God - A creation of human insecurity?

Is religion just a way of humans telling themselves that there is life after death? Do they only practice because they fear the endless void that could be death?

LiftedHeadshot

I believe in life after death but I dont believe that there is some "heaven" where we run free with unicorns and our lost family and animals. I use to believe in GOD or should I say...the Christians GOD. Use to read the Bible, go to church , raise the hands and praise this "GOD" 2-3x a week. BUT in my old age Ive come to realize that orginaized religion is more for "comfort" of our minds and a thick wallet for the leaders.

Its funny...Im more into the spirit side of death now days and some people think im crazy for believing in spirits "ghosts" ect. BUT its pefectly fine for people to live their lives and cram their religion down our throats. A religion nobody knows anything about. This "Jesus" person was as much a GOD as I am.

Let me say this...I do belive in JESUS. I believe he thought he was the masiah. And he was no more than a slick magician that fooled people along the way just like religious leaders do to this very day. I believe he died. And thats where it stops..

[QUOTE="mindstorm"][QUOTE="markop2003"]God created man as he was insecure about his lack of social life.markop2003

[QUOTE="Symphonycometh"][QUOTE="PhysicsLCP"]

I'd love to hear about this proof.

The first form of government was theocracy, i.e. religion based.

People were taxed (which is now called "tithing") and massive wars were started, all in the name of something produced by blind faith.

I don't have a problem with people believing in faeries, the easter bunny, santa, god, jesus, etc... Just stay out of politics, which, lets be honest, is massively funded by religious institutions. It would also be nice if I didn't have to worry about dying because one guy doesn't believe in some other guys version of a fictitious, all knowing, all seeing, yet absent and narcissistic being.

Scientists have string theory. Can we prove all of these extra dimensions? No, that's why it is a theory. Are wars started and political agendas pushed on us because of a scientific majority believing in this theory? No.

I'd probably believe in God if there wasn't such an historical reason not to. (let that swirl around a bit).

I don't know you, and I don't know what you believe. I just know that it's your choice and you have every right to believe what you want. I just don't want to believe it with you. People shouldn't have to be made to look like morons when they don't believe in something. This is why I reject religion.

no_more_fayth

what truth is that...?

[QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"]

there are proofs if one digs....but then again again again...people just dismiss the proofs as desperate attempts for believers to actually have something to believe in...the plot grows thicker...:|

PhysicsLCP

I'd love to hear about this proof.

The first form of government was theocracy, i.e. religion based.

People were taxed (which is now called "tithing") and massive wars were started, all in the name of something produced by blind faith.

I don't have a problem with people believing in faeries, the easter bunny, santa, god, jesus, etc... Just stay out of politics, which, lets be honest, is massively funded by religious institutions. It would also be nice if I didn't have to worry about dying because one guy doesn't believe in some other guys version of a fictitious, all knowing, all seeing, yet absent and narcissistic being.

Scientists have string theory. Can we prove all of these extra dimensions? No, that's why it is a theory. Are wars started and political agendas pushed on us because of a scientific majority believing in this theory? No.

I'd probably believe in God if there wasn't such an historical reason not to. (let that swirl around a bit).

I don't know you, and I don't know what you believe. I just know that it's your choice and you have every right to believe what you want. I just don't want to believe it with you. People shouldn't have to be made to look like morons when they don't believe in something. This is why I reject religion.

[QUOTE="no_more_fayth"]

people create legends and myths to explain things that... they CAN'T explain.

people found fossils.

they couldn't decipher what that creature was.

so they created monsters.

like dragons and cyclopses.

remember how the sun went around the earth?

and the earth was flat?

... why?

because people didn't know.

so they created legends.

PhysicsLCP

Yes, and when enough people believe in legend or myth it becomes truth for some reason. It's actually quite funny, but before the idea was just too ridiculous to believe anymore, a very large number of people around the world believed in santa claus in one form or another. Imagine if people went door to door trying to get to you believe in that!

"When the legend becomes fact... print the legend."

that's what we do.

christians make fun of Greek mythology, when that was their religion!

i don't get it.

hypocrites.

all of them.

:/

[QUOTE="no_more_fayth"]

[QUOTE="Symphonycometh"] Science over-complicates a very very obvious truth. Something no theory can hope to cover up. That truth alone should be enough proof for any religious person to stick by, of any religion really. (To be fair, Atheism too)PhysicsLCP

what truth is that...?

