Can you not see that religion is clearly human nature and not logic?

[jakebrownvb]

Respect for religious brahs here but I want to raise a point ive been thinking about for a while.

Can you not clearly see that throughout mankinds existence, we have always worshipped some kind of deity or greater being of some sort? From elemental spirits to zeus to nordic gods etc etc.. it is very clear that it is within human nature to believe in a higher being and not necesarily logic.

We do this to explain the world around us and to comfort ourselves that we are being protected and watched over. But now that we are replacing illogical explanations of the world around us (like christianitys hilarious explanation of a rainbow) with logic based reasoning.. I feel you have to be extremely naive to still cling to views and explanations that were implemented BEFORE understanding and logic was even possible.

Religion HAD to provide the answers for its followers and provide the answers long before understanding, religious leaders would often make up any kind of drivvle that seemed logical at the time as "I dont know" was not an answer. Imagine if you have thousands of people looking to you for the answers.. and if you didnt provide them, your followers would lose all faith in you. You would make up any old rubbish that seemed logical at the time.. but what would you do when someone came along with the facts? well.. would you stick to your guns? religions such as Christianity certainly has! when religious leaders were asked what a rainbow was.. was they just gonna say they didnt know? or were they going to manifest a story that slotted perfectly in with there religion?

I feel current religious people KNOW that they are following an illogical faith but choose to remain believing in childrens fairy tales. By following religion you are believing the explanations of the world around us from mankind in its infancy, when humans were less informed and less capable of obseving the world around us.. you are taking the word of people hundreds of years ago when they were clearly less intelligent, less rational, more corrupt and had to explain things in in a very basic primal way.. people who could not comprehend the true size of the universe, could not comprehend man going into space, could not comprehend anything close to mans knowledge today.

Why religious brahs do you remain so firmly attached to the views that came from infant mankinds ignorance over those of the modern day understandings?

[homicidal_misc]

i agree stupid religious people. my neckbeard has a higher iq than them.

[Myriad88]

didnt read OP, looked like genetic fallacy again.


pls confirm

[jakebrownvb]

didnt read OP, looked like genetic fallacy again.


pls confirm

nah man.. read it.. need to understand the logics..

[frankenstein78]

Well said OP. I've said similar things before, but usually mention germ theory (less than 150 years old) and the scientific method with this topic instead. Up until about 500 years ago all religious leaders believed the earth was the center of the universe, with all objects rotating around it. Early astronomers were highly persecuted for their proof it was otherwise.

Lately I've more or less been poking a stick at the Abrahamic God concept, embraced by most of the world (Christian, Jew, Muslim). It's interesting considering the root of the Abrahamic God is a Jewish concept (yahweh) and the Jews themselves were polytheistic at one time. Many Old Testament stories are borrowed from polytheistic texts, including Egyptian folklore, and other surrounding pagan cultures of the time. Gods were changed into humans or angels for the new monotheisism of the Jews. The basis for the Abrahamic God is the Old Testament, which is verifiably just a lot of parables and symbolism, with little to no historical accuracy (i.e. Jews as slaves in Egypt - nope. Never happened). The same books unfortunately give many instructions on what is viewed as morality. Sure the 10 Commandments are highlighted, but those are all common sense rules to prevent societal chaos, not metaphysically inspired. Outside of the 10 Commandments, many rules are decreed like killing others for just about everything. Disobedient chidren? Kill 'em. ****s having sex? Kill 'em. But it's okay to sell your daughter into slavery. If Jews and Christians actually followed all the decrees in the OT, few people would be alive today.

Let's face it. Religion used to be the answer to all of the "I don't know" questions. Now that we can explain so much more, religion really doesn't have many answers. Which is why so much more attention has focused upon the fear of what happens when we die. Since that's something we'll never be able to answer, the power over mankind by religion continues. Religion is just another form of politics. Politics of the soul, with manipulation by men on the subject to control the masses. Always has been. I hate to quote a communist, but Lenin was damn right about religions being the opiate of the masses.

[Skinnygeorge]

religion is a tool used to explain the unfairness of life

when something bad happens to a religious person they always think god is punishing them for something, and i dont blame them honestly, the world being so unfair makes no sense to us

[jakebrownvb]

nicely said frankenstein!

I was certainly very interested to hear that jew slavery in egypt never happened!! that is very very interesting, reps for the learns.

I am being genuine when I say that I simply cannot even comprehend the logic of a religious person.. I actually get really quite frustrated/angry as I just cannot understand why you would persist with such infant understanding in the face of proven logic!

[Myriad88]

logic disproves God?

[Bar182]

God of the gaps.

