Re: Why are you religious/not religious?

by TNine on Wed Feb 03, 2010 10:56 pm

czar wrote:There are many other confident religions besides Christianity, some of which are older. What makes you think that your religion is correct?

Most of those started out as "myths" with often really obscure sources. There was no evidence to support the Odyssey, most people didn't know the author. We know exactly when, how, and who wrote in the Bible, not to mention the diversity of authors and how it is simply a compilation of all of God's stories.

I'm also open to the possibility that God would appear in different forms to different cultures, in order to guide them. People are different, cultures are different, shouldn't their version of God reflect that? All in all, it's speculation. But i also can't think of any religion that's as undisproven as the Bible.

by Gauz on Wed Feb 03, 2010 11:15 pm

czar wrote:There are many other confident religions besides Christianity, some of which are older. What makes you think that your religion is correct?

Who says christianity is correct?

It's based on faith.

by **KrAzY** on Wed Feb 03, 2010 11:35 pm

TNine wrote:
czar wrote:There are many other confident religions besides Christianity, some of which are older. What makes you think that your religion is correct?

Most of those started out as "myths" with often really obscure sources. There was no evidence to support the Odyssey, most people didn't know the author. We know exactly when, how, and who wrote in the Bible, not to mention the diversity of authors and how it is simply a compilation of all of God's stories.

I'm also open to the possibility that God would appear in different forms to different cultures, in order to guide them. People are different, cultures are different, shouldn't their version of God reflect that? All in all, it's speculation. But i also can't think of any religion that's as undisproven as the Bible.

on the contrary, we know that Homer wrote the Iliad and the Odyssey and when it was written... that doesn't = truth

I know who write Lord of the Rings and when he wrote it too... does that means that it is true too?

Dragons are persistent in nearly every culture on this planet... and every continent has its own version of Bigfoot from WAY before communication was possible over these distances... should I believe in both of these too?

knowing who authored something... and when they authored it does not lend credibility to the writing... and in the case of the new testament of the bible... where the majority of the stuff about Jesus was written LONG after his death.... that knowledge only hurts the credibility

the only way to be able to see how ridiculous a story is, is to NOT believe in it... as is why when we hear stories about the greek gods we scoff and say "theres no way they actually believed in that!"... well they DID believe in it... and if you went back in time to preach to them the story of Jesus they would scoff and tell you that your religion is wrong... you say that all of those old religions started with "myths" with no basis in fact? well your religion is centered around a man, who was birthed by a virgin inseminated by god, with the ability to walk on water and heal, who preached about god until he was crucified, died, sealed in a cave, and then magically resurrected a few days later...

I don't see how this can be seen as any less of a myth than the gods who lived on Mount Olympus who had regular encounters with man.... or the great battle between the Centuar and the Lapithae which was a central theme for the Greek people

this is the fundamental flaw of arguing a religion... everyone comes into the argument CONVINCED that the stories they have been told are true... no matter how ridiculous they sound to any of us who are outside that loop.

no doubt whoever replys to me will reply with more stories trying to justify why their stories are more true than anyone elses stories.... I DON'T CARE so don't waste your time typing it at me

by TNine on Thu Feb 04, 2010 1:16 am

KrAzY wrote:
TNine wrote:
czar wrote:There are many other confident religions besides Christianity, some of which are older. What makes you think that your religion is correct?

Most of those started out as "myths" with often really obscure sources. There was no evidence to support the Odyssey, most people didn't know the author. We know exactly when, how, and who wrote in the Bible, not to mention the diversity of authors and how it is simply a compilation of all of God's stories.

I'm also open to the possibility that God would appear in different forms to different cultures, in order to guide them. People are different, cultures are different, shouldn't their version of God reflect that? All in all, it's speculation. But i also can't think of any religion that's as undisproven as the Bible.

on the contrary, we know that Homer wrote the Iliad and the Odyssey and when it was written... that doesn't = truth

I know who write Lord of the Rings and when he wrote it too... does that means that it is true too?

Dragons are persistent in nearly every culture on this planet... and every continent has its own version of Bigfoot from WAY before communication was possible over these distances... should I believe in both of these too?

knowing who authored something... and when they authored it does not lend credibility to the writing... and in the case of the new testament of the bible... where the majority of the stuff about Jesus was written LONG after his death.... that knowledge only hurts the credibility

the only way to be able to see how ridiculous a story is, is to NOT believe in it... as is why when we hear stories about the greek gods we scoff and say "theres no way they actually believed in that!"... well they DID believe in it... and if you went back in time to preach to them the story of Jesus they would scoff and tell you that your religion is wrong... you say that all of those old religions started with "myths" with no basis in fact? well your religion is centered around a man, who was birthed by a virgin inseminated by god, with the ability to walk on water and heal, who preached about god until he was crucified, died, sealed in a cave, and then magically resurrected a few days later...

