Someone explain religion to me

[Deleted member 143209]

Rather than making the seemingly obligatory TL;DR post showing strong opinions and or intellect on the topic of religion; I'm just going to call in human nature, without faith what would the world have to look to? The stars? Pity we already know that they're balls of gas. Sums up what I could have said in 8 MS word pages.

 

[Åzurε]

True, technically, but it is logically sound. It makes more sense that we are a product of millions upon billions of years of genetic mutations that eventually led to better survival than saying we just appeared this way. And again, we really don't know! It's almost universally agreed upon because it answers the questions and has the most backing to it. There's no evidence for Creation outside of the Bible, however.

If only because creation is so simple. Easier that it just was than that it had to get that way. It only makes less sense if you don't believe God exists.

I'm referring to the most extreme cases, which are out there in larger numbers than you think. The people who stubbornly believe the Earth is 6000 years old because the Bible says so, despite the scientific evidence we have that it's not. And it's these people that don't believe looking for an answer is needed. I agree with you, stopping to look is stupid, whether you believe in God or not.

6000 is the young-earth extreme. I may be utterly wrong here as there's no absolute way to tell, but everything in the Bible points to Creation as happening in a literal six days, not eons of time. A little clarification. Little more to say here, except that an answer is not needed for me. It would be a wonderful thing to finally figure out and see for myself, but it's not necessary.

Think of it this way... it's almost like an ex-Nazi coming in to work for the US Government (don't worry, I'm not calling religious people Nazis, this is just a metaphor). Because of the history of Nazis, he is immediately suspect, even if he's truly reformed or truly "on our side", going to follow our rules, or our way of dealing with things, etc, so to say. It's the same thing with highly religious people in science. Do I think they can play by our rules (that is, the rules of science)? Of course. Some of the most famous scientists in history believed in God (such as Einstein, as you quoted above). But are they, perhaps, suspect at first? I think so.

PS: You could think about it this way too... say a Muslim came into your church to give a speech on Christian philosophy. Could everything he says be accurate, according to the Bible? Of course! But wouldn't you question the situation, perhaps at first?

I understand your examples. However "suspect at first" is a gross understatement in today's world. Scientists, in my experience, often ridicule and ignore the opinion of creationists even if it's irrelevant to the subject at hand. Currently-observable science (at the least) and faith are not mutually exclusive. I'm glad you're willing to listen a bit, though.

 

[Richard Lynch]

If only because creation is so simple. Easier that it just was than that it had to get that way. It only makes less sense if you don't believe God exists.

It's not really about simplicity... if you really look at it, science is amazingly simplistic. In fact, that's what theoretical physicists tend to look for: something small and simple that describes a lot, such as Einstein's equation. The thing is is that there's no backing to it except the Bible. And really, I don't think believing in God has anything to do with it... it's a fundamentalist approach to literal interpretation to the Bible that causes evolution and the Big Bang to make less sense, and that's only because it's violating the "word of God".

6000 is the young-earth extreme. I may be utterly wrong here as there's no absolute way to tell, but everything in the Bible points to Creation as happening in a literal six days, not eons of time. A little clarification. Little more to say here, except that an answer is not needed for me. It would be a wonderful thing to finally figure out and see for myself, but it's not necessary.

No, I think you misunderstood me... or I wasn't clear enough. The Bible says the creation took place in six days, but the Bible also suggests that it occurred 6000 years ago (I think it was 6000, anyway). And that's proven to be nonsense. Not the Creation part, but how long ago it happened, yet people still believe it.

I understand your examples. However "suspect at first" is a gross understatement in today's world. Scientists, in my experience, often ridicule and ignore the opinion of creationists even if it's irrelevant to the subject at hand. Currently-observable science (at the least) and faith are not mutually exclusive. I'm glad you're willing to listen a bit, though.

I may be an anti-religionist and atheist, but I think that's just stupid. If a creationist wants to try to prove his point, I say have at it. But he has to follow the standards of scientific research. If he once brings the Bible into play, he's toast.

