The merits of religion

I don't think you understood my point.

If I think killing a guy on the street and taking his wallet will be good for me, who are you to tell me I am wrong? As we are all just here as the result of random occurances, your ideas about what is right or wrong are no more valid than mine, and you have no right to try and stop me just because what you think I did was wrong.

 

The religion I consider to have the most social benefits is Buddhism. They teach pacifism and tolerance for all other beliefs. Buddhism has the least occurances of fanaticism(i.e. crusades, terrorism) and is more phiolosophical than religious.

Christianity, Islam, Judism(sp?), and Hinduism, while they have some benefits, bring fanaticism, predujice, intolerance, and ignorance to millions of people. Many, not all, of the problems in the world today and in the past are related to religion.

I'm all for religious freedom, but I can still strongly disagree.

EDIT: There is historical records that say the Bible was revised many times(most during the period in Europe called "The Middle Ages"). Is historical fact ever able to change? No, unless you build a time machine.

I can't prove it isn't the word of God, because there is nothing tangible to disprove. Unless you consider the laws of physics (i.e. nothing lasts forever except change) Likewise, you can't prove that the Bible is the word of God. Oh, I just love stalemates.

 

You=Banned.

 

EDIT: Thank you, DDH.

 

First, excuse me for my bad language, but I'm french. This is the first time I'm trying to write here.

I found the subject was very interesting but I Don't really understand its goal. Is there one?

I am not able to prove any religion is rationnal or not. (and I think it is not the subject). As it was written religion is a personnal thing, a kind of feeling. But "religion" is a word and a word exists to be said, writtent... unsed to communicate.

In some religions, we can consider just the symbols. Such a religion is a way of educating people, indicate them some limits in their lives. It shows what is good and what is not. I think this one of the reasons why Lucas created Starwars.
This can be dangerous when bad guys use the religion to control someone, or to control a society.
In France for example, a lot of people criticised star wars, because they thought Lucas tried to extend an American domination over the world.

If I consider religion just as a personnal, emotionnal feeling, I think it is a form of psychotherapy. Some people maybe need to believe in a "omnipotent force" to tolerate their hard live. So they accept their difficulties, and hope there will one day be a justice. "My bad boss will be punished for eternity and I will live in paradise during this time."

To those who talk about God and Satan : If one exists the other does also. The entire universe has a bipolar structure. If "God is All" then he is good and bad simultaneously. He is paranormal

Someone quoted K. Marx. In France, last year, someone (I cant remember his name) wrote a book about religions. He practically said the same thing than Marx. Societies create religions because religions helps them to accept their hard lives.

Personnally, I know religion did not save me. (or some people I know). In fact I know it hasn't saved anyone I know. But it caused problems to those people.

So I think religion can have merits but not systematically. And religion is not the only thing that can serve humanity. There is another concept called "intelligence". I think religion is made by this intelligence, so I prefer that everyone chooses his way of living, and do not hope religion will always save them.

 

Upping a bit.

 

"Intelligence" is also a way to screw humanity.

I partly agree, Landry. Religion can be a way to comfort people when they are in trouble with their life, and that's a good thing. The problem is that it's a false comfort. A hope in something that will never happen is not good psychotherapy.

 

I beg to differ on that last point, Darth. If someone is having difficult times emotionally, or in a lot of pain, any kind of hope (even misplaced hope) can be a good thing. The goal of most psychotherapy isn't to force people to have 'correct beliefs', it's to make them feel better, and live happier lives. If this means they'll live what you call a lie, so be it.

 

Alright, if they believe it. I still strongly disagree.

 

Ok Darth Guy.
I used to believe in God and today I do not believe at all. So you're right about the psychotherapy. If some people whose problems are really minor can have a well balanced mind, those who have real existential problems can not find true help in religions. Or they can feel normal untill the end of their lives but I think they are strange. To go to the church twice per week, pray four times per day, and have the same mortality than the others... I know people who spend their lifetime thinking to God and religion, and they had their house burned some years ago. Strange way of admiring God, isn't it?

The problem is always the same : when you believe in one God, when you fallow one religion, you only have one point of view. You could tell me that a psychotherapy can be similar, and that might be true. It appears that a lot of people are convinced they had been abused when they were children, when they do a psychotherapy. (that's not an exact science...) However, group psychotherapy is a good alternative I think. If one psychologist can be wrong, that's different with a group of persons. In that particular case you are the one who decides for himself, and you don't let people decide for you.
Maybe religions are a good way to dominate people (in fact I'm sure of that, I'm french he he he! ). In the beginning, people were just scared by their beliefs : "The King represents God, I believe in God, so I believe in the king." There was also a lot of inquisitors to "help them" to find the faith.
This seems now a little preposterous...
But people educated in a strong religious way are used to spontaneously believe in "trustable persons" (their parents, their pastor...). Trustable persons can be good persons or bad ones. This is precisely what disturbs me.
I'm not meaning we should live like in the x-files "trust noone", lol! But believing in everyone, and never wonder anything is a very good way to live another life than the one you would have lived.

