|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 10 OF 28 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Jun-29-11
 | | virginmind: here's my two cents on religion:
people believe out of fear. they are afraid to die and to suffer. as no one has returned from death, no one could prove that there is no life after death (or that there is, either). so, being that we are weak, we prefer to give credit to the 0.00000000001% chance that there is still something after death - as this is still better than nothing (0%). there are all the chances (if we follow our logical reasoning) that there is nothing after death, but as there is no ABSOLUTE proof for that, we stick (out of weakness) to that 0.0000000000001%. for our sake, but also for our children's sake. so we keep praying, since milleniums, in hope that our prayers will have some (be it infinitesimal, but it's better than none!) effect. almost all people have children, and everybody knows that, if not for us, than for our children's sake we accept to renounce our logical reasoning (if there is even 0.000000000000001% chance that this will help them and that, despite all proof/reasoning, there is something out there - god, life after death, whatever). i mean, its just a simple prayer, just a couple of words, it doesnt cost you much at all. but hey, it might save you and your family. of course we are conscious that its just a hope, that its just wishful thinking - but it's better than nothing ('nothing' is not proven as such, as no one returned from death to certify: yes, there's nothing over there) thats why religion propagated to our days and it's still powerfull. |
 |
Jun-29-11
 | | OhioChessFan: <virginmind: here's my two cents on religion: people believe out of fear. they are afraid to die and to suffer. as no one has returned from death, no one could prove that there is no life after death (or that there is, either). so, being that we are weak, we prefer to give credit to the 0.00000000001% chance that there is still something after death > I think this viewpoint is ridiculous. Sticking with Christianity, you are positing that people created God based on fear, yet that very God they created is a vengeful and punishing God. If you don't see the innate contradiction in that....... |
|
Jun-29-11
 | | LucB: Here, this is a good follow-up on <virginmind>'s post. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBCD...
It gets good at 3:20, and then REALLY good at 3:53.. His "I don't have to know an answer" is pure poetry for me. When he says it I get the sense that he's almost MAD at people who HAVE to know an answer, which is, I think, most of us, no? |
|
Jun-29-11
| | virginmind: <OhioChessFan> no contradiction. people created a vengeful god precisely to determine more humans to believe in god and in his justice after death: if you dont believe in him or if you do bad things while living, you will be punished by him and sent to hell. the fact that god was created as good for those who believed in him/worshiped him and who abstained from bad things while living, and as a bad/vengeful one for those who spoke against him/did bad things in life, shows just how those people in the past conceived the idea of justice. and, all along history, this proved efficient, as fear of god worked on people - most indeed abstained from doing bad things within the society and engaged in a normal life, while keep worshiping him. it gave them strength and balance to keep living a normal life (as i already wrote in an earlier post). so, all along, religion and faith in god, proved to be a positive thing (socially-wise). |
|
Jun-29-11
| | virginmind: and about morality and moral rules - they may very well have a common root: the ancient golden rule - 'don't do onto the other what you wouldn't like him to do onto you'. widely available from immemorial times and very common sense. a rule of reciprocity and balance. if you think about it, most moral rules and penal laws can be said to be derived from it, or to respect it's reasoning. it has an extreme generality and application, and its very simple.
being of common sense reasoning, it didnt need to be revealed by god: anybody can easily notice that it works very well and that it eases life within any society |
|
Jun-29-11
| | OhioChessFan: <vm: no contradiction. people created a vengeful god precisely to determine more humans to believe in god and in his justice after death:> Now you've changed the motivating factor from the fear of afterlife to wanting to control society. That didn't take long. It is my experience that people on your side routinely give up their case just that quickly. |
|
Jun-29-11
| | OhioChessFan: <vm: anybody can easily notice that it works very well and that it eases life within any society> Despotism works very well for the despot. Why should he care about ease of life in a society? |
|
Jun-29-11
| | virginmind: i didnt change anything, as i've already referred to the benefical role religion/faith has had within the society, in that post and in earlier posts here. and i havent used the term 'control', i just said people noticed that was beneficial socially-wise. and anyway, i dont see any contradiction - we created god and we believe in him because it aleviates our fear of death and of suffering and ALSO because this proved as a very good think socially: it helped people relate to a common sense, and by getting them rid of fears of unknown/death/suffering, it let them (us) concentrate on mundane matters (working and living within the society). |
|
Jun-29-11
| | virginmind: <OCF> any despot needs to let a certain degree of leisure and normal living to his people, else he is shortlived. |
|
Jun-29-11
| | OhioChessFan: So now you are affirming that <some> people are afraid there is no afterlife so they invent the idea of God. And somehow those same <some> people convince <most> people to believe in that God they just created so as to control those <most> people. We're back to ridiculous here. |