"We don't know, therefore: God"

Gaps are getting smaller and smaller everyday.

[jakebrownvb]

logic disproves God?

I believe it disproves the theories and storys behind god,, I believe it disproves the bible, I believe it disproves the quran. Does it disprove that there is any kind of higher being? no.. it does not.

But the fact that creationism has been proven as false means the entire bible loses credability. The bible is only as strong as its weakest story. If noahs ark didnt happen, if the creation story is false,, then the entire bible is false.. as the supposed "word of god" is proven to be written by hundreds of generations of misinformed primals.

[jakebrownvb]

God of the gaps.

"We don't know, therefore: God"

Gaps are getting smaller and smaller everyday.

wow.. absolutely amazing... that quote just blew my mind man! well said!

[Myriad88]

I believe it disproves the theories and storys behind god,, I believe it disproves the bible, I believe it disproves the quran. Does it disprove that there is any kind of higher being? no.. it does not.

But the fact that creationism has been proven as false means the entire bible loses credability. The bible is only as strong as its weakest story. If noahs ark didnt happen, if the creation story is false,, then the entire bible is false.. as the supposed "word of god" is proven to be written by hundreds of generations of misinformed primals.

ok so, so creationism and literal Genesis is wrong.


Guess you've destroyed theism. nice work.

[jakebrownvb]

ok so, so creationism and literal Genesis is wrong.


Guess you've destroyed theism. nice work.

when I said creationism I kind of had in mind the specific christian creationist story in mind (should not have said creationism in its broader sense). that story has been scientifically disproven with evolution and the dinosaurs.. period.

How the universe came into being is unknown to all and therefore wether or not a higher deity is the origin of the universe cannot be disproven. So I have not destroyed theism and nor do I conclusively reject it.

But we are moving away from my point here.. I am discussing specifically religion and its attempt at answering questions in a very crude way that no longer has any position in todays world with todays understanding.

[Myriad88]

it might surprise you to learn that 'literal genesis' was first considered wrong, then revived in the reformation. THe early church fathers explicitly said reading the genesis creation myth literally was the first step to tardation.

[lasher]

Origen, third century Father.

For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? And that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? And again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree? And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally.



And with regard to the creation of the light upon the first day, and of the firmament upon the second, and of the gathering together of the waters that are under the heaven into their several reservoirs on the third (the earth thus causing to sprout forth those (fruits) which are under the control of nature alone), and of the (great) lights and stars upon the fourth, and of aquatic animals upon the fifth, and of land animals and man upon the sixth, we have treated to the best of our ability in our notes upon Genesis, as well as in the foregoing pages, when we found fault with those who, taking the words in their apparent signification, said that the time of six days was occupied in the creation of the world.

St Augustine, on the literal interpretation of Genesis, written in the fourth century AD.

It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.

Former Pope

Cosmogony and cosmology have always aroused great interest among peoples and religions. The Bible itself speaks to us of the origin of the universe and its make-up, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise, but in order to state the correct relationships of man with God and with the universe. Sacred Scripture wishes simply to declare that the world was created by God, and in order to teach this truth it expresses itself in the terms of the cosmology in use at the time of the writer. The Sacred Book likewise wishes to tell men that the world was not created as the seat of the gods, as was taught by other cosmogonies and cosmologies, but was rather created for the service of man and the glory of God. Any other teaching about the origin and make-up of the universe is alien to the intentions of the Bible, which does not wish to teach how heaven was made but how one goes to heaven.

Prominent evangelical OT scholar.

Christians need to understand the first chapter of Genesis for what it is: an 'accurate' rendering of the physical universe by ancient standards that God used as the vehicle to deliver timeless theological truth to His people. We shouldn’t try to make Genesis into something that it’s not by dragging it through 3,500 years of scientific progress. When reading Genesis, Christians today need to transport themselves back to Mt. Sinai and leave our modern minds in the 21st century. If you only remember one thing from this chapter make it this: Genesis is not giving us creation science. It is giving us something much more profound and practical than that. Genesis is giving us a Biblical Theology of Creation.

The Clergy Letter Project, drafted in 2004, and signed by thousands of Christian clergy supporting science and faith, states:

We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as 'one theory among others' is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator.

Catholic theologian Ludwig Ott.

The Church gives no positive decisions in regard to purely scientific questions, but limits itself to rejecting errors which endanger faith. Further, in these scientific matters there is no virtue in a consensus of the Fathers since they are not here acting as witnesses of the Faith, but merely as private scientists... Since the findings of reason and the supernatural knowledge of Faith go back to the same source, namely to God, there can never be a real contradiction between the certain discoveries of the profane sciences and the Word of God properly understood.