Who knows, maybe we'll find evidence that we were placed here by, and in the exact image of, highly advanced extraterrestrials in a very Raelian fashion. The Creationists and fundamentalists don't like that theory, even though they essentially depict the exact same scenario. :rambo:

 

[Eldrei]

Let's see... religion is more like an opinion than a fact. Don'tcha you think, PC?

 

[Åzurε]

No, I think you misunderstood me... or I wasn't clear enough. The Bible says the creation took place in six days, but the Bible also suggests that it occurred 6000 years ago (I think it was 6000, anyway). And that's proven to be nonsense. Not the Creation part, but how long ago it happened, yet people still believe it.

I think the fault is mine. You said 6000 years, and I said that's the young extreme for young-earth theory. The Bible pointing to literal days was a separate thought. Taking 6-day Creation as literal, it's more likely double that or more.

I may be an anti-religionist and atheist, but I think that's just stupid. If a creationist wants to try to prove his point, I say have at it. But he has to follow the standards of scientific research. If he once brings the Bible into play, he's toast.

You'd have to be pretty tactless to start preaching while discussing in that sort of company, but "toast"? He says "Jesus" and you open fire?
Much of the Bible isn't even controversial in view of science.

Scientific research is subject to the scientists as well. It would be problematic at least to play down flaws or missing information for the sake of reputation or some person's agenda, or any number of problems. This isn't just "hint hint nudge I'm talking about evolution here", I think it happens in a bunch of fields. Considering current science as an absolute authority would not be a good idea. That what you're supposed to do, right? Look at it critically.

Who knows, maybe we'll find evidence that we were placed here by, and in the exact image of, highly advanced extraterrestrials in a very Raelian fashion. The Creationists and fundamentalists don't like that theory, even though they essentially depict the exact same scenario. :rambo:

Maybe. But until then, That's not relevant. I have some issues with the analogy too, but meh.

Let's see... religion is more like an opinion than a fact. Don'tcha you think, PC?

Nope. Religion is fact. Deciding what's real or productive about religion is where it gets hairy.

 

[Rich Boy Rob]

Let's see... religion is more like an opinion than a fact. Don'tcha you think, PC?

Religion as an idea is fact. It's what that religion preaches that is opinion. In reality all beliefs concerning "creation", be it religious or scientific are opinions until solid, irrefutable proof is shown for the true beginning.

 

[Dawn]

Let's see... religion is more like an opinion than a fact. Don'tcha you think, PC?

Um... no. I'm pretty sure every religious person on this forum disagrees with you there. Might find some more luck asking atheists or objective people. The rest of us have faith and accept religion as fact at some degree.

 

[Throat]

Everyone has the right to have a religion, just like the right not to. I, for one, respect the believers, just don't try to take me to a church, heh.

 

[Richard Lynch]

You'd have to be pretty tactless to start preaching while discussing in that sort of company, but "toast"? He says "Jesus" and you open fire?
Much of the Bible isn't even controversial in view of science.

Well, that's because most of the Bible is intepretational parables about how to live one's life (if you were to ask me, I think it all is). And yes, if he says Jesus in regard to research, then my radar goes up. There is no science in the Bible... it doesn't make sense for there to be. The scriptures were written about 2000 years before Christ to about 200 hundred years after Christ. Modern science has come into the picture in, say, the last 300 years or so. That's one hell of a time gap... so how could there be any science in the Bible?

Scientific research is subject to the scientists as well. It would be problematic at least to play down flaws or missing information for the sake of reputation or some person's agenda, or any number of problems. This isn't just "hint hint nudge I'm talking about evolution here", I think it happens in a bunch of fields. Considering current science as an absolute authority would not be a good idea. That what you're supposed to do, right? Look at it critically.

Oh, of course! I agree with that. Critical analysis is the foundation of science. Moreso we assume its wrong than assume its right, and it's only through reproducibility (and, in many cases, the math works out) that we say it's right. And I'm the first one to admit that there are flaws with Darwinian evolution, there are "missing gaps" that we've yet to discover. But there is soundness with the theory, there is evidence for it.