|
Jun-29-11
 | | Kinghunt: Yeah, what a ridiculous idea. What's next, rulers convincing their subjects that they're actually descended from the gods and they need to build huge monuments to themselves? Oh wait, that happened. Many times. Whoops. Children have imaginary friends. Adults have gods. You would be amazed at how fast a comforting thought will spread, whether or not it's based on reality. Religions did not evolve as a top down movement like you're suggesting. Some vague ideas spread on their own accord through a population, ideas converge within the population as people interact and pass it on to their children (who are evolutionarily programmed to instinctively trust anything their parents tell them), and then it becomes institutionalized, gaining support from the ruling party, which uses it for its own needs. And so we have organized religion. I can provide you with links to articles (or references to whole books) discussing the origin of religion, if you'd like. It is quite well understood. |
|
Jun-29-11
| | OhioChessFan: <King: You would be amazed at how fast a comforting thought will spread, whether or not it's based on reality.> A <comforting> thought. But we're talking about a judgmental God who promises punishment. Try again. |
|
Jun-29-11
| | Kinghunt: Christianity is far from original. The <judgmental God who promises punishment> bit came well after religion had already become an established part of society. |
|
Jun-29-11
| | OhioChessFan: <King> and <virgin> seem to be affirming <some> people are afraid there is no afterlife, so they invented the idea of God. And somehow those <some> people convince <most> people to believe in that God they just created so as to control those <most> people. The original God created was a benevolent God who eased all worries of the afterlife. However, <some different> people invented Christianity, with a different God. That different God was benevolent, but also judgmental and promised condemnation to those who didn't believe. Since the original raison d'etre for inventing a God was to ease worries about the afterlife, those <Some different> people who invented the Christian God had absolutely no reason for doing so. Does that accurately cover your position? |
|
Jun-29-11
| | Kinghunt: I suggest you read through here and then come back with any particular objections you have: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolut... |
|
Jun-29-11
| | OhioChessFan: I prefer to work with what I say and what other people say. I'm always happy to defend my positions on my own, especially when I publicly affirm them. |
|
Jun-29-11
| | Kinghunt: Well then, let me put some questions to you. I take it you believe Christianity is the one true religion. Then why do so many people believe in other religions? Are they divinely inspired, despite clearly being wrong and misguided, as their religions aren't Christianity? Or do you accept evolutionary reasons for the origins of most religions but say that Christianity is somehow special? |
|
Jun-29-11
| | OhioChessFan: <King: Well then, let me put some questions to you. I take it you believe Christianity is the one true religion.> Yes.
< Then why do so many people believe in other religions? > There are a lot of reasons. If I had to pick one almost all encompassing answer, I'd say people don't love truth. <Are they divinely inspired, despite clearly being wrong and misguided, as they aren't Christianity?> There's some sincere people without the truth. There's some people who know the truth and out of sheer wickedness reject it. The responses are all over the map. < Or do you accept evolutionary reasons for the origins of most religions but say that Christianity is somehow special?> If you don't split too many semantical hairs there, my answer is yes. |
|
Jun-29-11
| | Kinghunt: Just to make sure I'm understanding you properly, you're saying that other religions formed just as I'm describing, and that your objection is against me saying Christianity formed in the same way? |
|
Jun-29-11
| | Kinghunt: And my follow up question, assuming I'm understanding you properly, is if your view is that Christianity <couldn't> have originated in the same way, or simply that it <didn't>. In other words, does Christianity have any particular features that you say would make it impossible to arise from the system that led to all other religions? |
|
Jun-29-11
| | OhioChessFan: <King: Just to make sure I'm understanding you properly, you're saying that other religions formed just as I'm describing, and that your objection is against me saying Christianity formed in the same way?> I didn't want to split semantical hairs, so I will withdraw my previous answer and say "I don't know." <In other words, does Christianity have any particular features that you say would make it impossible to arise from the system that led to all other religions?> Yes. Truth. |
|
Jun-29-11
| | Kinghunt: I can see we're not going to get anywhere here, so I think we can just let this one be. |
|
Jun-30-11
| | OhioChessFan: The reason we couldn't get anywhere is you couldn't defend your position. |
|
| Jun-30-11 | | frogbert: did big pawn give up on us? |
|
Jun-30-11
| | Kinghunt: <OCF> Reread the last couple posts, then say that again. We're not getting anywhere because you shied away from the only conclusion consistent with your belief that only Christianity is divinely inspired. Until you care to respond to that argument, I consider my position fully supported and yours the one that couldn't be defended. <frogbert>: Possibly. Or maybe he just took an evening off. We'll see. |
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 10 OF 28 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
