 
> Of course if you're a Jew and only stick to the Old Testament then yep, you'd be doing some pretty strange things!
> 
> BTW your list is looking pretty comprehensive - good work!  Oh and out of interest, what is the record reply rate for a thread on ASF, coz 250+ replies in a week has gotta be up there.



Hi Jono, this wasn't meant to be just about the Old a New Books, but religion in general, which includes all the old Pagan stuff, including indigenous beliefs found in the Americas, SE Asia, and even Australasia. But we tend to just focus on the religion of our bible(s).

250+ in a week!! I'm not sure what the record is, but probably something about religion, or climate change...


----------