Yeah, exactly. I hear these "you're missing the easy truth" retorts all the time. I'd really like to know what I'm missing. Also, using the argument that science over-complicates things is pretty damaging to ones image if they want to be taken seriously. I read that as "Math is really hard, therefore it is wrong." That makes me sad. :(

If there was even the tiniest little shred of evidence that any of the religions were true I'd obviously be a believer, sadly despite what many believers believe there isn't any evidence.

Also "we don't know how something came from nothing so it must have been made by a magical man with a beard who lives in the clouds" is reaching

something coming from nothing is crazy

a magical man coming from nothing and creating something from nothing is even crazier, so it's funny that people take this standpoint as if it's somehow the more logical position.

If there was even the tiniest little shred of evidence that any of the religions were true I'd obviously be a believer, sadly despite what many believers believe there isn't any evidence.Brainkiller05

[QUOTE="no_more_fayth"]

[QUOTE="Symphonycometh"] Science over-complicates a very very obvious truth. Something no theory can hope to cover up. That truth alone should be enough proof for any religious person to stick by, of any religion really. (To be fair, Atheism too)Symphonycometh

what truth is that...?

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]What if, crudely put, humans have an inferiority complex?

One could argue that that idiosyncrasy of ours is what makes us excell and advance. Our need to be better. Perhaps, religions that "put down" humanity was just a motivation to do better; "better" as defined by each cultural and historical "frame".

Also what if humans have an inherent tendency to want to control their actions? Actually thats not a "what if". We do have a super-ego after all controlling our ego. Perhaps then religion is a self-regulation construct.

mindstorm

Christianity holds an interesting stance - we were created in the perfect image of God but have fallen into sin. Through Christ's power, not our own, we can be made to be how we once were. Christianity's stance is in stark contrast with many beliefs.

We do not seek self-governance like atheism (but are governed by an all-powerful God). We do not find inner power like Buddhism (any inner power is the Holy Spirit's power, not our own). We do not become gods ourselves like Mormonism (there is but one God worthy of praise). Etc. etc. Our salvation is not of our own doing unlike every other belief out there.

In the creation of religion, its not only our basic needs that form it though. The religions that have come before (and any tradition that predates it) can have an impact on it and thus from trasnformational stage to transformational stage modern religions may seem alienated from those basic needs that I presented in the sense that they include elements that dont fall easily under the description of those needs.

But when it comes to religion as a phenomenon, in general, what I say applies. I didnt mention Christianity specifically.

The "no salavtion through works" doctrine (although not held true in all sects of Christianity) does not negate the fact that Christianity does urge people to be better.

The above doctrine can be another example of self regulation. Self regulation of pride and utilitarian moral behavior.

If that all powerful God is merely a "projection" of our super egos then yes we are the ones governing ourselves. Externalising our inate control mechanisms hels in that imo. The distancing of that projection from ourselves can be anothwer example of self-regulation.

But bottomline, I dont see how the difference of the teaching about salvation being different in Christianity, excludes it from the explanation I gave. So if you like, share your views on this.

[QUOTE="markop2003"][QUOTE="mindstorm"] I greatly disagree. God is in no need of us even for social reasons. God's "social life" is made complete within himself as a divine Trinity. He lacks nothing and is not in need of us. mindstorm

[QUOTE="Symphonycometh"][QUOTE="no_more_fayth"]

what truth is that...?

Danm_999

[QUOTE="no_more_fayth"]

[QUOTE="Symphonycometh"] Science over-complicates a very very obvious truth. Something no theory can hope to cover up. That truth alone should be enough proof for any religious person to stick by, of any religion really. (To be fair, Atheism too)Symphonycometh

what truth is that...?

Oh dear. THIS argument again. You're still telling me that science is too hard to understand. This pseudo-intellectual banter kills me. It's almost as if some people are spoon fed this textbook retort from young age. It's funny that when dragged into an argument about religion, it is the one who believes that begins whittling you down, trying to make you feel stupid, until you lack the energy to fight back anymore.

Here's the deal. I've spent most of my life studying science. Most of that time was spent learning tested and proven scientific fact. What's interesting is that for some reason, if I spent most of my life kneeling before a being that I can't see, hear or touch, I would end up knowing more than those who chose to follow the mind expanding path. I could go on about this, but the truth of the matter is that there is no convincing someone that what they believe is false. Regardless of what side you're on.

This is why I don't care what you believe. I just want what you believe to stay out of my life. This means removing religion from politics.

[QUOTE="Symphonycometh"][QUOTE="no_more_fayth"]

what truth is that...?

