Losing my religion

[cpwill]

I'd agree the idea of a centuries-long hoax involving thousands of people defies credulity.

well alright, that's one misconception we can agree on. :beer:

I don't, however, think "hoax" is necessarily the right way to characterize religion, such as Christianity. Rather, a religion's origins might lie partly in fables that were never intended to be taken literally, but came to be interpreted that way after countless retellings.

hmmm. except that the founders of the Christian religion clearly did, in fact, mean their claims to be taken literally. they stated on multiple occasions that their entire teaching was worthless if Jesus had not literally risen from the dead; that they had physically touched him, watched him eat, and so forth. You could make this argument about much of the Old Testament perhaps ( i think the parable model does much to mirror Genesis and Science, for example ), but not the New; which was written with a great deal of specificity and accuracy (there are, for example, more than 84 independently and archaelogically confirmed details in the second half of Acts alone) as a reference to literal events that the authors had physically taken part in.

Think of how stories often spread on the Internet: They start out as jests or parables, but after they begin to spread, and their sources get lost through the information decay endemic to human communication, a lot of people start thinking the stories are true, even though nobody actually lied during the process. Many religious tenets probably began this way.

:shrug: again, with some portions of the Old Testament you are definitely looking at a couple of centuries before the accounts were written down. However, you are making the mistake of pushing your current cultural assumptions onto ancient societies with oral traditions. A comparison that is often (inaccurately) used to disparage oral tradition is the game of telephone. Everyone knows the rules, you whisper a complex sentence down the line hoping it will be garbled at the end. However, imagine that the rules changed, and instead of whispering down the line, each person passed on the message loudly so that all the others could hear. The game would be unlikely to be much fun – any error would be instantly corrected by the other participants. That is the kind of community that produced the Old Testament and Gospel accounts; which is why when we pull apart the multiple narratives in the OT we are able to see where and specifically why differences were placed in; they were generally deliberate on the part of the community.

Also, consider that the ancients didn't have the prism of modern science through which to interpret their world, and that quite a few people today still either won't or can't use that prism. Without it, crediting demons, witches, gods, and other mystical creatures with the world's events can seem like the only alternative. So, the forefathers of most of our planet's religions, and many of those religions' followers since, likely honestly believed many of the things they saw were supernatural.

Walking on water. Raising others from the dead. Raising yourself from the dead These aren’t parlor tricks, or the kind of thing you pull off with a hidden trap door. With regards to epileptics, no doubt you are correct; it would have been easier for someone in that age to assume they are possessed. But then you are left attempting to explain how Jesus cured epilepsy.

And then consider religions such as Scientology or Mormonism. Because these religions arose relatively recently, we have a plethora of historical evidence demonstrating how they began: as either cons from cynical operators or delusions from feverish madmen (or both). But even though these religions might have begun as "hoaxes," they gained followers who believed in their truth, and who have perpetuated them to this day. Ergo, the hoaxes have been sustained without deliberate effort, except perhaps by small groups of people, to perpetuate a hoax.

what makes you think that only those who follow a particular religion are going to be able to find peace in connection with the Divine? The success of Mormonism (Scientology, as near as I am aware, isn’t exactly focused on theism) is obviously based on the fact that its’ adherents are interacting with something that keeps bringing them back; it strengthens the theistic argument, not weakens it.

In addition to what Civil1z@tion posted, I'd proffer physical threats aren't the only pressure religions can exert. One must also consider social penalties such as disapproval from friends and family, popular revulsion, professional discrimination, and reduced access to mates.

hmm. Interesting. Is the approval of professors, and a desire to feel personally superior, why you converted to atheism?

 

[cpwill]

Simple. If you believe in a perfect God then you must accept such a God does not lie to us every moment of every day or has not lied in Christanity's holy book.

God did not write the Bible. Nor is there a need to interpret Genesis literally in order for it to be true.

 

[cpwill]

That doesn't necessarily give Christianity an advantage when compared to other religions though.

no, it does not. it merely gives an advantage to Theism over Atheism.

Such as?

Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Phlegon, Thallus, Seutonius, Lucian, Celsus, Mara Bar-Serapion, and the Jewish Talmud. If all we had to go on was these ten sources, we could piece together that: Jesus was a historical figure, a Jew who lived during the reign of Tiberius Caesar, was considered a virtuous miracle-worker, had a brother named James, was acclaimed to be the Jewish Messiah, was crucified on the eve of the Jewish Passover under Pontius Pilate, at which point darkness and an earthquake occurred, that many believed they had witnessed him risen from the dead (and were willing to die rather than recant this belief), that his followers worshipped him as God (refusing to worship the Roman gods), and that they quickly spread across the Mediterranean.

That time period had it's share of supposed miracle workers and prophets with fanatical followers.

interesting claim. Care to present relevant historicity of the accounts of such miracle workers?

Verified? How and when?

on a daily basis by reply. Prayer isn’t simply “dear God, please send me a Mercedes. Sincerely, Cpwill”, it’s a two-way communication. I’ve received instruction, assurance, peace, discipline… even laughter, from God.

 

[cpwill]

Indeed, and this is why many beliefs aren't purely personal affairs. They are rightly subject to public debate and criticism because they influence more than just ourselves.


Red herring. Any religiosity among scientists has nothing to do with religion being "personal" or not.

this, certainly, can be true. If I can offer a particularly worthy example

 

[Anarcho-fascist]

Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Phlegon, Thallus, Seutonius, Lucian, Celsus, Mara Bar-Serapion, and the Jewish Talmud. If all we had to go on was these ten sources, we could piece together that: Jesus was a historical figure, a Jew who lived during the reign of Tiberius Caesar, was considered a virtuous miracle-worker, had a brother named James, was acclaimed to be the Jewish Messiah, was crucified on the eve of the Jewish Passover under Pontius Pilate, at which point darkness and an earthquake occurred, that many believed they had witnessed him risen from the dead (and were willing to die rather than recant this belief), that his followers worshipped him as God (refusing to worship the Roman gods), and that they quickly spread across the Mediterranean.

You said the claims were backed up, not that the fact that that people made them.

interesting claim. Care to present relevant historicity of the accounts of such miracle workers?

There are supposed miracle workers today that have thousands of followers. I see no reason to think that in that era people would be more skeptical of such claims. Apollonius of Tyana is a common example (though not great), but obviously Jesus would have more written about him. I think it is pretty obvious that there were plenty of supposed prophets around at the time (as there are today), there have been strange startup or breakaway religions all throughout history, like that time that Akhenaten tried to change the Egyptian religion, and Mithraism; and schisms, like with the Essenes, and Shia islam.

on a daily basis by reply. Prayer isn’t simply “dear God, please send me a Mercedes. Sincerely, Cpwill”, it’s a two-way communication. I’ve received instruction, assurance, peace, discipline… even laughter, from God.

What form does this reply take?

 

[lizzie]

Indeed, and this is why many beliefs aren't purely personal affairs. They are rightly subject to public debate and criticism because they influence more than just ourselves.

You and anyone else are perfectly welcome to debate and criticise all you desire. It still doesn't change the beliefs of someone unless they themselves come to realize something rings true that conflicts with their beliefs. My own religious beliefs have undergone severe changes throughout my lifetime, but it had nothing to do with someone else's criticism of them. It's because I wanted to go on my own search for what I consider the truth. When someone believes something, whether or not it's accurate, you cannot bully or ridicule them into changing what is in the heart and mind. Religion is very personal and fortunately not subordinate to public opinion.

 

[Catz Part Deux]

I had the opposite road. I went from being an atheist to becoming a Christian. At first I was Christian, I left it and let my belief in God die, and then I came back to God

No offense, Digbe, but you're 19 years old and your commitment to atheism occurred between ages 17 and 18. And then, you were reclaimed into the fundamentalist fold of your family. That's not a sincere commitment to atheism, it's teenaged rebellion designed to really get your old man's goat.

Talk to us in 10 years.

 

[obvious Child]

It doesn't matter. Religion is a personal thing, and doesn't need to "win" arguments.

Religion itself no. But those who believe in it with weak convictions do need to win arguments. Those who claim that one religion is the true religion always find themselves in deep trouble when asked to prove their religion is correct over another rather then science.

A particularly amusing comparison is literal Christanity to Norse mythology.

 

[obvious Child]

God did not write the Bible. Nor is there a need to interpret Genesis literally in order for it to be true.

Never said it was. Only that the logical outcome of believing in YEC is that your God is the supreme deceiever. Hard to be a Christian when your beliefs require God to be a larger liar then Satan.

