Topic: Religion is Nothing
started by: RenegadeSnark
Our society is advanced. Very advanced. Why do people still believe in religion?
One word.
FEAR.
Think about it for a moment. The reason we had religion in the past is that we could not explain things, and so we just made up stories. That's where christianity and all other religions come from... explaining the supernatural and things we don't know about.
The reason people still believe? Because since age 3, they have been told that if they don't belive they'll go to hell, which is a combination of their worse fears for the rest of eternity. Give me a fucking break. If all you had to do was ask "God" for forgiveness, would he need a Hell?
I couldn't believe a drop of religion, because there have been too many opportunities for people to edit the beliefs... and I can't submit something that's been subject to that much corruption.
Chase out.
This message has been edited by RenegadeSnark on September 23, 2000 at 12:10 AM
quote:
Originally posted by RenegadeSnark:
Why do people still believe in religion?One word.
FEAR.
Then how do you explain LaVey's Church of Satan? 
Organized religion is obsolete - its time to "evolve" the idea, so believe in whatever you want to believe. I think the vast majority of us are atheists at heart (i know i am), and there's _nothing_ wrong with that. I hope that everyone with half a brain has come to realize this. But, ya know, in a way I almost admire true christians today. Not the southern baptist morons that hide behind their so-called faith, but the real christians, who actually use their faith to make the world a better place (which is the ONLY POINT OF RELIGION!). But they are practically a dead breed, which is maybe just as well...
The christian god is the biggest contradition in history: an all loving god that punishes the non-believers to an eternity of suffering?? Man, I can't grasp God's logic on that one.
------------------
"It's not peer pressure, its just your turn." - Unknown
word, Shark. preach it brotha!
------------------
UT 0wnz j00 all!
Come on; just give us sixty years of your life…and all your money…
------------------
Presented in double vision when drunk.
On the other hand you have a religion like Scientology, which really drains the dough. Shoot it seems like only celebrities are the only people who can afford the classes. You got John Travolta, JAson Lee, Isaac Hayes, Jenna Elfman pumping big bucks into that sutff. Ive done quite a bit of research on this religion/business and its pretty crazy. You start out at low levels then once you reach a certain level the god Xenu/Zenu is introduced. Ever see the commercial for Dianetics and the volcano exploding? Supposedly Scientology states that Xenu the Intergalactic Alien exploded peoples bodies out of volcanos with hydrogen bombs. Pretty crazy stuff...
------------------
"It's not peer pressure, its just your turn." - Unknown
quote:
Originally posted by darksol:
really, can anyone really explain what scientology is about?
Well, I'm glad you asked. It's very simple, really. Scientology is about MONEY .
I should preface with the fact that I don't personally know any Scientologists. The following is what I have gathered from Scientologist works and criticism. I hear that the Church of Scientology is a very humanitarian organization. I wouldn't know. But here's what I do know:
L. Ron Hubbard, the creator of Scientology, is a science fiction author. (Operative word: fiction) He created the religion to promote his book sales. Just as hundreds of cultist Star Trek fans spend the time to learn the Klingon language, people spend the time to learn Hubbard's religion. After WWII, Hubbard's work caught on, mostly amongst sci-fi fans. However, is soon bred a cultish following to the point where it is today - sporting membership by many celebrities (Cruise, Travolta, etc.) Scientology has gotten rather big, no doubt giving Hubbard quite a deity complex.
Anyhow, you may recognize Hubbard as the author of such flops as Battlefield Earth. Yet, he has had many bestsellers. Most notable of these is Dianetics (Greek for "thought"). This is the book with the Volcano on the cover. Dianetics is basically a self-help, personal power book that was written in 3 weeks. Hubbard wrote it so fast he used a continuous roll of paper on his typewriter to avoid stopping and had special keys inserted for common words like "but," "or," and "how." Dianetics is basically all about learning how to make decisions in your daily life that won't affect your desire to be who you truly want to be. So far, so good.
