WHY PEOPLE DON`T NEED GOD AS BEFORE???

Just to expand on my original statement.

In all primitive/primary cultures, we see the existance of religion. These religions set up a set of rules, the basis of which are very similar to all religions, with some cultural differences. These rules always support the moral standards of that culture, which are usually pragmatic for that specific culture, so that the survival of the culture is ensured. These religions gain much of their authority through explanation of natural phenomenons, which may not be accurate, but which seems plausible and otherwise whcih otherwise can't be explained.

At the time these religions first appeared, they were very fragile, and because communication didn't function well in large countries and across generations (which we can even see today), the need for a standard existed. These ensured that the rules could survivelargely unaltered, with the benefits but also the hinderence against evolution that these imposed.

The need for a god, or multiple gods, were needed to ensure the continued existance of the rules, too. Because a violation of said rules could very well go by unnoticed, or the possibility of penalties might be limited, the introduction of a god which could punish both in this life and even longer was a great invention. People might not care much about their life, but if they believed that they would be punished in eternity (either through direct punishment or through exclusion of eternal welbeing in a heaven), people were threatened into submission to the moral rules.

What is quite interesting, is that the people who invented the religions, i.e. usually the eldars in charge of the nations and tribes, needed to insert someone to administrate the religions, so that people would not suspect the true purpose of religion. The irony here is, that because these religious administrators had direct communication with the imposed gods, they could offer far greater punishment than the state itself, and as time went by and the head of the states forgot that they had actually invented the religions, they too became a subject of submission throug threats - and much of the ultimate power now resided with the religious administrators.

Today, the laws have replaced the religious rules (though inspired by them, and originally inspired by moral standards, thus the cultural differences in laws). The religions are no longer needed to inforce these rules, however they survive because they are so persuasive to many, through a lot of carefully crafted and refined rules appealing to many (possibly through their simplicity compared to todays laws).
The rules are also a hinderence to the continued evolution, because the evolution of man will unconditionally appear as a break from the fixed rules of the past - proving the ultimate flaw of giving control to a power which cannot give it back, as it would undermine its foundation.

Therefore, the concept of religion is false. It was nothing but a temporary solution to a problem, which eventually became a problem in itself.

Christian

 

You are beginning to sound like Grieg, Roel. :lol:
No, you always have, excl. your unrepentant belief in welfare.
Unlike you, I can´t exclude existence of a G_d like Creature. I simply leave the question open. We´ll see. That there are very reasonable people who say they feel "something" - I am not in doubt.
I see the faith itself as a complex phenomenon (wish + suspicion).
I also understand that the wish to go to some sort of heaven can be simply a "rationalized" instinct of self-preservation. "I die, but not really". So there must be a strong wish for a faith to occur. I think that this particular wish is changing form the expectation or even certainty of life after death - to a ever growing demand to medical services to keep folk alive and well. People don´t expect to die early, as was so common only 100-150 ys ago. Consequently also, there is no wish to die for one´s country, honor etc. This growing demand - it is something that sometimes makes the life of physicians very hard. How to tell someone: you are very seriously ill. You may not make it. It is a difficult balancing, such conversations with patients.

I work primarily as ultrasound diagnostician. It means that I sit by the lying person and look inside his/hers body. Sometimes, within seconds I can see that the liver is full of cancer. Sometimes, often, I can´t find anything in many minutes. The person, not being able to see what I see, looks intensely into my face for traces of emotions. My face becomes barometer of how bad or good it looks inside the person´s body. At the beginning it was extremely hard for me. Now I developed a poker face or stone face. I can even chat, while I am working. Then, there is the obligatory question: What did you see? Again, my repertoire of answers depends on what kind of person I am facing. Possibilities are legio, providing one can remain stone faced if it´s real bad. I think I could be a good actor after all these years of training"live".

back to religion. I like Christian´s crystal clear line of thought. However, the conclusion does in no way, imo, suit the reasonings. How can you say "Therefore, the concept of religion is false" with such certainty?
You haven´t proved anything. You showed your personal view on origins and role of religions but you haven´t proved that yours is the only possible one. It´s like saying 2+2+X=4. That´s your problem, imo.