I don't see how this can be seen as any less of a myth than the gods who lived on Mount Olympus who had regular encounters with man.... or the great battle between the Centuar and the Lapithae which was a central theme for the Greek people

this is the fundamental flaw of arguing a religion... everyone comes into the argument CONVINCED that the stories they have been told are true... no matter how ridiculous they sound to any of us who are outside that loop.

no doubt whoever replys to me will reply with more stories trying to justify why their stories are more true than anyone elses stories.... I DON'T CARE so don't waste your time typing it at me

I didn't really think that post through, and i'm a shitty explainer. But just to say a few things:

The Bible has eyewitness accounts, and that's what i meant. Almost nothing is known about Homer.

Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John were written by Jesus's apostles, they were written fairly shortly after his death.

Due to evidence, it's possible to believe in dragons. There's simply a lot more evidence to suggest that dragons do not exist. None of this counter-evidence exists for God.

Nobody here is stupid enough to say "God exists", we are all simply saying "I believe God exists." Faith is the important part of any religion.

And the shot at why the Bible seems mythical is simply unfounded.

by **KrAzY** on Thu Feb 04, 2010 1:46 am

why is it unfounded?

if you didn't believe in jesus.. and some person ran up to you on the street and told you that story you would say "aaah... okay, that makes sense"? you would believe them?

the greeks thought, literally believed that the supernatural filled the world around them... the battle of the Centuars vs the Lapiths was a battle of Humans vs mythological creatures... ones that the Greeks KNEW exsisted... they KNEW that the Cyclops had built the Minoan cities... Just as you KNOW that jesus existed and died for your sins

you believe in a book that tells of great floods for which there is no evidance... a grand epic of good vs evil where in the end good prevails and death and sadness will never be experianced again...

and you believe this because that is your FAITH

nothing I can tell you would change your mind or sway you away from it, because to you IT MAKES SENSE... and that is your choice. I will not try to sway you from your religion. its your right to believe what you want to believe.

I will not, however, accept any of this nonsense that Christianity is based in any more truth or fact than any other religion on this planet... because you know what? every follower of every religion on this planet looks at the others and says the exact thing that you are saying.

christianity is based on just as much myth as any other religion on this planet... weather you like it or not

by TYFIGHTER on Sat Feb 13, 2010 6:02 am

I was born and raised in the church... Every Sunday my family and I went to church and I was taught about Jesus. I just accepted it and went on with my life. Im a fairly passionate person. If I like or believe something, I will defend it to the death. So as you might assume, I got fairly into Christianity as I got older. I studied Revelations on my own free time (its just an extremely interesting book) and became a leader for my church's Junior High youth ministry.

But Id say about 3 years ago, I decided to start researching opposing arguments and decided to inform myself on other viewpoints. I started looking at the Bible from a scientific and historical point of view, and studied opposing views of the Bible like Evolution. I slowly but surely started drawing myself away from religion. I started to severely question my faith. So much that a couple years ago I completely denounced my faith and became a Deist (which means I believe there is a God, but dont believe in any religion). I just dont really see much scientific accuracy in many of the Bible's stories. It just doesnt add up. You can only base so much on faith before you start to look like an idiot.

I also decided to pull away from religion simply because I could not stand being associated with other religious people. There is nothing worse than a religious freak riding their high horse condemning people to Hell. Honestly, if Jesus were around now do you really think he'd say "good job, keep doing what you do". Give me a break. Plus so many religious people are so uneducated on various matters that it makes me sick. They argue against Evolution but many of them dont even know the basics of it. Im not saying any religious people here are like that, but unfortunately Id have to say that the majority of people who follow a religion are.

Anyways, thats just what I think about Christianity. Dont even get me started on Islam or Catholicism. So yeah, in the end Id say the world would be 10000x better off without religion.

by **KrAzY** on Sat Feb 13, 2010 6:44 am

there are just as many uneducated atheists and agnostics as there are uneducated religious peoples...

actually the argument could be made that Theistic people are more intelligent because most great minds have come from a strong religious background...

everyone is entitled to their own beliefs is my belief... as long as they can look at their own beliefs with an open mind... which is to say I do believe a lot of theistic people have trouble with that second part.

but don't go around saying that people who believe a religion are uneducated, it is certainly not true, and really only hurts you own credibility in the argument.

by TYFIGHTER on Sat Feb 13, 2010 7:54 am

KrAzY wrote:actually the argument could be made that Theistic people are more intelligent because most great minds have come from a strong religious background...