Then it starts to get weird. After you delve deeper into Hubbard's work, you find out why there is a volcano on the cover of Dianetics. According to Scientologists, the galaxy was a very overpopulated place, circa 75 million years ago. It was then that a rather evil alien named Xenu decided to tailor out the undesirable folks to quell the problem. To make a long story short, Xenu placed the scum in a volcano, then detonated a mass of atom bombs, disintegrating everyone.
Learning this on your own is not cheap. The entire works of L. Ron Hubbard cost upwards of a quarter of a million bucks. Perhaps it's more now.
Anyhow, Martin Gardner sums up Scientologist thought pretty well: "The conscious mind is called by Hubbard the "analytical mind." It operates like a gigantic computing machine....however, [it may] direct the body in an aberrated manner if it is fed false data by the unconscious mind....The unconscious mind is termed the "reactive mind." Actually, it is always conscious -- even when a person is sleeping, or "unconscious" from some other cause. The reactive mind is incapable of "thinking" or "remembering." But when the analytical mind becomes unconscious or semiconscious, in a manner associated with bodily pain or painful emotion, the reactive mind starts to make "recordings." These recordings are called "engrams." All neuroses, psychoses, and psychosomatic ailments (including the common cold and possibly diabetes and cancer) are caused by engrams. In most cases, the trouble-making engrams are recorded before one is born."
Hubbard tells you how to avoid this.
I once saw a program (either 60minutes or 20/20) regarding the fact that Scientologists believe disease and illness are all psychosomatic, and can be battled with the mind. Needless to say, one of their followers died while quarantined in an apartment rather than the hospital. The government was doing an investigation.
Much more info is @ < http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/index.html >
------------------
<P:\>erson\Guy.exe -PersonGuy *pERSONgUY.cfg
< http://www.personguy.com >
I'll have to see if i can dig up the documentation tonight at work.
< http://video.rotten.com/elron/ >
< xenu.net >
this even contains an essay which goes through the official L Ron Hubbard biography and debunks every thing he has done. cool stuff.
regards, reman
------------------
People ask me to fix their computer. I do in 5 seconds.
They say "You think your good don't you".
I say "I know I'm good". People always ask stupid questions.
------------------
<P:\>erson\Guy.exe -PersonGuy *pERSONgUY.cfg
< http://www.personguy.com >
as far as we know, man is the only animal that is aware of his own mortality (the fact that you WILL die). now, back in the days of cavemen, when man first became aware that his death was imminent(sp?), it must have been terrifying. so much so, that it beacame a paralyzing fear (if i do anything, it might kill me). in response, religion was created by the brain to counter the fear of death.
it would be interesting to see if there were a part of the brain devoted to religion, or if aliens have religion....
------------------
<P:\>erson\Guy.exe -PersonGuy *pERSONgUY.cfg
< http://www.personguy.com >
If you read the book of Galatians, or pretty much anywhere else in the New Testament for that matter, you will see that Christianity, at least, is not centered around following rules and trying to somehow collect "brownie points" with God for always doing the right thing. After all, the entire point of Christianity is that you can be forgiven for anything that you have done in the past, so saying that Christianity tells people that if you ever mess up you're going to Hell is contrary to the entire point of Christian doctrine. Furthermore, doing something "good" for the purpose of going to heaven or whatever is not a good deed at all, because you're doing it in the expectation that you'll get something out of it.
To sum up: Religion is not centered around death, but around life. Religion is not centered around fear, but around a calm and peaceful outlook on life. And although there are exceptions, religion as a whole is not centered around money either, but rather around freedom from money. I would rather give away ten percent of my income than become a person who is so attached to his wealth that he is unable to give anything away.
i'm not a religious person, i don't give 10\% of my money to a church, i make barely enough to take care of myself and pay tuition, but i'd hardly say that i'm greedy and unwilling to give anyone anything.
i also don't believe that people do nice things for people totally unselfishly. you always get something out of it when you do a kind thing for someone else, even if it's only the satisfaction of doing it. people do things for other people because it makes them feel good to do so. they GET a good feeling from it, or they wouldn't be doing it. so, every act of kindness is rooted in some form of selfishness.
bottom line, religion is what the believer makes of it. nothing more, nothing less.