 

[digsbe]

No offense, Digbe, but you're 19 years old and your commitment to atheism occurred between ages 17 and 18. And then, you were reclaimed into the fundamentalist fold of your family. That's not a sincere commitment to atheism, it's teenaged rebellion designed to really get your old man's goat.

Talk to us in 10 years.

None taken, btw I'm not 19 anymore as of yesterday

To be honest I was a teen who rebelled, but my reasons were not to rebel against my parents. I de-converted because I grew up seeing nothing but hypocrisy from Christians and having my heart destroyed by them as well. Plus I felt that God was not logical and a lier if He did exist. I was truly an atheist because I believed it, not because I wanted to rebel. I'm also not of the same faith convictions of my family, we don't belong to the same denomination and we disagree on several theological beliefs.

 

[aps]

Ultimately, I think there is no point in arguing for against holding a religion. If you are inclined to believe than you probably will, it not, than you won't.

Personally, religion seems illogical to me when I really look at it, but things have happened that I cannot explain away to my own satisfaction and to me, that is enough for me to believe on its own evidence. So, I go where the evidence takes me and I think it is the right path because I think there is a true interaction there. Either that or the universe is intelligent on its own, but I have a lot of trouble believing the things I have experienced are random chance or personification of unconnected events.

I find it strange that you need the happening to have an explanation of some sorts. Why? Why does there have to be an explanation? And if there is no explanation, you conclude that God made it happen?

 

[hallam]

I find it strange that you need the happening to have an explanation of some sorts. Why? Why does there have to be an explanation? And if there is no explanation, you conclude that God made it happen?

People need explanations because there are always explanations. In a world of causation, explanations are mandatory. If we weren't looking for explanations, then most people wouldn't ask questions.

 

[Catz Part Deux]

There are many issues for which we have insufficient data to formulate an explanation. That doesn't mean that the bogeyman, I mean god, did it.

 

[Catz Part Deux]

None taken, btw I'm not 19 anymore as of yesterday

To be honest I was a teen who rebelled, but my reasons were not to rebel against my parents. I de-converted because I grew up seeing nothing but hypocrisy from Christians and having my heart destroyed by them as well. Plus I felt that God was not logical and a lier if He did exist. I was truly an atheist because I believed it, not because I wanted to rebel. I'm also not of the same faith convictions of my family, we don't belong to the same denomination and we disagree on several theological beliefs.

And that may well continue to change in the next 20 years to a degree that you may now find unimaginable. Been there, done that.

 

[hallam]

There are many issues for which we have insufficient data to formulate an explanation. That doesn't mean that the bogeyman, I mean god, did it.

If we generalize for just a moment, you should notice that practicably people look for explanations regardless of data. Explanations are a psychological need if you will. In order for you point to be valid, people would have to mostly think like a scientist which wont ever and doesn't happen on the overall scale of human experience. So bogeyman or not, God's existence being true or not, God as an explanation is a perfectly acceptable answer to some questions even if you consider it a wrong answer.

 

[scourge99]

If we generalize for just a moment, you should notice that practicably people look for explanations regardless of data. Explanations are a psychological need if you will.

psychological need has no basis in what is real and true.

In order for you point to be valid, people would have to mostly think like a scientist

think like a scientist? I assume you mean follow the scientific method? And no, no one proposes that the scientific method is applicable to everything in life.

So bogeyman or not, God's existence being true or not, God as an explanation is a perfectly acceptable answer to some questions even if you consider it a wrong answer.

I agree that people can believe whatever they want. But beliefs have no basis in what is true and real. If you make no claim to TRUTH or no claim to what is REAL then I have no disagreement.

 

[hallam]

psychological need has no basis in what is real and true.

What is real and true is irrelevant to what I am talking about. Explanations at the practicable level are not really facts. For example, why does the rain fall? Gravity. What is gravity then? And so on. Gravity would be filler here to more questions. The craving to know is what I am talking about. To answer the question is a psychological need that is more powerful than what is real and true namely because our brains can function with explanations independent of data.

think like a scientist? I assume you mean follow the scientific method? And no, no one proposes that the scientific method is applicable to everything in life.