There's another theory out there, a kind of a spinoff from Darwinian evolution, called Adaptation, in which an animal adapts to its environment (such as, the giraffe started out with a short neck in an environment with very tall trees, and the species adapts to it to survive). Even this theory makes more sense than Creation, but it's also been shown to be untrue. Genetics just doesn't work that way. Sure, the species with more beneficial genetics relative to the environment survives (or if they're lucky, they get a beneficial mutation that carries on, as is the framework for Darwinian evolution), but our genetics cannot change itself to meet the requirements of the environment.

I guess what I'm saying is, the field of "how we got here" is indeed being critically analyzed. And so far, Darwinian evolution is the one that has survived and is, for the most part, agreed upon.

Like I said before, if a Creationist wants to do scientific research on the idea of Creation (I once knew a physics major who wanted to try to prove Creation through physics), all the luck to them. As long as they can provide scientific evidence, I have no quarrel. Some people have, in fact. But, like Adaptation, they were examined and were to shown to be somewhat nonsensical.

Maybe. But until then, That's not relevant. I have some issues with the analogy too, but meh.

Awww, c'mon, don't be hatin' on the Raelians. They're so damn cute with all their silly beliefs. ;)

Nope. Religion is fact. Deciding what's real or productive about religion is where it gets hairy.

Ehhh... not quite. If there was just one religion, then that'd have more backing. Sure, the idea, the entity of religion is a fact; we have it! It's there. But religion as a philosophy is highly dependent on the individual. I say this because we have so many sub-denominations. Even within the denominations we have branch offs... ever met a Roman Catholic that goes to mass like once a month? Or eats meat on Friday? Or believes in evolution? Roman Catholic Lite. Half the calories, people! Same great Heaven.

 

[Pokémon Ranger ✩ Moriarty]

As an Agnostic, I put my belief in the fact that there is something out there but I'm never likely to discover what, so I make my own moral decisions and live my life like that. And whilst I can be heard criticising religion when its more extreme patrons venture out and slaughter people (the Crusades) or blow buildings up (9/11) etc., I would never say that religion does not have a 'point'. That's better left to persons such as Richard Dawkins, who hate everything even vaguely spiritual with a violent passion.

Er, where was I going with this? I can't remember. Basically, to my mind, everybody needs something to believe in, be that a God, an idol, or a cream cheese sandwich.

 

[Åzurε]

Well, that's because most of the Bible is intepretational parables about how to live one's life (if you were to ask me, I think it all is). And yes, if he says Jesus in regard to research, then my radar goes up. There is no science in the Bible... it doesn't make sense for there to be. The scriptures were written about 2000 years before Christ to about 200 hundred years after Christ. Modern science has come into the picture in, say, the last 300 years or so. That's one hell of a time gap... so how could there be any science in the Bible?

Ecclesiastes 1:6
The wind goes toward the south,
And turns around to the north;
The wind whirls about continually,
And comes again on its circuit.

(part of) Leviticus 17:11
For the life of the flesh is in the blood...

Job 26:7
He stretches out the north over empty space;
He hangs the earth on nothing.

1 Corinthians 15:41
There is one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differs from another star in glory.

Ecclesiastes 1:7
All the rivers run into the sea,
Yet the sea is not full;
To the place from which the rivers come,
There they return again.

(part of) Isaiah 40:22
It is He who sits above the circle of the earth...

The original Hebrew for "circle" in this phrase indicates something spherical. Funny, huh? Not to say anything about 2 Peter 3:10.

 

[Okami Chi]

It all comes down to this. Claiming to have a faith. Or acting on a faith. Just like the Bible says: "Faith without works is dead." So you can have people who say that they are "True Christians" or any other religion, but if they don't live by the teaching then they are not true followers.