... As far as I don't want to look like a kind of intolerant person, I would just sum up like this : don't let others decide for you.
Parents should not impose a religion to their chidren.

Intelligence is a way to screw humanity? (I'm not sure I understand)
Intelligence is the best way for humanity to preserve itself. I've never seen a God coming on Earth to save a population.
But every dictator (and not only dictators I think) is free to scare humanity with its giants army and bombs. He is free to exhaust all natural ressources and emit as much CO2 as he wants... He's free to destroy humanity. Humanity is also free to revolt and destroy him... If everyone goes on fighting, we'll never leave in peace? What a catastrophe! I think fighting is not brave, it is stupid. I'd like we spent all our time being happy with our family and friends...

 

"In the beginning...Man created God in his own image."

- Qui Rune

There is a major difference in being
"RELIGIOUS" and being "SPIRITUAL".

I do not follow an organized religion, but I have my own, very deep spirituality.

I think spirituality is up to you and no one else.

I am a scientist at heart....show me evidence and I will believe.

 

Yes. Personnal spirituality is individual, it could also be called "psyche" I think.

"man created God in his own image"
In the beginning, yes. Now God has become more frightening than he should. (meet someone who has never heard about religions and tell him about God, he might be frightened) And he's so annoying! Tradition wants God is some kind of old person having good ideas. I'd like to see him on TV now Making comic shows, giant concerts, and spectacular movies (about some people in a galaxy far far away... ) And if he could also repaint my car I would greet him.

 

"God created man in his own image"

God is omnipotent, right? That means "he" is actually an it. God can do anything, and be anything. Humans being created in God's image would mean that humans would be everything, which is impossible.

If there is a God, I think he had a good sense of humor. Creating an awkward, tail-less, basically hairless, big-headed biped is pretty funny.

 

God is omnipotent, right? That means "he" is actually an it. God can do anything, and be anything. Humans being created in God's image would mean that humans would be everything, which is impossible.

You've missed the point methinks. God created man in his own image. But, nowhere does it say that God created man to be omnipotent. Just because he is, does not mean that because he created us that we are. Imagine viewing a very beautiful painting. You spend years studying technique, and then you go and paint a near exact replica. Is it the same painting? No. It looks the same, but its two different things. The key word here I think is image. Of course, this is all only if you subscribe to Chistianity

Waitaminute... does this mean we're FORGERIES!!?!??!

 

In this mythology, humanity was next corrupted by money and power. (oh, and the first ones were also corrupted by sex)

 

Sex? [face_shocked]

The continuation of the human race is wrong.

 

Links, please.

 

Chris, please post a link instead of copying so much text. It can really kill a thread when people have to scroll past so much text. Use a link instead.

 

You mean he didn't write all that himself? Shocking! I didn't see a reference given, so he must have, right?

 

Okay, since I can't find the actual religious thread, here goes:


Scarlet, Fire_Ice_Death:

I wonder whether you guys could take jokes as well as you dish them.


I do! Hell I'd love to see a joke about me. I've been criticized, made fun of, tripped, all that good stuff. I'm a famous internet personality too.

To be sure, I believe that the reasons most people reject God are flawed - that many of the reasons boil down to anger toward a God that supposedly doesn't exist, or a belief that there is no God because the world is unjust EVEN THOUGH justice has no meaning in the absense of the supernatural.


I reject god for a variety of reasons many of them being because god is make-believe. Oh yes, you don't like that fact and it probably boils your blood just seeing that but it's true. If there is a god then why haven't they shown themselves to us puny mortals? I also loathe how Christians and anyone of faith refuse to depend on themselves. Instead they'd much rather put down their sucky or good life to the fact that it was divine, yet they give themselves no credit. How stupid. I could go on and on, and you say these claims are flawed? How? What makes them flawed? Is it because you believe in da lawd and we don't thus making you the holiest person on earth? *eye roll*

Despite this, I endeavor to be as respectful of you guys as I can. Rather than ridicule your beliefs, I try to explain where I think your beliefs are the weakest. (If you were genuinely concerned with finding the truth, you'd welcome such scrutiny.)