As the Sacred Writer had not the intention of representing with scientific accuracy the intrinsic constitution of things, and the sequence of the works of creation but of communicating knowledge in a popular way suitable to the idiom and to the pre-scientific development of his time, the account is not to be regarded or measured as if it were couched in language which is strictly scientific... The Biblical account of the duration and order of Creation is merely a literary clothing of the religious truth that the whole world was called into existence by the creative word of God. The Sacred Writer utilized for this purpose the pre-scientific picture of the world existing at the time. The numeral six of the days of Creation is to be understood as an anthropomorphism. God's work of creation represented in schematic form (opus distinctionis — opus ornatus) by the picture of a human working week, the termination of the work by the picture of the Sabbath rest. The purpose of this literary device is to manifest Divine approval of the working week and the Sabbath rest.

Attacking bible belt herp derp american christianity as a caricature representing the faith and it's understanding of Genesis, creation, and evolution ... is not impressive.

[GregariousWolf]

Religion is clearly part explanatory framework, part coping mechanism, and part tool for social control.

[notorius1]

it might surprise you to learn that 'literal genesis' was first considered wrong, then revived in the reformation. THe early church fathers explicitly said reading the genesis creation myth literally was the first step to tardation.

So it was wrong all those centuries prior as well right?

[notorius1]

logic disproves God?

Logic can never disprove Zoroastrianism. It is the truth!

[indosthetic]

religion includes philosophy.

the first philosophers were theists.

most famous philosophers are theists.

[Myriad88]

So it was wrong all those centuries prior as well right?

Logic can never disprove Zoroastrianism. It is the truth!

not finding the point here......

[notorius1]

not finding the point here......

Answer the first question then you might be able to. Then again, the point may be too subtle and nuanced for you to grasp.

[Myriad88]

no, logic does not disprove god or zoroastrianism.

good thing i didnt advance that as possible argument for god right? just responding to op where he said creation myths were logically absurd.

[lasher]

Answer the first question then you might be able to. Then again, the point may be too subtle and nuanced for you to grasp.

dropping dat irony again as always.

The point YOU failed to grasp (perhaps because it was too subtle and naunced) is that historically, and from the earliest time of the church, the genesis creation account has been understood allegorically, not literally. Poetic, not narrative, hymnal format, not recipe book for big bang cosmology, polemical theology, not astrophysics.

[Myriad88]

yes, subtlety and nuance is the flavour of the day.

[notorius1]

So it was wrong all those centuries prior as well right?

dropping dat irony again as always.

The point YOU failed to grasp (perhaps because it was too subtle and naunced) is that historically, and from the earliest time of the church, the genesis creation account has been understood allegorically, not literally. Poetic, not narrative, hymnal format, not recipe book for big bang cosmology, polemical theology, not astrophysics.

failed reading comprehension much? then again, you think a human can walk on water.

[lasher]

lol, like talking to a brick wall.

[Myriad88]

[frankenstein78]

logic disproves God?

Not the concept of a God per se. Historical evidence does display the God of Christians, Jews, and Muslims is concocted. And almost none of the OT should be taken as literal history more than The 3 Musketeers or Little Red Riding Hood. There's no surefire way to prove whether there is or isn't a creator of the universe, a God if you will. But mankind's assertions about said omnipotent being are all made up by fear of the unknown. It's even more visible in the polytheistic religions. Words written by sand people during the Bronze Age are asserted as the nature of our existence. Interesting. They knew no more than the polytheistic Greeks and Romans and in fact where polytheistic like them beforehand as well. Heaven and hell? Places made up by humans that typically lived to 35, were surrounded by filth and squalor, shat in the same waters they drank out of. The strong belief in God and heaven and hell existed for so long for the same reason so many prisoners turn to God. Desperation, living conditions that make our 3rd world look like paradise, and fear of the unknown. BTW, the conventional notion of hell with punishment is a Catholic Church concoction, with zero Old Testament basis.

As this thread suggests, it's probably natural for humans to believe in a God. The God of the Gaps someone already mentioned. With passing time, evidence and discoveries allow logic to close those gaps where 'God' was the answer. If Muhammad or holy men mentioned in the OT were alive today, they'd be diagnosed as schizophrenic and placed on heavy medications. But because their stories happened long ago, mysticism is allowed to = God.

It remains because of fear surrounding the soul and tradition. Religion is the highest form of tradition, so it is the slowest to fade.

[Myriad88]

god of the gaps has never been a position held by any serious philosopher or theologian.


read: william paley is not a serious religious philosopher or theologian.

[access1denied]

ITT:

Massive ignorance of Genesis, its historical interpretation, and Hebrew.