Also, if you just can't believe in something bigger than you, than that is your problem. If it's because you can't see God; well can you see the wind? No, but you know it's there by it's effects. So in the same way, you can see God by his creations. The bible states, "Man was made in Gods image." So thus, a way we can see God by his creations. The keypoint in all of this is that Religion takes faith. Without faith you are nothing. If you still feel the same after this, I don't think anything I write here will change you or make you think in another way.

-Okami

 

[Richard Lynch]

Ecclesiastes 1:6
The wind goes toward the south,
And turns around to the north;
The wind whirls about continually,
And comes again on its circuit.

(part of) Leviticus 17:11
For the life of the flesh is in the blood...

Job 26:7
He stretches out the north over empty space;
He hangs the earth on nothing.

1 Corinthians 15:41
There is one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differs from another star in glory.

Ecclesiastes 1:7
All the rivers run into the sea,
Yet the sea is not full;
To the place from which the rivers come,
There they return again.

(part of) Isaiah 40:22
It is He who sits above the circle of the earth...

The original Hebrew for "circle" in this phrase indicates something spherical. Funny, huh? Not to say anything about 2 Peter 3:10.

Completely irrelevant. These are observational. It's what causes these that is the scientific aspect, and that is something the Bible leaves out. It's like saying, "This rock... is heavier than this feather". Well, duh... but why?

And the last one, about the "circle of the earth" is quite interesting... but you're wrong about the translation. Hebrew didn't have a word for "sphere",and "circle" means, quite literally, a circular flat disc. Now, Hebrew does have a word for "ball", which would have been a bit more appropriate. If the author had any idea that the Earth was a ball.

EDIT: Here's an interesting bit I found. Daniel 4:10

"Upon my bed this is what I saw; there was a tree at the center of the earth, and its height was great. The tree grew great and strong, its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the ends of the whole earth."

Now, obviously, a tree growing in the center of the Earth wouldn't grow none too well, can we agree? This implies the middle of a flat plane. The "center of the plane". Even if Isiah did mean to say "sphere", this would be one of the many contradictions in the Bible.

As for 2 Peter 3:10, I don't see anything even close to science, except the word "element", which had a totally different connotation back then.

I feel like I'm starting to sound redundant, but how much can I stress that the Bible really can not be taken literally. And if you can bring yourself to believe in some of the stuff the Bible depicts... hey, more power to ya. I'll be in the other room, reading some H. P. Lovecraft.

 

[NarutoActor]

• Religion causes problems. Just having religion exist causes problems because it makes people have conflicting views. I understand that people may believe what they will, but in many cases, it causes a rift between religious groups, other religious groups, and non-religious groups. Even in olden times it caused many struggles and birth many discriminatory sentiments within nations. I wouldn't be an atheist if religion didn't exist.

Lot's of things cause people to have conflicting view points. Religion is already around so being atheist causes conflicting problems.

It's simpler without religion. This picture embodies my views perfectly: https://www.myconfinedspace.com/wp-co...on-500x379.jpg

Lost of things would make the world simpler. but why would we want that, do you want to get rid of all complicated things, and have a stupid society? Should we get rid of technology too?

• Religion was great back in the day... Not so much now. Back when people were confused and separated, they found a means to both explain the world and unite it. Nowadays, there isn't much point to it as far as I can tell. Now, we have a better understanding of the world and we have much larger societies.

You make it sound like humans created religion, while in actuality God created humans.

• Religious fallacies aren't unheard of. There are a lot of things that are wrong in religious scriptures. Incorrect assumptions are made here and there, so how do people know that their religion is absolute in respect to other things?

Your the wrong one here. In the Christian Bible there is no geographical, order or scientific problem.

• Why don't gods "speak" to us now? If gods can speak to prophets / oracles, etc., why don't they speak to people nowadays? What proof do we have that anything written down is the truth?

God uses the Holy spirit to speak to people and prayer. The holy spirit is what made the bible.

• Religious people can do bad things too. It's true. The concept of "salvation" is flawed if even people who believe can still commit atrocities.