Scrutiny? All I've seen you is preach and badly at that. I've seen no scrutiny.

I don't mock you guys; why don't you return the favor?

Probably because I don't wish to be an uptight person with NO sense of humor. You've gotta learn to laugh at yourself once in a while.


The Bible teaches in John 15:19 that the world will hate and ridicule believers.


The bible, for all intents and purposes, is full of crap. It was written by men and it will always be a book of men, not of some hokey god.



If you guys dislike the Bible so much, WHY DON'T YOU PROVE IT WRONG and be as respectful of me as I am of you?

Actually that's a pretty stupid way to try and prove somebody wrong. Even if we did you'd probably spout some babble about something or another and then go "Amen!" not something I wanna do, plus the people who don't believe don't need to prove it wrong because science and nature has already proven a lot of stuff from the bible to be false or at the worst inaccurate. It's up to you to prove it right.

 

I reject god for a variety of reasons many of them being because god is make-believe. Oh yes, you don't like that fact and it probably boils your blood just seeing that but it's true.

Well, that's compelling.


If there is a god then why haven't they shown themselves to us puny mortals?

I believe He has: the written Word called the Bible and the living Word of the person of Jesus Christ.

It seems to me that you reject the Bible and all other religious texts as divinely inspired BECAUSE you don't think divine revelation is possible. If you assume divine revelation is possible, then why act surprised that you see no proof of such revelation?


I also loathe how Christians and anyone of faith refuse to depend on themselves. Instead they'd much rather put down their sucky or good life to the fact that it was divine, yet they give themselves no credit. How stupid.

So you reject the existence of God because you personally dislike the idea of dependence on God? That's not much of a reason.


I could go on and on, and you say these claims are flawed? How? What makes them flawed? Is it because you believe in da lawd and we don't thus making you the holiest person on earth? *eye roll*

No, as I just explained, "that many of the reasons boil down to anger toward a God that supposedly doesn't exist, or a belief that there is no God because the world is unjust EVEN THOUGH justice has no meaning in the absense of the supernatural."

Or, as you seem to do, many ASSUME that God doesn't exist. OF COURSE you're not going to find evidence if you've ALREADY decided that such evidence could not possibly exist.

You're using a premise (God doesn't exist) as the conclusion, a logical fallacy known as begging the question:

- God doesn't exist, so there CAN'T be any proof of His existence.

- There's no proof of His existence, so God doesn't exist.


Scrutiny? All I've seen you is preach and badly at that. I've seen no scrutiny.

Not my fault that your vision's so cloudy.

EDIT: Take this for an example: when I asked what else explains the Resurrection story as presented in the Bible, I was given two possibilities, mass hallucination or a hoax on the part of the Apostles. I then SCRUTINIZED both possibilities, pointing out that the Biblical account of the Resurrection is MUCH more difficult than some magician's parlor tricks, and that there was NO MOTIVE for the Apostles to lie about the Resurrection and condemn themselves to a life of persecution.


"I don't mock you guys; why don't you return the favor?"

Probably because I don't wish to be an uptight person with NO sense of humor. You've gotta learn to laugh at yourself once in a while.

In other words, I have to learn to put up with others laughing at me - the same people who (as far as I've seen) NEVER make jokes at their own expense.


The bible, for all intents and purposes, is full of crap. It was written by men and it will always be a book of men, not of some hokey god.

Again you assume God doesn't exist before you even consider the evidence.


"If you guys dislike the Bible so much, WHY DON'T YOU PROVE IT WRONG and be as respectful of me as I am of you?"

Actually that's a pretty stupid way to try and prove somebody wrong. Even if we did you'd probably spout some babble about something or another and then go "Amen!" not something I wanna do, plus the people who don't believe don't need to prove it wrong because science and nature has already proven a lot of stuff from the bible to be false or at the worst inaccurate. It's up to you to prove it right.

Let me put it another way: the Bible teaches that unbelievers are not nice people, and you're doing a damn fine job of proving that it's right.

 

I believe He has: the written Word called the Bible and the living Word of the person of Jesus Christ.

There is no evidence that the Bible is credible in its assertions, nor is there any evidence that it is divinely inspired.

"...EVEN THOUGH justice has no meaning in the absense of the supernatural."

Poppycock. I have no faith in the supernatural, but I believe I have a sense of justice.

Or, as you seem to do, many ASSUME that God doesn't exist. OF COURSE you're not going to find evidence if you've ALREADY decided that such evidence could not possibly exist.