You also didn´t mention the role of religion as legitimation of political power. Without religion, the possible legitimations are temporary, shaky constructions. But this is only a little btw.

The, by far, biggest problem is eroding ethics.The cult of Ego. But here it is difficult to say what is cause and what effect: maybe the very atomization of societies is the main culprit here?

I must be getting old. I write by far too much.

 

Thanks! I value the use of reason a lot and our previous discussion on the welfare state made me fear that I wasn't at all someone quite as reasonable as I thought. This here restores my confidence.
Anyway, enough about the flattery...

His line of reasoning, which is very much in line with what I think of religion even though I'm not always confident enough to present sweeping statements about historical situations, excludes all other reasons for the existence of religion and therefore it is the only possible line of reasoning. It is basically the division theological debates all too often end up at: either you believe a god or gods made man, or you believe man made god, and in either view the other is impossible.

Legitimation of power usually lies in anything you can bring forth to prove that it is ancient. Religion is usually older than the present generation; the god or gods it uses certainly are. Thus religion is a perfect source of legitimation, but so is ancestry or (invented) national history.

 

Ok guys, a slight challenge...

Name me one scientific discovery that actually does oppose religion.

Roel & I have been here before...
Evolution is not a workable answer!

 

erm, , archeology and evolution are. As is genetics. According to the old testiment we are all descended from Adam. The earth is only 15 or so thousand years old, neandanthal man should not exist and neither should the dinosaurs.

FNG

 

Well, Archaeology does prove the events of the Bible to have happened as told... Find me a serious historian nowadays who does not believe that the main / big events of the Bible happened as told (leaving out the theological side )

And the Old Testament does not claim the world is 15,000 years old - some nutty Welsh monk back in the early Medieval period 'discovered' that one.

 

It does age the planet wrongly. The OT gives the ages of the peoples descending from Adam and as such you can date back to the creation.

Whilst the events within the bible such as the flood are now being shown to have a basis in hisorical fact the fact remains that creationism as described in the bible is at complete odds with the scientific facts.

I also agree that Jesus the bloke walked the earth, don't agree that he was the son of god, but I am fairly sure he existed as a man.

FNG

 

The point about evolution is good. his is not my strong side, but: isn´t it true, that in fossils, only ready made arts are being found, lots and lots of them? At the same time no real intermediary forms. You had a neanderthal and you had cro-magnon, but no intermediary form between them (sure, nobody said that the one was a predecessor of the other, but even their separate predecessors are hard to find).

Then, you have those incredible stories of artifacts found in a piece of coal. I don´t know what to make out of it. Or artifacts in totally sealed (for millions of years) hills or mounts. That´s puzzling.

Also, if you look at the workings of cells, the incredible grade of complication: it´s not just DNA strain; gene after gene. It´s a infinitely complicated interplay of processes, even in a "primitive" bacterium. And considering that bacteria have been found in formations made not-so-long after the computed cooling of Earth, it´s simply too short time span for such a complication to develop. I don´t doubt that Skeptical Enquirer has a good explanation which sounds even convincing, but for me there is too many buts yet.

Sure, if you take Bible literally, it doesn´t make sense. But science is far from explaining the "simplest" things all too often. It´s best to tell us :"How to...", not "How...?"

Christian´s story is only one of at least 2 possible, therefore he shouldn´t have concluded it, like he did.

 

I think the problem with the time scale has something to do with people thinking that the creation & the fall took place in a lifetime, because of Adam & Eve. In reality, as they were both made in the image of God. They were both immortal (until the fall). The Bible accidently adds to the confusion, because there are so few chapters between the creation & the fall.
It is not inconceivable that there was actually a time frame for the creation to the fall, that fits in with the geological history of the planet.