Danm_999

Wow, I really like the way you put this. If god created everything, where did he come from right? It's an age old saying, but you put it very well.

religious people are the first to insult our intelligence...

you don't possess mental powers we do not.

get over yourselves.

religious people are the first to insult our intelligence...

you don't possess mental powers we do not.

get over yourselves.

no_more_fayth

That question comes no matter what.

And because it does come up, no matter what, my statement can simply be repeated. It's a loop us religious and science folks made ourselves with absolutely no way of ending. We cannot explain the origin point. The moment we do explain one something, the other side asks where that came from. It's near-useless to go all out and claim any side is wrong. Which was my point. =D

Symphonycometh

The question will always come, but you've presented the Christian answer as the simple, logical one, and the scientific answer as the complex, round about one one. There are two problems with this.

Firstly, I have just demonstrated how it is actually the Christian answer that is the more complex.

Secondly, there isn't a scientific answer for how the universe began. The Big Bang Theory only covers the transition of the universe into it's current state. There are theories (literally theories, not scientific theories like gravity or evolution), but they aren't taken as answers, as there is no evidence to support them.

You call it pseudo, but I've kept the logic pretty darn simple and factual. I daresay you're trying to dodge my actual point and go with the usual: "lol I've heard this before and YOU ARE WRONG. No backup claim. ^^". I could care less on what you believe, good sir, but your post is nothing more than one good way of running away~Symphonycometh

What you're saying is, the fact that he can't prove your argument is false automatically makes it true? Ultimately you're trying to prove something immaterial with material resources which doesn't work. No one can prove God exists, so why is it even assumed he does?

You call it pseudo, but I've kept the logic pretty darn simple and factual. I daresay you're trying to dodge my actual point and go with the usual: "lol I've heard this before and YOU ARE WRONG. No backup claim. ^^". I could care less on what you believe, good sir, but your post is nothing more than one good way of running away~Symphonycometh

You call it pseudo, but I've kept the logic pretty darn simple and factual. I daresay you're trying to dodge my actual point and go with the usual: "lol I've heard this before and YOU ARE WRONG. No backup claim. ^^". I could care less on what you believe, good sir, but your post is nothing more than one good way of running away~Symphonycometh

And oversimplifying things isn't? heh. If you want to have a debate about science, I'm ready. Get prepared though. I spent most of my life procuring 4 science degrees. We have to start with the basics though because it seems like those are missing from this entire argument.

Someone else put it very well. If there was one tiny shred of evidence that god existed, I would easily chose the path.

You haven't shown me any proof. You've merely provided me with an argument against science, which I'll gladly get into. (much to the sadness of people in this thread who may want to proceed with a more existential debate).

[QUOTE="Symphonycometh"]You call it pseudo, but I've kept the logic pretty darn simple and factual. I daresay you're trying to dodge my actual point and go with the usual: "lol I've heard this before and YOU ARE WRONG. No backup claim. ^^". I could care less on what you believe, good sir, but your post is nothing more than one good way of running away~ex-mortis

What you're saying is, the fact that he can't prove your argument is false automatically makes it true? Ultimately you're trying to prove something immaterial with material resources which doesn't work. No one can prove God exists, so why is it even assumed he does?

because some people haven't reached the age of reason.

(:

[QUOTE="no_more_fayth"]

religious people are the first to insult our intelligence...

you don't possess mental powers we do not.

get over yourselves.

Symphonycometh

Wow. just wow. I almost missed this passive-aggressive statement. Well played. :/

[QUOTE="Symphonycometh"]

That question comes no matter what.

And because it does come up, no matter what, my statement can simply be repeated. It's a loop us religious and science folks made ourselves with absolutely no way of ending. We cannot explain the origin point. The moment we do explain one something, the other side asks where that came from. It's near-useless to go all out and claim any side is wrong. Which was my point. =D

Danm_999

The question will always come, but you've presented the Christian answer as the simple, logical one, and the scientific answer as the complex, round about one one. There are two problems with this.

Firstly, I have just demonstrated how it is actually the Christian answer that is the more complex.

Secondly, there isn't a scientific answer for how the universe began. The Big Bang Theory only covers the transition of the universe into it's current state. There are theories (literally theories, not scientific theories like gravity or evolution), but they aren't taken as answers, as there is no evidence to support them.

[QUOTE="Symphonycometh"] Find the post that says that, please. I don't recall saying that I MUST BE RIGHT.[QUOTE="no_more_fayth"]

[QUOTE="ex-mortis"]

[QUOTE="Symphonycometh"]You call it pseudo, but I've kept the logic pretty darn simple and factual. I daresay you're trying to dodge my actual point and go with the usual: "lol I've heard this before and YOU ARE WRONG. No backup claim. ^^". I could care less on what you believe, good sir, but your post is nothing more than one good way of running away~ex-mortis

What you're saying is, the fact that he can't prove your argument is false automatically makes it true? Ultimately you're trying to prove something immaterial with material resources which doesn't work. No one can prove God exists, so why is it even assumed he does?

because some people haven't reached the age of reason.

