Why believe in religion?

Not random at all. Jews were persecuted wherever they went. So in groups and out groups are very important to religious jews even a hundred years ago. Religious communities cohere when they have an outside group to scapegoat their problems off onto. It's been going on in most all places since people started worshipping the sun and moon........

Is that also why in America the heavily religious also love clinging to their guns, sticking up for people who shoot unarmed people of color, love telling women and gays how to live and mandate that in law, who want nothing more than their nation to invade Muslim counties and bomb them into oblivion, or that they want to corrupt education to spread their ideological disease? Because they're happy and tenacious people?

I like how you associated this entirely with one religion and the worst aspects of it.....it's interesting.

I meant more random in that you took the topic quickly on a tangent.

I say we bring back sun worship. It does keep us alive after all.

@comp_atkins: d

I find it interesting you find it interesting, when I also narrowed the field down to say this is an American problem, and in context it's a right wing political issue more that's perverted religion, but whatever.

@comp_atkins:

k

l

You forgot about the middle east.

I could also mention Boko Haram and The Lords Army but then where would I stop, I'm just mentioning the freaks in my neck of the woods.

lol fair enough.

Wow... this is seriously the best response you can come up with? How is your faith? Kinda shaky? Because this kind of mental gymnastics must have you pulling out your hair.

I wasn't talking about followers, I was talking about people who were his contemporaries. People who existed at the same time as him and witnessed events and wrote about them. You know, like how people wrote about Tiberius Caesar of Rome and we have tons of corroborating sources to prove his existence.

I dont see it as random. The thread was asking people why they should believe in religion, and people came with answers about the truth of the doctrines, or of jesus etc. If one opens up a topic like this, dissent is to be expected.

It was a tangent and pretty random, I mentioned that religious people are happier because of bonds they make with other people, you went to jewish discrimination.

Haven't read any of the replies but it's good to see that even though Off-Topic isn't what it use to be, a religion thread can still apparently cause quite a stir. Guess some things never change.

I did not discriminate against jews at all. Religion thrived in tribal communities, like the ones Semitic peoples lived in. Xenophobia for all religions, including Judaism helped their communities cohere under one belief. Jews have faced horrid amounts of discrimination, therefore they found solace and cohesion within their communities within other people's cultures, like Rome or Germany. I'm not prejudiced towards Jews in the least. If I were part of a group that was systematically oppressed, scapegoated for every societal ill, and outright killed, I would do exactly as they did.

I didn't say you did, I don't know how to respond to this, you're just saying random things.

You said people are happier around other religious people. I explained in groups and out groups, referencing the Jews, because their situation is pretty unique. You say I'm being random. I show you how I am not being random. You then say I discriminate against Jews, and I show you why I was not doing that. You say I'm being random. I'm not being random at all, I'm perfectly on topic..........

I see religion not as a refuge for the ignorant but for the frightened. Most people can't except the finality of death.

There are many ways a religious person could look at his/her religion.

For a person, it could be a mean of conscious prevention from sins

It could be a mean to assure oneself that there is life after death.

It could be a mean of getting hope when in despair.

These are just some of the many perspectives on how people see their religion. I believe that true faith is self-development. It is not some "pass" for someone to do terrible things. It is not something which should create streotyping and division. It is not something in which the physical form of a person signs up, but instead their spiritual and mental being.

I, myself, am a Christian and there are a lot of things that I don't understand from my fellow Christians. Such as them looking at the LGBT differently and saying that Adam is for Eve not for Steve. See, God told us to love on another-- love other human beings. And aren't the LGBT human beings? And seeing my fellow Christians look differently on the LGBT since they don't like their opposite sex or they behave differently from their gender because of the "Adam to Eve not to Steve" thing makes me lose faith on them. God created them himself and now God's words are used against them? How ironic, really.

@hillelslovak: Liberty University's motto is "knowledge aflame." You have many anti-establishment views on Christianity and of Christian education, but they are of little merit considering the evidence.

@foxhound_fox: Considering the evidence that I have studied, my faith is strong, and not easily shaken by folks giving me bad arguments. You are basically saying that unless there were people at the same time of the event recording its occurrence then it is unreliable, which goes against all scientifically analytical inquiry related to the past.

I will say again that the only remaining possibly legitimate theories about Jesus' resurrection are the existential theory that separates the Christ of history from the Christ of faith, and the orthodox theory that has no such separation.

H.S. Horton-Parker explained that there are eleven events that are considered knowable history by virtually all scholars, and a twelfth that is considered knowable history by many scholars. They are:

(1) Jesus died due to the rigors of crucifixion, and

(2) was buried.

(3) Jesus' death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope.

(4) Although not as frequently recognized, many scholars hold that Jesus was buried in a tomb that was discovered to be empty just a few days later.

(5) Critical scholars even agree that at this time the disciples had overwhelmingly real experiences that they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus.