I don't think anyone is operating on that premise. I think most people are operating on the premise that they don't believe in God because there is no reason to. I mean, if I was shown evidence that God existed - evidence that would stand up in a University lecture theatre (if it was philosophical or historical), or a science lab (if it was physical) - I would believe in him. Now, personally, I wouldn't worship him, for a variety of reasons, but that doesn't mean I'd still not believe in him. However, I have seen NO such evidence whatsoever.

The problem is that there is little, or no, evidence for any part of the Bible. There is some pointing to Jesus existing, but it is all circumstantial. Furthermore, it seems people who claim that the Bible is real ignore the kicker - the fact that there is volumes of evidence for other events (and events much less major, too) around that time, but little to none for apparently the most earth-changing historical event ever. Take the example of the Kingdom of David.

This is a quote from Peter Vokac, Tucson, Arizona. Letter in Biblical
Archaeology Review, Mar/Apr '95, pg. 20.

"The tiny inscription fragments from Dan, chiseled more than a hundred
years after the alleged event, are presently the nearest there is to
written evidence of the existence of the great King David and the even
greater King Solomon. If I might borrow a popular phrase, Professor Rainey
and his highly professional colleagues in academe are ignoring the 800-pound
gorilla in the corner, which is the fact that thousands of tenth-century
B.C.E. ostraca and artifacts have been found confirming the existence of
minor neighboring kingdoms that were contemporary with David and Solomon,
but there is nothing, not one potshard, not a scrap, to confirm the
greatness of the founders of the United Monarchy."

In other words, I have to learn to put up with others laughing at me - the same people who (as far as I've seen) NEVER make jokes at their own expense.

When I made that joke, I wasn't laughing at you. I kind of hoped that you might find it amusing too, though I'll acknowledge I was aiming more at the atheist crowd with it. And for future reference, I do mock myself. If you look through some of the threads that have talked about Communism, I have referred to myself as a commie on several occasions, and pretended that all communists were Russian-speaking vodka-swilling fur-hat-wearing godless conscripts.

If you don't want us making any more jokes at your expense, or centering around you, or jokes that might even SEEM to be aimed at you, then I wont. I'll respect that.

Let me put it another way: the Bible teaches that unbelievers are a-holes, and you're doing a damn fine job of proving that it's right.

Your Bible says that? Well, I'll be damned - I thought it was known as the Good Book.

Ah well, it's not so bad, I suppose. At least now you Christians only think we're not nice people.

A few of hundred years ago, you were burning us on stakes.

- Scarlet.

 

Well, that's compelling.

Yep.


I believe He has: the written Word called the Bible and the living Word of the person of Jesus Christ.


Bible = Political propaganda.


It seems to me that you reject the Bible and all other religious texts as divinely inspired BECAUSE you don't think divine revelation is possible. If you assume divine revelation is possible, then why act surprised that you see no proof of such revelation?

I don?t believe it?s possible. It?s stupid to suggest such things, if the apostles were alive today they?d be locked up and rightly so, friggin? psychos.

So you reject the existence of God because you personally dislike the idea of dependence on God? That's not much of a reason.

Yes it is, plus you must refer to my first response.


No, as I just explained, "that many of the reasons boil down to anger toward a God that supposedly doesn't exist, or a belief that there is no God because the world is unjust EVEN THOUGH justice has no meaning in the absense of the supernatural.


Justice is not supernatural. That?s man-made too. It?s also an emotion, you feel it?s not supernatural. A ghost is supernatural, a demonic possession is supernatural, justice is not.


Or, as you seem to do, many ASSUME that God doesn't exist. OF COURSE you're not going to find evidence if you've ALREADY decided that such evidence could not possibly exist.


Hmm?not really, because I could very well be swayed that god does exist if there were proof. But since there?s no evidence, then it doesn?t exist.

You're using a premise (God doesn't exist) as the conclusion, a logical fallacy known as begging the question:

- God doesn't exist, so there CAN'T be any proof of His existence.

- There's no proof of His existence, so God doesn't exist.


Look, I?ll be blunt, don?t talk logic and fallacies with me because as you?ve already shown, you?re not the most logical person to ever exist.



Not my fault that your vision's so cloudy.


Okay, go talk to god or something. That was just funny, cloudy vision?yeesh?

EDIT: Take this for an example: when I asked what else explains the Resurrection story as presented in the Bible, I was given two possibilities, mass hallucination or a hoax on the part of the Apostles. I then SCRUTINIZED both possibilities, pointing out that the Biblical account of the Resurrection is MUCH more difficult than some magician's parlor tricks, and that there was NO MOTIVE for the Apostles to lie about the Resurrection and condemn themselves to a life of persecution.


