Why believe in religion?

if you think about it ... all life starts with photosynthesis and its still an totally not-understood process for some reason ... take the oil our entire world depends on today ... it is basicly animals and plants that have rotten over millions of years inside the ground ... so even this energy comes from the sun ... even atom energy is made out of star dust in the end ... its called entropy ... and I never looked at it that way, but the fact you can actually see and observe the sun maybe makes it the biggest evidence you could present to people like ... BranKetra ... ^^

The sun is a far more worthy of worship than any man made God. It's where all these Gods, from Horus to Jesus, come from. God is The Sun, Horus is God's Sun/Son. Jesus, dies in the exact manner the sun does on the winter solstice. The sun "dies" than after a couple days, causing the world to be darker for the longest period of the year, then it rises, seemingly reborn. Jesus is always seen in early christian art with the sun illuminating behind his head. It's easy to see the root of the belief.

pointofagreement

http://alexgrey.com/art/paintings/sacred-mirrors/

actually, philosophers have theorized that major monotheistic religions (Judasim, Christiniaty, Islam) originated in and near hot deserts because of the abundance of sun (just think of the travelers and shepherds in the desert, who followed the water, not the sun) . The sun might be worthy of worship if you're a farmer living in a cold climate, but everywhere else, it is a destructive god. Horus may have been God's Sun, but it was the Nile that provided sustenance.

Imagine a fisherman living on the beach of the desert. Can't grow anything, having your skin burnt and causing skin cancer. at the end of the day you still need to get your food from the sea. Sun is Hell.

surely, we can live without the sun (many creatures do) but we can't quite live without water. after all, Many cultures did make gods out of rivers, lakes, and seas. isn't water more worthy of worship?

I can see that perspective. But the sun gives life, and takes away. It's quite like like god archetypes. It's the same way how desert peasants, facing long journeys, staring at a donkey's ass all day, dreamed and wished about speeding the process up with flying and levitation.

Sun worshipping is legit.

So is Yoga. Not just asana based Haṭhavidyā Yoga, but the entire physical and spiritual concept.

Although technically Yoga isn't a religion as much as a connection of mind and spirit.

Oversimplication is not something that I consider seriously when dealing with scholarly analysis. In this thread, you have not only disregarded facts, but have provided counterarguments that are utterly conjecture. When you want to take this topic seriously, let me know.

Yes, evidence is best when peer reviewed. As the source I gave you was a synopsis of the arguments from multiple people over hundreds of years challenging the orthodox perspective, but failing to crush it, the provided information can be further studied by you and anyone else if you so choose. However, your assertion contradicts practically all study of past historical documents because the sources I presented were not literally at the gathering of the five hundred, or other events because of your conjecture.

The idea that people can simply discount events confirmed by modern scientific analysis, which I would think would have pointed out such clear flaws in thinking at the highest levels of scholarship if they were in fact flaws, is extraordinary.

People may think that reason is the chief of the sciences, but in fact it is empirical evidence. Evidence has been presented and reproof is being ignored.

Except you have not provided facts! You've given many theological theories, by people who were christians, and did not apply any objective scholarly rigor. You make half baked assertions, then pretend as if all the work has been done by the assertion. You present Roman Historians who referred to Jesus in passing, referencing nothing but a cult who believed him to be the Messiah. Tacitus, Pliny, and Josephus were not contemporary with Jesus. You just keep asserting that academics think the Bible is historical. No real scholar, not even the vast majority of Christian scholars, think the Bible is a historical document, as it contradicts known historical events.

You then provide all these theories on Jesus, and cant even see the most obvious and least onerous of all theories: Maybe he thought he was The Jewish Messiah, but was mistaken.

You then act as if I am being a hypocrite because you cannot prove anything about Jesus convincingly or plausibly. One does not necessarily need evidence to prove a negative, especially one that does not internally cohere, and is clearly a mythical book written by people who could not seperate their poop from their food. You are the one trying to prove all these myths true, and all you do is assert assert assert.