There can be a difference between Theistic people and religious people, though.

but don't go around saying that people who believe a religion are uneducated, it is certainly not true, and really only hurts you own credibility in the argument.

Youre right. I should have re-worded that saying "from my experience".

by PiEdude on Thu Feb 18, 2010 1:22 am

Now, I'll admit, that I haven't read this thread at all, and likely won't again after this.

But here's something I found on Joseph Campbell, and his beliefs on Religion:

Wikipedia wrote:
Comparative religion

Campbell relied often upon the writings of Carl Jung as an explanation of psychological phenomena, as experienced through archetypes. But Campbell did not necessarily agree with Jung upon every issue, and had very definite ideas of his own.

A fundamental belief of Campbell's was that all spirituality is a search for the same basic, unknown force from which everything came, within which everything currently exists, and into which everything will return. This elemental force is ultimately “unknowable” because it exists before words and knowledge. Although this basic driving force cannot be expressed in words, spiritual rituals and stories refer to the force through the use of "metaphors"—these metaphors being the various stories, deities, and objects of spirituality we see in the world. For example, the Genesis myth in the Bible ought not be taken as a literal description of actual events, but rather its poetic, metaphorical meaning should be examined for clues concerning the fundamental truths of the world and our existence.[20]

Accordingly, Campbell believed the religions of the world to be the various, culturally influenced “masks” of the same fundamental, transcendent truths. All religions, including Christianity and Buddhism, can bring one to an elevated awareness above and beyond a dualistic conception of reality, or idea of “pairs of opposites,” such as being and non-being, or right and wrong. Indeed, he quotes in the preface of The Hero with a Thousand Faces: "Truth is one, the sages speak of it by many names."—which is a translation of the Rig Vedic saying, "Ekam Sat Vipra Bahuda Vadanthi."

Campbell was fascinated with what he viewed as basic, universal truths, expressed in different manifestations across different cultures. For example, in the preface to The Hero with a Thousand Faces, he indicated that a goal of his was to demonstrate similarities between Eastern and Western religions. In his four-volume series of books The Masks of God, Campbell tried to summarize the main spiritual threads common throughout the world while examining their local manifestations. Tied in with this was his idea that many of the belief systems of the world which expressed these universal truths had a common geographic ancestry, starting off on the fertile grasslands of Europe in the Bronze Age and moving to the Levant and the "Fertile Crescent" of Mesopotamia and back to Europe (and the Far East), where it was mixed with the newly emerging Indo-European (Aryan) culture.

What's erie for me, is that these views closely match my own views.
The difference is, I believe that the "Unknown Force" is in fact God, or the true source of the power of God.

I also believe that He used prophets and influence, not so much supernatural events, to guide humanity to the Truth.

I don't believe the Truth to necessarily be just his existence, but also the truth of humanity.

Why create us at all? Why Earth? Who else did he create?

by Gauz on Thu Feb 18, 2010 1:28 am

I believe in the almighty power of ADAM

by ReconToaster on Thu Feb 18, 2010 2:41 am

I think it all does come down to personality type. Carl Jung would say that there are two schools of thought. There are those who are more focused on conclusions, and the specific ramifications of said conclusions, and there are those who are more concerned with how one arrives at such conclusions.

Religious people are not really concerned with logistics and reasoning. They are not concerned with how they come to the conclusion that their religion is correct. This explains why the logic behind religious belief appears to be so absolutely senseless.

One thing that religious people often do is say things like "I choose to believe in God." That train of thought, in itself, perfectly illustrates the way a religious person thinks. For me, belief is something that happens without my control. I cannot "choose" to believe in something. I believe things because I know them to be true, based on logic and personal experience. I don't choose to believe that monkeys exist. I know they exist because I've been to the zoo, and I've read all about them, and seen pictures from credible sources.

A religious person simply doesn't think that way. Their minds are structured differently. Belief, to them, is a matter of idealism. They like the idea of there being a God, and it seems convenient to them, and so in spite of lacking evidence and in the absence of real logical reasoning, they truly "believe" in what they preach.

Atheists and Agnostics aren't like that. They base their beliefs off of logic and reasoning. The trouble with atheists is that they're simply misguided. They falsely think that science has something to say about the existence of a god.

I really don't have a problem with religious people. It's when they get into trying to actually use some form of twisted logic to justify their beliefs to those who don't think the same way they do that makes me mad.

by TNine on Thu Feb 18, 2010 3:06 am

My reason for believing in religion is all personal, many times in my life i have been in trouble and turned to God and something has come up that is too convinient to simply be coincidence. Perhaps is was, perhaps i'm a misguided fool, but that is not my belief.