(:

[QUOTE="ex-mortis"]

[QUOTE="Symphonycometh"]You call it pseudo, but I've kept the logic pretty darn simple and factual. I daresay you're trying to dodge my actual point and go with the usual: "lol I've heard this before and YOU ARE WRONG. No backup claim. ^^". I could care less on what you believe, good sir, but your post is nothing more than one good way of running away~no_more_fayth

What you're saying is, the fact that he can't prove your argument is false automatically makes it true? Ultimately you're trying to prove something immaterial with material resources which doesn't work. No one can prove God exists, so why is it even assumed he does?

because some people haven't reached the age of reason.

(:

You mean, a majority of the world population. yes, it hurts my stomach. :/

I always thought God was a creation to keep the public in-line with the law (seeing as God doesn't want murders, suicide, etc) and to keep people unrealistically optimistic with hope of a joyous after-life.

That, or an epic troll spread this idea 2010 years ago knowing the idea would keep spreading because of the great offerings it entails for an afterlife.

[QUOTE="Danm_999"]

[QUOTE="Symphonycometh"]

That question comes no matter what.

And because it does come up, no matter what, my statement can simply be repeated. It's a loop us religious and science folks made ourselves with absolutely no way of ending. We cannot explain the origin point. The moment we do explain one something, the other side asks where that came from. It's near-useless to go all out and claim any side is wrong. Which was my point. =D

Symphonycometh

The question will always come, but you've presented the Christian answer as the simple, logical one, and the scientific answer as the complex, round about one one. There are two problems with this.

Firstly, I have just demonstrated how it is actually the Christian answer that is the more complex.

Secondly, there isn't a scientific answer for how the universe began. The Big Bang Theory only covers the transition of the universe into it's current state. There are theories (literally theories, not scientific theories like gravity or evolution), but they aren't taken as answers, as there is no evidence to support them.

[QUOTE="Symphonycometh"][QUOTE="no_more_fayth"]

religious people are the first to insult our intelligence...

you don't possess mental powers we do not.

get over yourselves.

PhysicsLCP

Wow. just wow. I almost missed this passive-aggressive statement. Well played. :/

I'd say believing in god and believing some mysterious atom just popped out of now where and started this cycle of existence is pretty much on par.

[QUOTE="no_more_fayth"]

[QUOTE="ex-mortis"]

What you're saying is, the fact that he can't prove your argument is false automatically makes it true? Ultimately you're trying to prove something immaterial with material resources which doesn't work. No one can prove God exists, so why is it even assumed he does?

PhysicsLCP

because some people haven't reached the age of reason.

(:

You mean, a majority of the world population. yes, it hurts my stomach. :/

do people get that close to every story in the bible is derived from other myths in Egyptian mythology and Greek mythology?

that should say something...

but it doesn't.

:/

I'd say believing in god and believing some mysterious atom just popped out of now where and started this cycle of existence is pretty much on par.

Espada12

[QUOTE="PhysicsLCP"]

[QUOTE="Symphonycometh"] No one is insulting your intelligence. Yet. 0_o Symphonycometh

Wow. just wow. I almost missed this passive-aggressive statement. Well played. :/

Maybe this is the whole point of the problem with arguing in forums. You meant it one way (which is not offensive at all), and I took it as, "Some day, you'll be proven wrong for what you believe".

Admittedly, this is a huge problem with large debates without seeing a person's face. It's simply a bad venue for expressive communication.

You know I really don't have a problem with the concept of a creator or some such thing, but the Biblical God really can't exist...

I would've been fine with "perhaps some supernatural being created us..." rather than "The Almighty God created this world and He loves everyone, yet is willing to send his sheep to eternal suffering in some fantastic realm if they end up on the opposite end of a black-and-white moral spectrum for five year olds".

There is no proof for even the presence of such a thing but giving it a name and personality as well, I just don't get it... ?

[QUOTE="Symphonycometh"][QUOTE="Danm_999"]

The question will always come, but you've presented the Christian answer as the simple, logical one, and the scientific answer as the complex, round about one one. There are two problems with this.

Firstly, I have just demonstrated how it is actually the Christian answer that is the more complex.