Do you not even know that the NIV and King James Bibles are the product of 2000 years of editing, biased restructuring, mistranslation, omission and addition by people who just KNEW all their beliefs were true, despite them being ravaged by their ignorance on a daily basis?

@hillelslovak: I think you misunderstand the difference between knowable history and theory. I would urge you to study the difference before engaging in debates related to history any further.

My theory is that most people believe in some sort of religion for a few reasons. They were raised in that religion so it's all they've known, they're too lazy to think for themselves and want all of the answers given to them, or they're scared of either dying or they've screwed up so bad they want someone to tell them it's going to be ok in the end. I personally haven't had any use for religion since I was a child but as long as people keep it to themselves unless ask about it otherwise I try my best to live and let live. Unfortunately so many religious people are convinced they've uncovered some wonderful secret that they just have to share with everyone and that gets really old really fast.

I have misunderstood history and theory? You are the one making assertions, and claiming beliefs count as facts. I am not the one presupposing this mythical desert God is real, byt providing theories from people who already believe in the claim as a basis for justification. You bring up these theories that are about as absurd as the ruminations of CS Lewis, then you reference Roman Historians who were talking about things that happened decades before in places they were not. These men were not even christians, and did not believe in Christ. They say people believe in Christ, therefore you determine they are showing Christ to be real.

@hillelslovak: Knowable history is not a belief. At its least rational, in the kind of thinking that Baruch A. Brody proposed in Logic: Theoretical and Applied, the events that I quoted are, again, at least, strong beliefs therefore they are knowledge thus rational. Again, I would urge you to study the difference between the knowable history and theory. The quoted information that I cited from N.T. Wright, et. al. are almost all considered facts by virtually all scholars and the one that is debated by some is considered fact by many scholars. It is not I who is debating against the facts, but you.

That is not even saying anything in detail about the accusation that the extra-Biblical, first century CE sources were unworthy of citation or the idea that the Christ as messiah is different than the Old Testament prophecies.

NT Wright is an Anglican Bishop, whose source for these theories is the Bible. The Bible is not a reliable document historically or factually. It does not internally cohere, it is from a hodge podge of languages, written over centuries by people who didn't meet or even hear about each other. His writings are not based upon knowable history, and to call it a theory is laughable. This is straight theological burbling. Theology is not a proper field. His "theories" of explanation have nothing but assertions at their core. He simply thinks those theories are true, and you say that is factual. It is not, and your criteria for being convinced is absurd.

Once again, you are citing a man who cant see the simplest answer at hand: Jesus thought he was the Messiah, and was mistaken. NT Wright could not even come to that conclusion himself, instead confecting a bunch of theories that have zero justification except for the Bible, which is not trustworthy. He applied no rigor to his own standards, as he believes the Bible is all true.

Theories, in scientific discourse, are large explanatory models of mutually buttressed facts. He has a hypothesis, nothing more. If he had applied objective reasoning in any way, he would have seen some damn obvious refutations to his "theories"

Who says religious people are more happy and tenacious? care to back that up with a credible source.

And why not be religious? well because most a intelligent enough to see religion for what it is and nothing but smoke and mirrors.

@hillelslovak: This brings us back to the question of what you consider as credible. Considering that Liberty University, a university tied at eighty in the South category of Best Colleges and Universities by U.S. News & World Report, one of the most respected college ranking systems in the United States, is considered as without merit according to you, I wonder what this alternative, seemingly mysterious review system of yours has a foundation on because it seems to not be objectivity.

Good luck and have a nice day. This is not a debate. It is going back and forth about the credibility of people and texts that should be plain to see.

By the way, N.T. Wright went to Oxford.

butt ressed facts

man, I never heard of that word before ^^ now I know what it means

It's the same way how desert peasants, facing long journeys, staring at a donkey's ass all day, dreamed and wished about speeding the process up with flying and levitation.

personally I wouldnt agree with this therory of how and why things happened ^^

i've sited 4 studies in this thread...