(6) Because of these experiences, the disciples were transformed from doubters who were afraid to identify themselves with Jesus to bold proclaimers of his death and Resurrection, even courting death in proclaiming this belief.

(7) This message (the kerygma concerning the resurrection) was central in the early church preaching, and

(8) was especially proclaimed in Jerusalem, where Jesus died shortly before.

(9) As a result of this message, the church was born and grew,

(10) with Sunday as the primary day of worship.

(11) James, the brother of Jesus and a skeptic, was converted to faith when he also

believed he saw the resurrected Jesus.

(12) A few years later Paul the persecutor of Christians was also converted by an

experience that he, similarly, believed to be "an appearance of the risen Jesus."

The most significant arguments that assert non-supernatural explanations for belief in Jesus' resurrection are summarized as the following:

1. The "Fraud" Theory

2. The "Swoon" Theory

3. The "Hallucination" Theory

4. The "Mythological" Theory

5. The Existential Theory

As stated by Horton-Parker:

Twentieth century critical scholarship has tended to reject theories 1-4 above because they are seen as incapable of explaining the agreed upon data. This leaves theory number five and the orthodox perspective as the two main contenders in explaining the resurrection.

Source: An Overview of the Resurrection Debate

-H.S. Horton-Parker

Here is my source that you demanded. Where is yours?

It is interesting that Paul, a devout Christian, said, "That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart" (KJV). Unceasing anguish is what he experienced. Today, people say that the happier people are, the more religious they tend to be, yet there is contrary evidence. An issue that many have with statistics is that they deal with averages and attempt to bring all data to those averages rather than the supposed anomalies. It is why they do not make the best arguments for generalizations.

>Using a quote from an edition of Bible proven to have had numerous additions.

Not necessarily. Religion has also caused a world of other problems. The Crusades, for starters. Then there are countless pastor/altar boy scandals. Some people become depressed because they put all their beliefs in a book and deity hoping things get better, and when they don't, they commit suicide.

Religion does have some good virtues. There are a lot of good moral codes taught in many theologies, But just being religious does not automatically make one happier than someone who isn't religious. In fact, the argument could be made that an atheist is actually happier than a theist because instead of waiting for things to get fixed, they are actively fixing things on their own.

@foxhound_fox: It has a literal translation, though not numerous additions. You can use the New International Version if you like. The message is essentially the same for that verse

I remain waiting for your source, by the way.

.

That argument does not really work because freemasons are often leaders and government and industry. Every freemason must believe in God, though it can be of any faith since they believe that all paths lead to God. That does not even have anything about the correlation between faith and happiness, either.

You may be diverting from the original point in that religious people are happier. Despite the fact that there are many downsides.

can I get a link.

@still_vicious: If you are referring to the verse, it is Paul's Epistle to the Romans, chapter 9, verse 2.

well, thats NOT the way you will get me back ... oh, wait

I dont need you back, because I dont even know where the hell you are. You come here, ramble on and on, and I still havent seen a single thing articulated by you that makes sense in the least.

For all you wrote there, one simple reply is needed. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Instead, Christians have had 2000 years to prove anything, and you have done zero.

You say that if someone was not there watching it, we non theists say it does not matter at all. NO! When someone tells me something decades later, that they heard from someone else who was not there as well, then gives me 4 different stories of the event that show a stunning lack of knowledge of the Jews, Romans, both of their customs and rules, they dont agree among themselves on most events of Jesus' life, then tell me all 4 are true, AND they are divinely warranted, without proving ANYTHING, you are the one who is not only not bringing evidence, but not making claims that are plausible or falsifiable.

@still_vicious: they're for family protection, hunting dangerous or delicious animals, and keeping the king of england out of your face

@comp_atkins said:

@still_vicious: they're for family protection, hunting dangerous or delicious animals, and keeping the king of england out of your face

,

So really, nothing outside the tradition to really prove that Jesus actually existed nor was in any way supernatural.

I'm trying to show you that asserting something is true doesn't make it true. For something to be historically verifiable, it relies on primary sources from more than one place of origin and author. The Bible is not an historical document, since the oldest manuscripts can only be dated until well after the deaths of those who purportedly wrote them.

If faith is required for Jesus to have power, then there is no point in trying to assert the historical validity of his existence/power.

Among those theories, there isn't the painfully obvious, and most likely theory listed, which is that Jesus thought he was the biblical messiah, and was mistaken.