Secondly, there isn't a scientific answer for how the universe began. The Big Bang Theory only covers the transition of the universe into it's current state. There are theories (literally theories, not scientific theories like gravity or evolution), but they aren't taken as answers, as there is no evidence to support them.

Danm_999

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

I'd say believing in god and believing some mysterious atom just popped out of now where and started this cycle of existence is pretty much on par.

Danm_999

I wouldn't think we will ever find out how the universe has been created. If we follow the "material line" of creating as in what creates what, we will never reach the end or we will reach a point where we have something being created out of nothing, which scientifically isn't possible.

[QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="Symphonycometh"] Did I say the Christian path was logical? Or moreso, the "more logical" path? If so, feel free to quote that part and we'll both call me wrong. (Unless it was involving my actual opinion.) I think believing in either one is justifiable. Unless somehow science and/or religion comes up with some canon as fact.Symphonycometh

[QUOTE="Symphonycometh"][QUOTE="PhysicsLCP"]

Wow. just wow. I almost missed this passive-aggressive statement. Well played. :/

PhysicsLCP

Maybe this is the whole point of the problem with arguing in forums. You meant it one way (which is not offensive at all), and I took it as, "Some day, you'll be proven wrong for what you believe".

Admittedly, this is a huge problem with large debates without seeing a person's face. It's simply a bad venue for expressive communication.

I'd say believing in god and believing some mysterious atom just popped out of now where and started this cycle of existence is pretty much on par.

Espada12

What material is god supposed to be made of then? If he created the universe (hence the first atom), where did he come from? That's one more extreme level of indirection that would require proof even AFTER the big bang theory were to be proven (if it ever does).

[QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="Espada12"]

I'd say believing in god and believing some mysterious atom just popped out of now where and started this cycle of existence is pretty much on par.

Espada12

I wouldn't think we will ever find out how the universe has been created. If we follow the "material line" of creating as in what creates what, we will never reach the end or we will reach a point where we have something being created out of nothing, which scientifically isn't possible.

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

I'd say believing in god and believing some mysterious atom just popped out of now where and started this cycle of existence is pretty much on par.

PhysicsLCP

What material is god supposed to be made of then? If he created the universe (hence the first atom), where did he come from? That's one more extreme level of indirection that would require proof even AFTER the big bang theory were to be proven (if it ever does).

I wasn't arguing for either side there, I'm just showing how both explanations for these things are blind faith.

[QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="Lethalhazard"]What if there isn't such a thing as time? Even if there is, what if it has been going on forever (space too) and atoms have just been here the entire time without being created? It's a concept that's hard to grasp since we're so used to have something come from somewhere before, but I bet it's possible.Lethalhazard

I think it's fun to ponder the beginning of the universe, what happens after we die, etc... I would just be very sad if I had a couple popular theories about it which made it into a book an caused wars 1000 years from now.

[QUOTE="Lethalhazard"][QUOTE="Danm_999"] We perceive things so rigidly as humans, even as individuals of a particular society. We always look for cause and effect. We always look for a start and a stop. We may not necessarily always find these things.PhysicsLCP

I think it's fun to ponder the beginning of the universe, what happens after we die, etc... I would just be very sad if I had a couple popular theories about it which made it into a book an caused wars 1000 years from now.

Yea or if man used those ideas to create wars, because the book itself cannot.

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

I'd say believing in god and believing some mysterious atom just popped out of now where and started this cycle of existence is pretty much on par.

PhysicsLCP

What material is god supposed to be made of then? If he created the universe (hence the first atom), where did he come from? That's one more extreme level of indirection that would require proof even AFTER the big bang theory were to be proven (if it ever does).

[QUOTE="PhysicsLCP"]

[QUOTE="Lethalhazard"] Yeah. I just like to think outside of the box a bit. Though in the end it may be pointless. We may never find the beginning of the universe or even if there is life-after-death.....until we're dead. Espada12

I think it's fun to ponder the beginning of the universe, what happens after we die, etc... I would just be very sad if I had a couple popular theories about it which made it into a book an caused wars 1000 years from now.

Yea or if man used those ideas to create wars, because the book itself cannot.

Man is implicit in this case because the book must first be interpreted by one who can read.

yes... I'm being silly :).

[QUOTE="PhysicsLCP"]

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

I'd say believing in god and believing some mysterious atom just popped out of now where and started this cycle of existence is pretty much on par.

jalexbrown

What material is god supposed to be made of then? If he created the universe (hence the first atom), where did he come from? That's one more extreme level of indirection that would require proof even AFTER the big bang theory were to be proven (if it ever does).