 

It took eve millions and millions of years before she was convinced to eat the apple and effectivly start human time? I would have got bored in a fortnight.

FNG

 

When I was little, the local rabbi said, that this about creation should not be taken too literally; just the message that we, the small guys with scullcaps (I have never ever tried to go with earlocks; it was, sort of, too medieval for me) and all other people were created by good G_d of two parts : soul and flesh. The rest, he said, is decoration for simple people.

 

Well, any anthropological study will point at what Christian has just told us - that religion is made by men as a legitimation of power and a framework to keep values lasting in a society. This is science opposing religion as a form of truth, revealing it as a social concept of little meaning beyond the preservation of values.

Scientific fact: men cannot walk on water. Men cannot heal other people by touch, or by words. Men stay dead when they die. Hence: the life and works of Jesus of Nazareth cannot have been anything like the way the Bible explains them. These are scientific facts that oppose religion.

Men cannot all have been descendants of just two people, or we'd all be deformed mental patients by now. Scientific fact. Ricky and I have been through this, but in the end we agreed that "two people" must have been an exaggeration, and there must have been more, the Flood and Noah having been local enough not to span the entire human race.

On the other hand there is absolutely no scientific finding that would subscribe the existence of any gods. Sure, there are gaps that people like to fill with deities, but that's no proof at all - just the old use for religion which is answering the unanswered questions. There is no proof for the existence of gods, and there is certainly no proof for the existence of just one god; whatever way you choose to worship him is just human guesswork as to how such a deity would like to be pleased, and as such every kind is as good as the other.

 

Remember it is by faith that you are saved. Not by knowledge.

If Jesus didn't do all those things & more, I'm in BIG trouble!!

 

Quote:
...also those extremely intelligent (IQ ca. 170,) and wise, religion is a way of perception of the World, a way of thinking and a beacon of moral behavior.
Unquote:
Figures to support this? My IQ is "ca. 170", I have no religion. I do consider myself fairly wise, and therefore have a moral code however, as does everyone else I know with an IQ near that of mine.
One theme that keeps cropping up. "Science" does not say "this is..." or "that's what..." science says "as far as we know at the moment..." or "the evidence supports the hypothesis that...". The problem is education, ususally through popular scinece magazines and TV programmes, they present theory as fact. A good scientist (and the vast majority of those I associate with fit this category) is always ALWAYS ALWAYS prepared, and in some cases eager, to alter his thinking to accommodate new facts and observations.
The problem with "science" isn't science itself, but the fact that huge numbers of people are too flaming lazy to think. Hence the rise in "social science" (no offense, but it's not a science - as agreed by every single one of my tutors when I did it at uni, purely for fun, a couple of years ago), and arts and drama degrees to the detriment of mathematics and the other hard sciences.
People are shifting away from thinking, observing, deducing, rationality into a general "well if I wish hard enough..." the popularity in horoscopes, "wicca", druidism and "new age" thinking. (I read a couple of years ago that 40% of Americans believe astrology to be a proven science... if true I can only despair).
Discordianism rules - question everything!! :bang:
Oli
Look at the lottery in the UK (also check out 1984 - Orwell's sarcastic comments about the proles being barely literate but able to quote lottery statistics - bang on, sadly). I know people with low incomes who spend £20+ per week, but cross a busy road 10 feet away from a pedestrian crossing. The odds of winning the lottery are orders of magnitude higher than getting hit by a car, but they won't put "£20" worth of care into their personal safety. Aaaaarghh :angry: If I was less concerned about my fellow humans, I'd say some people deserved accidents.

 

A tour de force, Oli!


Many Members misunderstand, how science works. Science is unable to prove that a Creator of Universe or anybody like that does or does not exist. Such a question is outside it´s scope.

I have also read the anthropological obsevational studies, including the passages on religions. They are just describing how people worship. But where the concept comes from - it´s a quite different question.