Don't confuse non-religiousity and intelligence. I know a PhD in physics who a devout catholic.

well, you are probably aware of the mythological role and meaning of the 'snake' ... as it it the snake that offers the fruit of knowledge to the women ...

snake is a Dragon ... wich is simply a symbol for the Sine.Wave

but, surprise ... the snake is ofc the sun in its material, manifested form ...

when the universe started to exist the 'one' splittet itself into 'two' ... into 'spirit' and 'matter' ... spirit is the sun, matter is the snake (or lake) ... both start at opposites, while they are essentaily the same, one in its purest and most refined form and the other in its lowest most dissolved form ...

during the existence of the universe these two 'manifested principles' will pursue each other in the way that the spirit will descent into the matter, while the matter will ascent into the spirit at the same time ...

what we know as the universe and our existence inside it is simply a side effect of this process of self motivated Manifestation and de Manifestation ...

that said, we are allready on the way to discover the last and biggest secret of them all ...

I consider evidence, fact based analysis, and intellectual honesty. NT Wright, and all these other apologists, do not act with honesty, as they already have a belief in a faith based religion, then work from there. They are biased from the jump. I prefer actual historians, actual scientists, that attempt to prove things wrong, in order to find the truth, rather than apologists that attempt to prove their faith based beliefs.

Why not post those studies at the first post where you line up for the debate.

And intelligence has a lot to do with whether or not you believe in a "god" But as someone said "religion is opium for the people"

So in a sense religion is no different than people who use alcohol or drugs or sex to "hide behind".

@BranKetra: You are just running in circles now. The debate is over. You've lost because you've failed to support your assertion with reasonable evidence. I have no burden to prove anything. I'm merely denying your claim holds validity due to the lack of evidence.

It's fairly simple.

thats why people came to the conclusion its best to express all these thoughts in numbers and shapes, it simply combines 'scientific evidence' with 'faithbased believes' ... if people taking part in debates like this would be able to stand true to their own words till the very last instance ... they simply would have agree to this ...

the next step can only work if its regarded totally impersonal so to speak ...

during the existence of the universe these two 'manifested principles' will pursue each other in the way that the spirit will descent into the matter, while the matter will ascent into the spirit at the same time ...

the existence of the universe is made up of seven rounds ... during each round the spirit will descent deeper into the matter, while the disolved essence of the spirit, wich is the matter, will ascent back into ist refined form ... so naturally on their way to their individual goals, Spirit and matter will meet each other half way down the full circle ...

like the shape dictates, this has to happen in the 4th round ... wich related to the tripple four ...

so what happens, when the 'spirit' meets itself in its 'more disolved form' inside the matter?

since the whole process is an reflection of the nature of the universe itself, it is a reflection of the universe creators nature itself ... so when the creators spirit meets the creators own creation in the 4th round ...

the creator itself will appear as an reflection inside its own creation ... thus the human being appeared, on the one hand completing the process of 'manifestation' and marking the point of totall 'transecendation' ... it simply the point when the universe will have existed exactly for one half of its entire life span ...

http://www.timeanddate.com/calendar/mayan.html

can you dig it ? ^^

luv

I think I just blown my mind ...

thank you

Probably should have lol, maybe next time.

I think it has more to do with how you're raised, after all, there's no more evidence for a god than against it.

honestly I wouldnt put to much real-life-conlficting thought into all of this ... if it wasnt for that tripple four ...

Ya, how you are raised is also a big thing.

But ya there is no absolute proof for either side, but when you look at the facts and the sources for a "god" well, we stopped believing in Santa and the tooth fairy for a reason :D

I don't believe happiness is all there is to life. Some people, myself included, are fine existing in a stable state of melancholy. In fact, pretending to believe in some higher force would probably make me even more miserable than I already am.

Jesus never said that. That verse comes from Deuteronomy. That is in the Old Testament. We are a New Testament church.