------------------
kuru
'if your children ever found out how lame you are, they'd kill you in your sleep.' -frank zappa
quote:
Originally posted by kuru:
i've probably said all of this before in the 'are christians crazy' thread, but if the point of religion is to be used to giving, why do they ask for a specific amount of money? why is the roman catholic church the single richest organziation in the world?
Yes, we did cover most of this in the other forum, where you should have read that my opinion of Catholicism is not much higher than yours. Most churches do not see that 10\% figure as being set in stone; I doubt you will find a church where you are not free to go above that, and in reality most people do not manage to give that much.
As for myself, I have only worked summer jobs but I often found myself counting up how much I had earned, estimating how much I would have by the end of the summer, etc. and I am thus trying very hard not to become too attached to material wealth. There's nothing wrong with having lots of money, mind you, but personally there are many things that I feel are more valuble than wealth. Our entire society is based on commercialism and money, so of course even churches can't exist in it without bringing in some sort of income.
You said that when people do things to help others, they are in fact acting selfishly because helping others makes you feel good. If this were the case, then all actions would be selfish. But why is it that helping others makes you feel good? If it were simply a question of helping them because you feel uncomfortable watching them suffer, in many situations people would simply walk away so that they wouldn't have to think about the person needing help.
When you help someone, it is because of empathy: you can empathize with that person's feelings and this makes you feel bad, and the only way for you to feel better is by making them feel better, resulting in an "empathic joy" when you see that you have suceeded in helping someone else. But it isn't a very strong argument to call someone selfish when they help someone else just because they felt good about doing so.
As for religion being what you make of it, I agree. However, in my life the great majority of people who I have met that I could really trust and get along with were religious, so it has been my experience that you will find a higher percentage of "good people" in religious groups than in the population as a whole. This isn't to say that I don't trust or respect anyone who isn't religious; there are plenty of people who are atheists and yet would fall into my "good people" category. (For what it's worth, kuru, from what I've read on this BB I think you're one of them.)
also, i'm not an atheist. atheism is a religious belief, because it's belief that there's no god. the closest thing to a religion i can claim to follow is therevada buddhism, which is a non-theist form of thought because there's never even any consideration of whether or not there's a god.
and honestly, the only reasons i do nice things for people are that they're my friends, and i care about them and in some way have a vested interest in their lives, or i want to feel good about myself for having helped someone i don't know, or i hope that someone else will return the favor when i need it.
in every case, in some small part, i have my own interests in mind. if this makes anybody think of me as a bad person, oh well. i can handle that. but i think that more often than not, most people feel this way.
------------------
kuru
'if your children ever found out how lame you are, they'd kill you in your sleep.' -frank zappa
quote:
Originally posted by Michael:
Most churches do not see that 10\% figure as being set in stone; I doubt you will find a church where you are not free to go above that, and in reality most people do not manage to give that much.
Except for the Mormons, of course. My understanding is that they're pretty strict about the tithing thing...
quote:
Originally posted by kuru:
and honestly, the only reasons i do nice things for people are that they're my friends, and i care about them and in some way have a vested interest in their lives, or i want to feel good about myself for having helped someone i don't know, or i hope that someone else will return the favor when i need it.
I would agree that on one level it makes perfect sense to say that all human behavior is selfish. I'm not sure if there's even a word for the human trait that I'm trying to ddescribe. What I'm saying is that we're... connected, responsible for each other, part of a community. That there are very few people who live in isolation. So a "good" person isn't one who acts without any selfish interest, but just anyone who can be trusted to help others, no matter what the motivation is. So yes, we're selfish, but we aren't necessarily self-centered, self-absorbed, self-sustaining.