Says who? There?s a rope trick in India that has never been explained. They actually make the rope stand-up straight in the air then it falls back down. It?s not difficult, you just refuse to believe it could be anything but a resurrection. Personally I think everyone 2000 years ago smoked a lot of drugs or had a lot of syphilis.


In other words, I have to learn to put up with others laughing at me - the same people who (as far as I've seen) NEVER make jokes at their own expense.

I?ve made plenty of jokes at my own expense, I wore a shirt that said ?Dork: Feel the sensation? on it for cripes sake. If you think I didn?t get a lot of flak from that then you?re dead wrong. Yes, you will be laughed at when you come across non-believers, deal with it. It?s a natural reaction.


Again you assume God doesn't exist before you even consider the evidence.

WHAT EVIDENCE?!?! The bible? A book written by man, HA! If you consider that evidence then laughing is the least of which non-believers will do to you.


Let me put it another way: the Bible teaches that unbelievers are a-holes, and you're doing a damn fine job of proving that it's right.


Good! The bible is a false book written 2000 years ago by a bunch of drunkards, loonies, sick, (insert word here). And I?m not trying to get you to like me. It?s impossible for me to like someone such as yourself.

 

I'm reposting this from another thread, as it is more appropriate here:

But what good does us loving Him and Him loving us do? Why is it good for us and him? You seem to say He is doing what comes natural to Him, but what benifite comes for us loving God aside from Heaven/Hell?

This raises a question that is so seldom asked amongst the usual cacophony of god-is/god-isn't opinions.

Why does god need love in the first place? Of what use is it to a beneficient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient? More importantly, why would the infinite oneness need to be showered with outward gestures of adoration when such a being would transcend all emotion... possessing within it all the thoughts, emotions, intents of all living beings past, present and future all at once?

Everything you think, do, believe, feel, etc. would be known to god well before you do it... well befofe, and even long after your own corporeal existence. Even if god gave you free will to make your own choices... which is in itself a tautology... the choices you and everyone else will make from here to eternity are already known to god.

But most importantly is that first question... If god transcends all in this universe... why should god even possess the capacity to desire love when god is beyond even desire?

Someone pointed out that god has always existed... if it is possible to conceive that god has always existed, it is possible to conceive that the universe has always existed. The universe and god, by some accounts, are essentially one and the same. Given that, creation is irrelevant. That which constitutes god, this universe, has always existed... and therefore need not have been "created" by god.

I find it more believable that, if there is a god, it does not ask for human beings to be groveling at its feet... by definition, that would be beneath god. So it becomes rather peculiar, and rather suspect, that instead of hearing god booming down from the heavens, commanding us to grovel.. .the only voices we hear parroting those sentiments are those of the human, self-appointed clergy... always asking for charity.

At this point, anyone with two brain cells rubbing together should be able to do the math here and understand what's going on.

---

[color=blue]"Ministers say that they teach charity. That is natural. They live on alms. All beggars teach that others should give."[/color]
[b][blockquote]- Robert Ingersoll[/b][/blockquote]

[color=blue]"What does god need with a starship?"[/color]
[b][blockquote]- Captain Kirk[/b][/blockquote]

[color=blue]"Stop groveling! If there's anything I can't stand, it's people groveling all the time!"[/color]
[b][blockquote]- God[/b][/blockquote]

 

That's the problem, Snow. The braincells are busy in prayer.

I remember when I changed from Christianity to atheism. It was like... opening my eyes. It's a scary experience, growing up, dependent on God, believing with every inch of your heart that he exists, and no matter what, he'll always be there for you, then realising that evidence is starting to fly in the face of your beliefs, and that your doubt is mounting. It requires actual force of will to stop believing in order to take the veil from in front of your eyes, but that's the VERY THING that Christians don't want to give. They don't want to 'think outside of the box,' and try and think from an atheistic perspective, even though that's the one thing that is guaranteed to remove that veil. And I can understand why.

The concept of a loving God is probably one of the most comfortable things in the world. Its like a safety blanket, and an invisible means of support. When you have God and prayer, you're never truly ALONE. So it comes down, in the end, to a decision: do you want that lifelong comfort that comes with ignorance, or doubt and freethought, which just might make you feel alone at times, which might just scare you when you think there is nothing else apart from this life, which might just mean that you're part of a minority?

Atheists choose the latter option, Christians the former. I made the choice, and I believe that the choice has occured to everyone - even Bubba. But it's entirely up to us whether we have the force of will to give up our security blanket. But until you have that force of will, there's no way that you can ever truly understand atheism - while you're holding onto God and Christianity, you can't let go of that security blanket.

- Scarlet.