 

I think this kinda proves that the people who wrote the bible don't know where they where talking about, they just opened up there head ( :roll: ) and let the imagination jump out till the bible was writen how they wanted...

I am curious how believers would react on this question:

If the earth is only 5000 years old, how than is it possible that scientists (don't know how you cal those people exactly) digg up skeletons that are more than 5 million years old???

 

This is kind of the easiest way to say that Torah or Bible lie. If you don´t look at the deeper story, from a perspective, and don´t laugh at details but see it as an expression of human yearning after truth, inspired by his eternal soul, you´ll not laugh anymore. Who laughs at Tibetan monks who say, they come in contanc with the Divine during meditations? We don´t laugh at their small superstitions.
Jews and Christians also meditate in their ways, helped by the quiet of churches and synagogues, song, music, incense, prayer etc. This is the essence of religion and not comparing old bones with a text and taking it literally.

Why not try to be more sophisticated instead of a pretending to be less intelligent than in reality?

 

I think a lot of the problem comes from, LaPlace (Pierre Simon le Comte de LaPlace - imagine having to write that on a cheque every time you go out for a meal :lol: ).
The story is that, having shown some king or other some of his calculations and mathematical proofs for orbital mechanics (might be wrong on subject, but the flavour is what counts), showing that planets move naturally he was asked, "And where is God in all of this?"
The answer was (sorry I prefer it in the original French)
"Nous n'avons pas besoin de cette hypothese, la" = We have no need of that idea" - science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, but it can DEMONSTRATE (there are no proofs in science, only demonstrations that this is how it works, under these particular conditions, in this set of circumstances) that certain things stated in the holy books (and other books - back onto crystal/ alternative healing again stop me before I explode) are NOT true.
Some people see this as (pick as many as you want)
A) an attack on religion - not so science is an attack on ignorance and irrationality
B) proof that God does not exist - if the bible (or whatever) is wrong on this point it must be wrong on all
C) science is an alternative to religion - even if we get a GUT (Grand Unified Theory), it still won't explain "mind" - how a collection of basic elements walking round independantly seem to think they are self-aware
Agreed the question of God is outside the scope of science, but it does limit his responsibilities, and duties :smok: . But science can do nothing for the spirit.
There's an on saying, when you stop believing in God, you don't believe in nothing, you believe in everything. Hence the rise in quack science, and new-age thinking.
Spirit is one thing (but spiritualism isn't), belief another, faith another. Ooops another long rant, apologies.
Oli

 

Who said the OT and NT lie? Most of what we believe from them is merely interepation in any event and not written "facts".

The OT and NT are a history of a a people in conjuction with their diety who actually appears very little in it. Most of the time is just people acting out the alledged will of the God. That interpretation is difficult to prove.

Besides how can you tell that the voice in my head is devine? How do I know which god it is? Or whether it is a divine voice or just shortcircuit of my neural pathways?

FNG

 

They say (believers) that the earth is no more than 5000 years old, but scientists have proof that it is millions and millions of years old, so why would the bible lie to all those people who believe there is a ''god'', as far as I can see it, THOSE people are naïve and keep saying ''no thats not true'' to all those scientists, so these are the people that must try to be more realistic instead of pretending to be less intelligent than in reality!

''This is the essence of religion and not comparing old bones with a text and taking it literally.''

So what you are saying is that all those weird things written in the bible are bullshit?


''Jews and Christians also meditate in their ways, helped by the quiet of churches and synagogues, song, music, incense, prayer etc. This is the essence of religion and not comparing old bones with a text and taking it literally.''

I always say that if there was a god...he is getting crazy by all those bad songs ''his people'' sing in church...
I also believe religion causes alot of problems in the world, people turn the bible to there hand, how they want it, alot of terrorists ARE terrorists because they think there bible is telling them to destroy the Western world...

And as I can see, this is your answer on my question, this is how most believers would react, just talking around the question to make it how they want it to be, but that was not the question!