You do not fully understand religion. There are different types and in Christianity you are flawed, and you don't get into heaven by what you have done; but by what God has done for you. If you make a mistake and ask God to forgive you, he will.

• Militant religious individuals are disruptive. I understand that there are also militant atheists, protesters, and the like. However, it's really unnerving to have a line of people in your train station with stern faces, staring into your soul, telling you to convert or else you will die on a supposed "judgment day." Yes, this happened to me. One of them even had the nerve to hand out one of their fanatical flyers to a small child too. Again, I'm not saying all religious people are like this, but it's hell annoying. In addition, religion tends to force itself on to the next generation. If the next generation doesn't comply, then the parent generation will sometimes scorn the children, which makes no sense to me anyway.

If you knew the something that could change peoples lives, wouldn't you want to share it with everyone you know. You don't have to convert it's your choice, just have an open mind to things.

• Religion impedes human development. A lot of religious ideas revolve around tradition, not merely in a familial sense, but in a societal sense. A lot of things imply the need to stay the same and halt all developments, such as in superficial debates like marriage, and things with more gravitas, such as biological research. Often, religion brings back ideas from the dark ages too, such as xenophobia towards those who don't share your views. This point is disadvantageous to everyone.

Marriage is an holy thing created by God, why are you trying to destroy it, or change it?

• Religion is a form of self-denial. Religion relinquishes oneself to a "higher power" that is not even known to exist 100%. I don't get it. From what I understand, religion is merely a way to cope with the fear of the world, just like it was in more archaic religions, such as in Ancient Greece or Egypt.

It's not self-denial it's abiding to God and allowing God to help you, and not to lean on your own understanding.

• You can have morals and hope without religion. I don't think this point needs much explaining. Sure, religion has compelled many to pursue "better" paths, according to societal standards, but people could have easily been well-doers without religion.

Not really, they are just going what they believe is right. Many mass murders thought what they where doing was right.

• A "spiritual" world probably doesn't exist. What I mean here is that we do not know there is a "higher plane" that embodies more than what we can perceive with our eyes alone. From what we know, there is a physical world, but we aren't sure there's a spiritual world. Why do people believe in it?

Because you can feel Gods presents, and in your heart you know it exsitis it makes the most sense logically, and emotionally.

• What about older religions, such as the belief in the Greek Pantheon or the Norse Mythos? They carry many ideas that are completely and 100% true, as well as ideas that convey a general sense of "goodness." Why are they wrong? We owe a lot to Greek philosophers, even if we now know that some of their ideas were wrong. If you think of their beliefs in a similar way to that of other religions (of deities as "concepts," rather than actual beings), then a lot of it isn't very far-fetched. Yes, Aphrodite is married to Ares because love and beauty ARE related to war (look at the Trojans!).

They have been proven wrong with science.

• A lot is based on over-analyzing. A prime example is numerology. Just because you can go from one number to another and that number has a manmade significance doesn't mean there's a connection. A lot of talk in religion is based on over-analyzing texts and skewing them to make meaning -- just like a lot of tyrannical regimes in the past, but let's not name them.

Some things do have deeper meanings and you would be silly to think that everything is so cut and dry.

 

[Åzurε]

Completely irrelevant. These are observational. It's what causes these that is the scientific aspect, and that is something the Bible leaves out. It's like saying, "This rock... is heavier than this feather". Well, duh... but why?

Maybe it's observational for us today, but how could any person tell Earth was floating in space back then? Or that each star is individually different? What happened to modern science coming around ~300 years ago?

"Upon my bed this is what I saw; there was a tree at the center of the earth, and its height was great. The tree grew great and strong, its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the ends of the whole earth."

Now, obviously, a tree growing in the center of the Earth wouldn't grow none too well, can we agree? This implies the middle of a flat plane. The "center of the plane". Even if Isiah did mean to say "sphere", this would be one of the many contradictions in the Bible.

What you're referring to is a dream by Nebuchadnezzar (A Babylonian), and Isaiah had no connection to the man.