For that matter, it would be equally easy to say that all human behavior is altruistic, but because that sort of altruism is not seen as "natural" we try to rationalize our altruism by convincing ourselves and others that we did it in order to gain something.
Sure, groops of bees work together in colonies, but religion would be a way to put aside individual toughts and freedoms to conform humans + humans into ??? (god?).
The problem is that religion doesn't work (as of now). There's curuption, people are too intollerant of each others differences, and everybody thinks that THEY are right and everyone else is wrong.
But I'm glad, because I'm much too selfish (sure I admit it!) to look out for anyone that I don't personally care about. Mabey one day we'll lose our art and become a machine... or mabey the machines we invent will prevent that from ever happening.
------------------
<P:\>erson\Guy.exe -PersonGuy *pERSONgUY.cfg
< http://www.personguy.com >
Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated. Praise 'da lord!
They say two heads are better than one, but I'm glad I only have one head atop my neck, so I'm not the subject of 10,000 laboratory experiments of crack scientists trying to determine what kind of genetic mutation I am, and whether or not I'm the next step in evolution.
As for the whole religion thing, most organized religion is bullshit. Personal beliefs are what count, and I'd be willing to bet that they are almost as varied as the people walking the face of the earth today, perhaps more so.
As for where religion came from, I suspect that the first religions were formed as people tried to understand a universe that was immensely greater and more organized than anything they were capable of making. I'd say that awe at nature's beauty and vastness would be the root of religion rather than fear of death. Of course fear of death is incorporated into religion, but I suspect that came into play after the first religions were established.
Forget about science and technology for a moment and consider the universe from the perspective of the first humans. Then you'll see how mystical beliefs and religions could come into the thoughts of man.
quote:
Originally posted by PersonGuy:
ACTUALLY (sway of topic), the reason religion (I use the term loosly) was created (consiously or not) is to be the next BIG evolution of creatures. Atoms + atoms = molecules + molecules = cells + cells = organs + organs = creatures
Sure, groops of bees work together in colonies, but religion would be a way to put aside individual toughts and freedoms to conform humans + humans into ??? (god?).
Ummm...what the hell? Are you serious?
In case you are, let me be the first to tell you that you've gone bonkers. First, molecules + molecules make far more things than cells. Secondly, cells + cells make far more things than organs. The evolutionary line you wrote out hardly works in that fashion. Third, organs aren't a building block to life! You start off using progressive, fundamental stages of life as examples, and then throw in something that doesn't even fit in that classification. It's not like there were miscellaneous organs wandering about that eventually evolved into humans.
Overall, you are talking about natural progression, in which I think you meant: single cell organisms to multi-celled orgranisms...all the way to primates to neanderthals to cro-magnons, etc...But at the beginning, you mention, "the reason why religion was created." Did you forget that religion is a human created belief while the other things you mentioned are natural forms of development? Nature created Earth. Nature created life. Nature created humans. Humans created Christianity.
I'm not even going to touch the last part of the quote because...well, see for yourself. Are you sure you graduated high school as a junior, PG?
This message has been edited by whiskey@throttle on October 03, 2000 at 03:59 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Hellraiser:
As for where religion came from, I suspect that the first religions were formed as people tried to understand a universe that was immensely greater and more organized than anything they were capable of making. I'd say that awe at nature's beauty and vastness would be the root of religion rather than fear of death.
Folk tales explain the "vastness and beauty" of the universe. Science explains where everything comes from. Myths go further and make guesses at the underlying structure and purpose of that universe. But the function of religion is not to explain the outside world to people, but to explain people to people: to tell you who you are, what your purpose in the world is, and how you should follow that purpose.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael:
But the function of religion is not to explain the outside world to people, but to explain people to people: to tell you who you are, what your purpose in the world is, and how you should follow that purpose.
And that is why I don't particuarly believe in one religion over another. If religion tells me who I am, my purpose in life, etc etc. Who's to say one religion is right or wrong over another? (although most religious people do it all the time)
They can't both possibly be right, that would make even less sense than one of them being right.