If religion makes you happy and fulfilled that's great, but there's ton of people who don't need it to live fulfilling and happy life.

jesus didnt exist as a real person ... its an analogy ... like mentioned, a similar book to the bible exist 'the bock of enoch' its older and basicly considered the blueprint for the bible, a similar Person like Jesus appears there, in fact, analogys to a Person like Jesus can be found in all non-monoteistic relegion or believes ... wich is also a sign that the tales about Jesus are ment to deal only with a specilised / willfuly selected part of the whole ...

also keep in mind that the bible consists of the testaments wich are basicly the same story written in four different versions ...

keep in mind that jesus is the son of a 'craftsman' in real life and mythological meaning ...

the point is, 'christ' is a title given to initated people. Cristus and Chrestos. its fair to believe that 2000 years ago a lot of 'circles' had send out 'christs' into the world in an attempt to reform the relegion and believe of that time ... basicly when the Romans came People saw their Chance to free themself from the burden the jewish relegion was to them at this time

if the cristianic believe we know today is a result of the combined effort of all of these 'circles' or simply the remains of an process of conflict and evolution, remains speculation

the only anwser to the question why people believe in relegion is, becasue their parents told them so ...

and thats why there isnt really much about to discuss, because its nothing substantial at all

what we think is relegion is in reality simply philosophy ... there are many different philosophys about life, yet their is only one subject as the 'life' itself ... and the goal of all philosophy is to proof itself meaningless in the end, this is teh ultimate goal ... the human mind is like a wall, everything you think of or believe in is projected on to that wall ... it is impossible to practically get behind that wall as it also forms the boarder of the minds existence ... but ... by recognizing the wall and realising the nature of the projections reflected onto it ... will let you leave this wall behind ... magicaly ... in the moment you fully realise / admit the existence of this wall, you are already at the other side ...

because their is always a difference between knowing something and doing something, the knowledge and experience wich is expressed in the paragraph above cannot be understood by simply putting them in understandable words ... thats why philosophy was and is always closly conected to math and geometry, because the geometric symbols wich are absed on math are the purest form of describing a thought ... the simplyer teh smynols teh clearer the analogy can be transmitted ... because math and geometry are the lowest common denominators that exist ...

whats the opposite term to 'individuals' .... 'environment'

the core of the cristianic believe is the following ...

the cross is an unwrapped cube ... the cube is a symbol for the active, creating, sinful men on earth ... the cross is a symbol for the resting, non active, pure men on earth ...

the cross is made of row of 4 items and a colum of 3 items, row and colum crossing eachother and sharing one of the items together ...

for the christs, god is the process that chances one from the cube-being as wich we are born to the open-cross-being that we are ment to be ...

for the christs, god is the process ....

so basicly this ^^:

These guys were incredible ^^

That is a religion I can get behind. As Carlin said:

Overnight I became a sun-worshiper. Well, not overnight, you can't see the sun at night. But first thing the next morning, I became a sun-worshiper. Several reasons. First of all, I can see the sun, okay? Unlike some other gods I could mention, I can actually see the sun. I'm big on that. If I can see something, I don't know, it kind of helps the credibility along, you know? So everyday I can see the sun, as it gives me everything I need; heat, light, food, flowers in the park, reflections on the lake, an occasional skin cancer, but hey. At least there are no crucifixions, and we're not setting people on fire simply because they don't agree with us.

@hillelslovak: @foxhound_fox: I support scholarly inquiry, but not refusal to even consider the evidence. Good luck with that.

I am still waiting for even one scholarly source, by the way. If you want to set rules saying that I cannot participate if I refuse to provide a source, I would think that you would abide by the same policy for yourself as doing otherwise is hypocrisy.

As for me, I will continue recognizing the worth of evidence based discussion when dealing with all topics including faith,

Lucretus, Spinoza, Bertrand Russell, Edward Gibbon, David Hume, Thomas Payne, and a multitude of others.

I dont need peer reviewed papers or sources to argue the simple facts of the Bible. The onus is on you to provide proof for your beliefs, and you provide a bunch of biased biblical scholar information the presupposes the Bible being truth. You've provided sources that are disproven by nothing more than a simple analysis, and you have not attempted to remedy any of the inconsistencies of the book your are claiming to be true, despite it's obvious fakery.

for me the most notworthy aspect about spinoza is that he was like 21 when started to question the church and was already the wiseman at this age as wich he is remembered today ...

Goethe is related to Spinoza and Goethe is one of the most influantial philosphers of all time ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sorrows_of_Young_Werther

@hitomo said:

for the christs, god is the process ....

so basicly this ^^:

I realised the source of the Image isnt visible, so just in case ... thats whats commonly knowen as 4D cube

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypercube

Spinoza is one of the most unknown and underappreciated humans of all time. A shame what Orthodox Rabbis did to him. His work outlived them all though.

unknown and underappreciated humans of all time.

bolt statement ^^ ... but hes not so unknowen, I learned about him in scool and even here we come to speak of him

Evidence to me is something that can be verified from the outside. Christians assert "Jesus existed and was resurrected". I ask for proof of this and you give me a handful of people who never met the man, let alone witnessed the events in question.

That's not even evidence for the most untrustworthy historian.

Still, I dont think most people know who he is, or the things he did. His work with telescopes, groundbreaking philosophy on the mind and body distinction, his critiques of religion, and advocacy of free thinking. He was one of the greatest humans to ever have lived, and I doubt the average American knows anything about him.