As for 2 Peter 3:10, I don't see anything even close to science, except the word "element", which had a totally different connotation back then.

It would be interesting to note that Greeks hypothesized about molecules, although they tended to go by Water/Air/Earth/Fire, which would still imply utter destruction.
A few moments of roaring noise, extreme heat, and dissolution of physical things? Kind of reminds me of nuclear reactions.

I feel like I'm starting to sound redundant, but how much can I stress that the Bible really can not be taken literally. And if you can bring yourself to believe in some of the stuff the Bible depicts... hey, more power to ya. I'll be in the other room, reading some H. P. Lovecraft.

You've done pretty well at emphasizing that point, yes. I find it pretty easy to take the Bible literally, in context (something I feel I gotta stress a bit).

 

[Mario The World Champion]

Another religion topic? I'm surprised that this hasn't degraded to a shouting match so far.

 

[Magmarizer]

religon is a simple result of mans curiosity, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Jack]

My definition : A Belief in a supreme figure or deity that can influence people's lives.

I am atheiest .

 

[Richard Lynch]

Maybe it's observational for us today, but how could any person tell Earth was floating in space back then? Or that each star is individually different? What happened to modern science coming around ~300 years ago?

You can tell a difference in stars just by looking at them. If you have a decent eye, of course. Just like there are many different ants, but at a first glance they generally look alike.

Oh, and Job also said in 9:6:
"Which shaketh the earth out of her place, and the pillars thereof tremble."

Now, this is from the same writer (referring to your argument later on about different authors)... he sounds a bit confused if you ask me.

It would be interesting to note that Greeks hypothesized about molecules, although they tended to go by Water/Air/Earth/Fire, which would still imply utter destruction.
A few moments of roaring noise, extreme heat, and dissolution of physical things? Kind of reminds me of nuclear reactions.

Yep, I agree with you. Just like primitive ages hypothesized about the Earth being flat, or that we were the center of the universe... doesn't mean it's not utter nonsense. You can hypothesize about anything, even the existence of God (which we've been doing; good times!) but the science comes in with providing evidence for it and a conclusion as to why something is.

As for the nuclear reaction... sure, it sounds like that. It also sounds like a common fire, too. That results in the dissolution of things, causes heat, and ever hear the term "roaring fire"? Yeah.

You've done pretty well at emphasizing that point, yes. I find it pretty easy to take the Bible literally, in context (something I feel I gotta stress a bit).

I understand your point, but I find it difficult to find any real context in a literal interpretation in the Bible. Such as, if one person writes something, and another writes something contradicting it... which is used? Are some aspects of the Bible parables (such as Jonah and the whale), while others are to be taken as historical fact? How can you tell which is which?

I'd also like to state at this time (and the Christians here will be on me for this), but does anyone know that the whole "Jesus story" (meaning, virtually everything from birth to death and resurrection) was essentially plagiarized from the Egyptian Book of the Dead? It describes the son of Osiris, Horus, who's life is amazingly similar (ah, who am I kidding? Just about identical!) to Jesus... albeit written around 1800 BC, almost 2000 years before Jesus was apparently born, and who knows how long before the New Testament was written.

(Oh, and there are many, many prophets who's life is similar to Jesus'... Horus is just the earliest known account of the story, and probably the only truly original one.)


PS: I found a nice little article that lists the comparisons between Horus and Jesus (a few discrepancies, but read the beginning and it will tell you why that could be. Regardless, the amount of similarities is just something you can not shrug off as coincidence.

https://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5b.htm

 

[HarrisonH]

Because most of us here live with "innocent until proven guilty". ie. you're the one's saying it doesn't exist, prove that it doesn't.

I'm late but you have that backwards. "Innocent until proven guilty" is "previous thought until accusation is true". Before there was religion, there was no reason to question if there was or was not a god, as the argument hadn't been brought up. The burden of proof is on whoever suggests that a god exists (or a person is guilty). Otherwise, there is no god (or the person is innocent).