@br0kenrabbit@hillelslovak You two are missing the point. You aren't the first or the last who attempt to point out the perceived absurdity of Christianity. Believe me you will not achieve in a game forum what others have not accomplished in 2000+ years.

And to get back to the original point that is why religion matters. It instills a FUNDAMENTAL unshakeable belief of divinity into people.

So machines don't enslave us.

@hitomo good read.

wait, wait ... is this a 'compliment' of some sort ... posted exactly 2hours and 22 minutes ago ? ^^

St. Anselm of Canterbury said, "credo ut intelligam: I have faith so that I may understand," and there is nothing wrong with that. Your view of discrediting all Christians for our faith is ironically an extreme view. Serious scholars, on the other hand, do not.

You have failed to support your assertion with any evidence at all. Your double-standard that you hold yourself above others when dealing with debates is hypocrisy, and I do not respect that.

------------------------------------------------------

Furthermore, the lack of comprehension about what was an overview rather than an argument about the history of the debate about the resurrection of the Christ is really something. You guys are arguing against facts and is not even at a place where we should start evaluating the stances in the debate, themselves. These are the basics that the virtually entire scholarly community around the world is engaging with right now, but for some reason, many in this GameSpot thread are not. There was a time when I would expect serious debate about politics and religion on GameSpot, but it seems that time has passed.

Oh bullshit, Christians are still deeply entrenched in the Old Testament. This asinine argument needs to stop.

@HoolaHoopMan: I assume that folks also think that Jesus did not encourage the golden rule, judge not and not be judged, related to wives, prostitutes, and tax collectors thus we should forgo thinking that he intended for people to refrain from attacking others in general.

@hitomo: yes lol. I thought what you wrote is cool. Some of us can't have our spirit meet itself in its disolved form. That's why people need religion.

What do you mean by deeply entrenched? Christians do not follow the OT chapter and verse any longer. We don't

1. abstain from pork

2. Take special care with the ark of the covenant

3. Kill animals without blemish and them bring them to the altar for sacrifice

4. Murder witches

and on and on and on. So please define what you mean by deeply entrenched. The Old Testament is important. It matters. But Christians no longer abide by all of its teachings.

Christians of all sorts cherry pick what ever they want, including plenty from the Old Testament. Look, I'm not saying that you have to follow those stupid rules in order to be a Christian, however you can't distance yourself from the fact that half of the Bible is the freaking OT. The OT with a genocidal maniac for a god and plenty of deplorable things being written down.

You simply have to take the OT as essential canon to be a Christian. Creation story, Flood, Exodus, 10 Commandments etc. It obviously varies denomination to denomination but you can't just ignore the entire thing and say that Christians only care about the NT.

good Point ^^

Its important what people think things are good for. St Snselm thought intellect was perfectly fine, IF it conformed to believing Jesus to be the messiah, the Bible being all true, etc. That is not an honest approach in the least. 2 Corinthians 10:5 We tear downarguments,andeverypresumptionset upagainsttheknowledgeof God;andwe take captiveeverythoughttomake it obedientto Christ. Is that honest?

Your are the one making extraordinary claims. Christopher Hitchens bluntly said "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

The onus is on you, especially considering anyone who has read the Bible can pick hundreds of holes in the logic, morality, cohesion, historical errors, and outright contradictions between the writers.

And your insistence on there being anything historical about Christ's resurrection becomes more and more absurd the further you keep insisting upon it.............

Dude. Learn what the burden of proof is. I'm denying your assertion is true (that Christ resurrecting is historical fact) until you produce evidence to support it. Which you are required to do when making a positive assertion/claim.

There are no "facts" when it comes to Jesus' resurrection. His very existence is spurious. I don't have to prove this. It's what the facts we HAVE show.