But i can still laugh at idiots who say that science disproves religion.

by Nocbl2 on Thu Feb 18, 2010 3:53 am

I'm agnostic.

Anyway, if someone is especially religious, I'm fine with that. Unless it begins affecting and distorting their daily lives, I don't really care. I believe in God. Not as a he or a she, but as a simple entity that can help us through life and death. I don't believe that science can prove religion statically, but it allows us to understand the world we are placed in by religion. Science is a form of study that helps us live better, longer lives. Religion, for me, is a way of life, not a way of thought.

At my local Church, there is a Franciscan priest. One night, I was listening to his sermon. He said that love is not distorted by faith, hate, greed, money, belief, or anything of any nature. It came from the soul, not of the mind. Your mind reasons with logic and decisions, as I see it. The soul acts on feeling. It has no guide other than itself, and no hinderance other than itself. Hate and love come from this entity. The reasons we feel certain ways might very well be affected by our levels of serotonin and whatever the other thing is called, but our strength of will always can overcome the physical world. Back to what the priest said, he also mentioned that love is pure, and true love cannot be faked. You can't love for power, or wealth, but people love people and things because they have a feeling that overrides thought and process to be replaced by a need to help.

So you see, religion and love and feeling matter, and anyone that thinks otherwise can believe that. It is a matter of preference.

by TNine on Thu Feb 18, 2010 5:04 am

Late me tell you a little ancedote, taken from "The Power of One"

"When i was in the military, i was with this guy who had taken a shot to the chest, but it had been blocked by a pocket bible. Now the man declared that he couldn't be killed in battle, and soon enough we headed out. It was a scouting mission, the British intelligenc said the Boers didn't have a range of more than 750 yards, and we were 1200 out. We came under fire, and i was hit in the leg while the guy was hit in the head and died.
The moral of the story is never expect the British intelligence to be accurate and expect the Boers to be dead accurate, and that religion is all good in matters of the heart but no good in matters of the head".

Not a very accurate quote, but it gets the point across.

by Dud Doodoo on Thu Feb 18, 2010 7:52 pm

ReconToaster wrote:I think it all does come down to personality type. Carl Jung would say that there are two schools of thought. There are those who are more focused on conclusions, and the specific ramifications of said conclusions, and there are those who are more concerned with how one arrives at such conclusions.

Religious people are not really concerned with logistics and reasoning. They are not concerned with how they come to the conclusion that their religion is correct. This explains why the logic behind religious belief appears to be so absolutely senseless.

One thing that religious people often do is say things like "I choose to believe in God." That train of thought, in itself, perfectly illustrates the way a religious person thinks. For me, belief is something that happens without my control. I cannot "choose" to believe in something. I believe things because I know them to be true, based on logic and personal experience. I don't choose to believe that monkeys exist. I know they exist because I've been to the zoo, and I've read all about them, and seen pictures from credible sources.

A religious person simply doesn't think that way. Their minds are structured differently. Belief, to them, is a matter of idealism. They like the idea of there being a God, and it seems convenient to them, and so in spite of lacking evidence and in the absence of real logical reasoning, they truly "believe" in what they preach.

Atheists and Agnostics aren't like that. They base their beliefs off of logic and reasoning. The trouble with atheists is that they're simply misguided. They falsely think that science has something to say about the existence of a god.

I really don't have a problem with religious people. It's when they get into trying to actually use some form of twisted logic to justify their beliefs to those who don't think the same way they do that makes me mad.

That isn't exactly it. We do not believe in a God because we find the idea simple, convenient, or comforting. I, at least, don't cling to the concept that there is someone who can make me answer for the constant sinning that goes on in my life because I find it to be a comforting idea.

While I do not find Christianity to be illogical, I don't think that beliefs concerning an entity that exists outside of the physical world should be founded in physical evidence or a system of thought that has been derived from said world. Perhaps, we just recognize an underlying idea in all that exists that tells us that there is one who is greater than ourselves.

What annoys me is the horde of atheists in my school who enjoy recycling common atheist arguments that are made by those who have no understanding of Christianity. I have yet to argue with someone in person who has actually come up with their own reasons about why believe what they believe. Atheists aren't the only ones, however. The Christians who usually come in on my side are just as unoriginal and have a tendency to recite their favorite prewritten phrases instead of really contributing or even helping me at all. My family does this.

Either way, the majority of people I have had the pleasure of conversing with, both atheist, agnostic, and religious, seem to conform to the views of others instead of analyzing their feelings themselves. It is possible that this is because most of those are teenagers, and I certainly hope it is. If this theme persists throughout my life, I will have much less respect for humanity than I currently do.