No the scientific method is the scientific method. That is not how scientist think. That is how they do science. Logic, reason, assumption to premise to conclusion is the type of thinking i was talking about. People, again we a generalizing here (even to a somewhat extreme level), don't generally do think like this. And frankly they never will because it is simple impracticable with the resources most of us have. Think about driving. Do we really use logic when we drive or would using logic be a hindrance? I think you will find that when driving we think based on heuristic and patterns, not logic.

I agree that people can believe whatever they want. But beliefs have no basis in what is true and real. If you make no claim to TRUTH or no claim to what is REAL then I have no disagreement.

IMHO, truth and facts are now what society wants them to be in our technological age. They are not permanent fixtures. As much as logical positivism appeals to me, there is some truth that social history determines what is true and real.

 

[kaya'08]

I grew up in a strictly atheist/secular household basically. Im proud of it. I think it has made me a much more balanced person. Today i believe i am agnostic.

 

[Catz Part Deux]

If we generalize for just a moment, you should notice that practicably people look for explanations regardless of data. Explanations are a psychological need if you will. In order for you point to be valid, people would have to mostly think like a scientist which wont ever and doesn't happen on the overall scale of human experience. So bogeyman or not, God's existence being true or not, God as an explanation is a perfectly acceptable answer to some questions even if you consider it a wrong answer.

Are fairies and leprechauns an equally acceptable answer to some questions? Are ALL gods perfectly acceptable answers, or just yours?

 

[nkgupta80]

People need explanations because there are always explanations. In a world of causation, explanations are mandatory. If we weren't looking for explanations, then most people wouldn't ask questions.

But humans also desire to test those explanations and dig deeper. Holding a belief in god as unquestionable goes against this trait.. If one is sincerely searching for answers, then some doubt is always necessary. In fact, for big philosophical questions like what is the meaning of life, there are just so many possibilities that a reasonable person would not stick to a single explanation without substantial doubt.

 

[cpwill]

Never said it was. Only that the logical outcome of believing in YEC is that your God is the supreme deceiever. Hard to be a Christian when your beliefs require God to be a larger liar then Satan.

i still haven't seen you demonstrate any part where God is a deciever.

 

[cpwill]

You said the claims were backed up, not that the fact that that people made them.

i said that many of even the more extraordinary claims made by first century Christians were backed up by uninvolved or even hostile sources from that time period. you asked for specifics and I gave you 10 sources. what we sometimes call multiple independent verification.

There are supposed miracle workers today that have thousands of followers. I see no reason to think that in that era people would be more skeptical of such claims. Apollonius of Tyana is a common example (though not great), but obviously Jesus would have more written about him.

hmmm, you have a problem right there; The Life of Apollonius of Tyana was written no earlier than AD 217, by a man (Philostratus) who was born in AD 172. However, Apollonius died around the turn of the second century. This means that not only did the author of the accounts about him not have personal eyewitness testimony, neither did anyone that he would have access to. Plus, only one source. Not exactly what you would call 'comparable'.

What form does this reply take?

:shrug: it ranges; everything from specific instruction to random answer to prayer, to (most maddening) 'you figure it out'.

 

[hallam]

Are fairies and leprechauns an equally acceptable answer to some questions? Are ALL gods perfectly acceptable answers, or just yours?

Leprechauns and fairies are acceptable answers to some questions. But they are uncompariable to God questions as they are under the purview of biology as traditionally defined. God doesn't fall under a scientific field yet so far as I know.

 

[hallam]

But humans also desire to test those explanations and dig deeper. Holding a belief in god as unquestionable goes against this trait.. If one is sincerely searching for answers, then some doubt is always necessary. In fact, for big philosophical questions like what is the meaning of life, there are just so many possibilities that a reasonable person would not stick to a single explanation without substantial doubt.

I vehemently disagree. Faith and belief in God can be founded and supported (and generally is) by doubt nor does a belief in God remove a desire to test those explanations or dig deeper. The theology section at your local book store shows that the faithful ask and try to answer questions. This section shows that doubt is rampant with religious people. We are not immune to these psychologies. I am sorry but religion doesn't get this big by being stagnant.

I would hold that the type of belief you detailed here is an explanation independent of evidence/data and generally supports my position that people can believe anything as long as they like it.

 

[Catz Part Deux]

Leprechauns and fairies are acceptable answers to some questions. But they are uncompariable to God questions as they are under the purview of biology as traditionally defined. God doesn't fall under a scientific field yet so far as I know.

Is there only one God or several?