My Ũ.02, religion is simply a way for humans to explain something that they have yet to find an explaination to.
Think about it, previous civilizations believed that a chariot pulled the sun into the sky everyday. Now if I told you that today you'd probably laugh your ass off. There, now you know how I feel when someone tries to convince me their religion is THE religion.
------------------
< www.slapmahfro.net >
ya know ya wanna slap it ...
quote:
Originally posted by smartsnake:
I think that the whole creation theroy is a load of bullshit. Evolution makes tons more sense
please explain in what way evolution makes more sense?
if there weren't a god, how would we be here? to me the whole idea that we evolved is just laughable. (as a god may seem to you.)
obligatory disclaimer: this is not a troll. i am genuinely interested in what you (or anyone else for that matter) think about the subject.
quote:
Originally posted by troll:
...if there weren't a god, how would we be here? to me the whole idea that we evolved is just laughable. (as a god may seem to you.)
Evolution makes no claims about the existence of God, or about how the first lifeforms came into existence. It simply states that all life on earth today can be traced to a common origin (that first lifeform). Contrary to what Creationists would have you believe, there is no need to choose between belief in god(s) and evolution. What you cannot do, however, is take a literal interpretation of the Bible and believe in evolution at the same time.
And as far as creation theory being a bunch of b.s., I agree with smartsnake on that one. Creationism is completely unscientific, and those who have lobbied to get it included in the science curriculum are backward morons.
This topic has already been covered extensively. If you're really that interested, read the < Evolution! > thread for yourself so that you'll avoid rehashing the same arguments.
quote:
Originally posted by The_Hiro:
Evolution makes no claims about the existence of God, or about how the first lifeforms came into existence. It simply states that all life on earth today can be traced to a common origin (that first lifeform).
But, that would mean that life had to evolve from something (that first lifeform) right? It looks to me as though that statement is recursive, leaving me with my original question.
------------------
He drew a deep breath. 'Well, I'm back,' he said.
And the thing you missed in my logic is that that everything started out as being a ultimate form. But ended up being a small part of something bigger. Sure atoms and molecules and whatever can all do their own thing... but when working together make something more complecated they themselves uderstand (duh). Eventually humans won't rein supreme, but be a small part of something bigger... or hang out solo and do their thing.
I never claim any proof, and I don't belive in my OWN theory. I just like it better than the many others that I've heard. And hey... mabey you're ALREADY apart of something bigger and just don't know it. Try telling a cell that it's part of you.
------------------
<P:\>erson\Guy.exe -PersonGuy *pERSONgUY.cfg
< http://www.personguy.com >
quote:
Originally posted by Hellraiser:
Heh, I would have thought that you'd have a lot more posts than that by now, The_Hiro, considering how we debated the evolution topic :P
I guess you're the only one who can bring out the worst in me. 
But yeah. I don't really post that much. Only if a topic seizes my interest. I guess that means I've got limited interests.
quote:
Originally posted by troll:
But, that would mean that life had to evolve from something (that first lifeform) right? It looks to me as though that statement is recursive, leaving me with my original question.
Your original question was, "please explain in what way evolution makes more sense". And as far as I was able to tell, you asked this question in response to smartsnake's statement, "I think that the whole creation the[or]y is a load of bullshit. Evolution makes tons more sense."
As far as making comparisons between creationism and evolution on a scientific basis, creationism is a piece of shit: it's unfalsifiable, it makes no useful predictions, the data we have collected does not support it. Creationism is pseudoscience.
However, as I previously stated, evolution makes no claims about how the first lifeform came into being. If you so desire, you can choose to believe in God as the creator of that first life form, without contradicting the central claims of evolution: that all life on earth has a common origin, and that the diversity of life on earth is the result of gradual changes brought about by mutations and the process of natural selection.