To claim any more than this would require substantially more reliable and specific historical evidence. The fact you are trying to hand-wave your way out of this by trying to shift everything onto me shows your lack of maturity when it comes to a healthy debate. You made a claim you couldn't back up (or thought you could, but didn't expect us to knock down all your sources) and are now playing the "NO U" game.

Because I'm not one to believe something when there is no evidence to support it and I'm not one to believe in things that are contradicted by the evidence that science has offered.

I'm not someone who when I don't know an answer to a question, plugs God in as the answer just to have an answer.

Religions CAN breed hatred with gay bashing, supporting slavery, and thinking people should kill for their religion.

Religions also push towards keeping people in groups and preventing them from branching out. I've had people completely drop me because I don't believe. I've seen people shun others because of their denomination.

Not all religious people fall into this category, but I've met way too many that do.

That is why I don't just become religious.

They didn't promise afterlifes and they didn't have kick ass stories with dragons and the world ending.

Go with the dragons. Be religious.

We need to bring back witch burnings.

There's a lot of problems in the world right now.

I'm not saying it was witches, but I'm also not saying it wasn't witches.

Let's just be on the safe side.

You are changing the narrative. I didn't say the OT doesn't matter. It certainly does. Christians(including myself) do believe in the events occurring therein. Having said that the NT is the fulfillment of the OT via Jesus Christ. The actions of believers are governed by that.

Because of that we aren't deeply entrenched but yes we do learn from it and propagate its teachings. It is important to note that there are portions of it however that are no longer practiced because of the NT.

“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” — Matthew 5:18-19

“It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid.” (Luke 16:17)

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.” (Matthew 5:17)

“Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law” (John7:19)

Those are all quotes supposedly from jesus.

@hillelslovak: You say that I am making extraordinary claims because of my acceptance of the validity of the evidence presented and the fact that the debate is in a certain state of being in contemporary time after progressing through previous centuries. Further, you claim that you base your stance on scientific reason.

Interestingly, when someone says that they base their views on science, they are making metaphysical assumptions about reality such as the universe or perhaps a multiverse being based on laws. This is what Judeo-Christian belief is. As you presented the notion that you base your views on scientific reason, when you criticize the reason of Christianity, you are inadvertently criticizing epistemology and this carries over into all fields of reason. When dealing with the application of reason into the theology of Christianity, specifically the proof supporting the New Testament, considering its merit, that is a really a criticism of human proof.

@foxhound_fox:Communication in scholarly debate requires for both parties to produce sources when making arguments about scholarly material. That is what the so-called burden of proof is. If it bothers you to find support for your arguments this much, then I would suggest viewing citations as a form of acknowledgement and a path to mutual crediting of scholars who studied this material before you. It is simply a respectable practice in scholarship.

--------

As I have said before, I would urge serious study of the material in this debate. Take a college level course if you feel that you can handle it. Depending on the school, you might even be allowed to enroll for an online course. Something that I would recommend against is Sophistry in that folks claim to know more than they have studied. Good day.

-----

About the grace vs law debate, the Biblical Scriptures say in the New Testament that Jesus Christ perfected the law. This is the grace of the Creator of heaven and earth. The Scriptures say that the law is a curse like death as a result of sin is a curse, and "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: 'Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.'" (NIV Gal 3:13). As Jesus said to the accusers of the woman caught in adultery, he who is without sin should cast the first stone (John 8). As we are all sinners (Rom 3:23), it follows that no one should cast the first stone, so to speak. It might be thought of otherwise, but the assertion about any Christian being required to attack people is a false one. However, this is not Jesus encouraging sin as he said to the adulteress "sin no more" (John 8:11). In the same way, he would probably tell a witch to stop sinning rather than stone him or her.

KJV

Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

My contemporary reflection is that all Christians are called to follow the law of the land as stated by Paul in Romans 13:1-14. Therefore, at least as United States citizens and in every major country, killing witches is unacceptable. There are many verses of Scripture that can be utilized to refute this assertion, and it is my contention that the Biblical Scriptures should not be picked out in one place and ignored in another.