However, I suspect that what you want is a materialistic explanation about how the first lifeform came into existence. A naturalistic explanation is not impossible, and is being attempted by some scientists (To be fair, however, I must admit that scant progress has been made on this problem thus far). If you've got the time, do some reading up on abiotic chemistry, as well as evolution (e.g. try Daniel Dennett's Darwin's Dangerous Idea and Alexander Cairns-Smith's Seven Clues to the Origins of Life). But for now, here are some relevant links to start you off:
- A nice concise description on principia cybernetica about< the origins of life >
- < The postulated origins of RNA >
- Another basic overview on< the origins of life >
- An alternative theory that postulates < crystal replicators > as being the first replicators
And once again, I ask that you to read over the < Evolution! > thread before you jump into an argument about this topic. There's a lot of good stuff in there (from several different viewpoints). It would be a shame to see it go to waste.
This message has been edited by The_Hiro on October 04, 2000 at 02:33 AM
Good points all of you, but my explanation for the various religions is what I'm sticking with.
As for whether or not there is a God, that's up to people individually to decide based on their own experiences, I can't tell you there is a God, I can tell you I believe there is a God, but that's as far as I'll go.
God and evolution are not mutually exclusive; evolution (as all scientific theories and "knowledge") relies on the natural only, and makes no suppositions on the existence (or lack thereof) of the supernatural. In fact, by definition, if something is supernatural, it cannot be described or explained by natural laws, thus making the question of whether or not there is a God unanswerable by scientific or natural investigation and theory.
------------------
Just your generic meaningless signature. Mix with 2 quarts water and stir till evenly coated.
and i think religion is a lot of bullshit. i just dont want to end up being wrong and on the wrong side of the fence.
If you have a Bible handy, open it to Genesis 1. This chapter contains the well-known creation story. Now turn to Genesis 2. This chapter contains a different and completely contradictory creation story.
Although anyone who reads the Bible would have to notice this eventually, a lot of people are unaware that there are in fact two different creation stories, purposefully presented back-to-back so that there can be no way to believe that they are both correct.
The scribes who put together the Biblical stories did not do this by accident; the only logical conclusion is that these two conflicting creaton stories are both included because they are not meant to be taken literally. Anyone who claims that the creation story is literal truth has not even bothered to read the Bible.
The creation stories are meant to convey a more important sort of truth: the belief that human beings, and indeed all of creation, are good and created with a purpose. Religion was never meant to compete with science, and there is no reason to assume that science and religion are not compatible.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael:
I think I've posted something to this effect in other forums, but this creation vs. evolution issue keeps coming up, so I'd like to point out something:If you have a Bible handy, open it to Genesis 1. This chapter contains the well-known creation story. Now turn to Genesis 2. This chapter contains a different and completely contradictory creation story.
Although anyone who reads the Bible would have to notice this eventually, a lot of people are unaware that there are in fact two different creation stories, purposefully presented back-to-back so that there can be no way to believe that they are both correct.
The scribes who put together the Biblical stories did not do this by accident; the only logical conclusion is that these two conflicting creaton stories are both included because they are not meant to be taken literally. Anyone who claims that the creation story is literal truth has not even bothered to read the Bible.
The creation stories are meant to convey a more important sort of truth: the belief that human beings, and indeed all of creation, are good and created with a purpose. Religion was never meant to compete with science, and there is no reason to assume that science and religion are not compatible.
I don't see any parts that contradict each other...
quote:
Originally posted by hair:
I don't see any parts that contradict each other...
In the first version, the world is created from an endless void of water, mankind is created after everything else, and Adam and Eve are created at the same time. In the second version, the world starts as a desert, Adam is created before any other living thing, and Eve is created last.
Also, the first version refers to God as simply "God" whereas the second version uses the name "the Lord God." This might not seem significant until you realize that these are from two different Hebrew words. Biblical scholars tend to agree that there are several different sources of passages in Genesis, including the "God" version known as the "Priestly" text, from around 550 BC, and the "Lord" or "Yahwist" text from around 950 BC.