Forum menu
Don’t you find it fascinating that humans seem to need to make up such things?
It's human nature to be inquisitive and I guess to feel... important? Or rather, just not utterly insignificant maybe. Why are we here, where did we come from, these aren't just big questions but blindingly obvious questions and it's wholly unsurprising that we've been asking them since the dawn of thought.
If we're going to cling on to millennia-old superstitions as The Answers then it's perhaps less surprising that we have things like 'fake news'. Fake news is affirming, it tells people "hey, you know what, you were right all along!" and "yeah, your life is a bit shit right now, but it's all someone else's fault." Conspiracy theories are compelling because those who believe are convinced that they know something no-one else does (and also it makes them part of a tribe of fellow believers). Yeah, totally not seeing any parallels here with religion.
Don’t you find it fascinating that humans seem to need to make up such things?
How does science and rational belief affect our acceptance of this need?
I don't quite see it the same way.
Making things up based on observations and the best knowledge you have at the time, to explain the world around us, or why we are here, is not religion. Making things up is he start of science..
It becomes religion when the made up thng becomes unquestionable or protected by faith and power. (edit - this is the same as cougars line -
If we’re going to cling on to millennia-old superstitions as The Answers
)
Religion is the suppression and the end of science.
I would argue that the start of any of the relgious concepts out there were the first steps on the scientific journey.
This to me is how many people confuse religion and scientifc progress, they are intertwined with people seeking answers about life.
(I see this as a cross post with cougar above - its kind of the same point)
p7eaven
Free MemberAn interesting historical overview here:
Thank you, this (and the whole thread) is the kind of stuff I come here for.
Just out of interest, I'm fascinated by how different societies throughout history appear to share intrinsic common myths, beliefs and stories.
Another one for the sociologists/theologists.
Just reading last night about Otzi's tattoos and the widespread belief in the benefits of accupuncture.
Of course not, I said earlier I don’t object to people doing religion, theology, seances etc. As long as nobody claims its true.
So if the bible had a disclaimer at the start saying it was fictional, that'd be case closed for you?
For what it's worth I kind of agree with you. I've thought for a while that a lot of religion could use a reboot, take all the good bits like being nice to each other and excise all the patently nonsense bits like stars hanging on the firmament or whatever. But then we hit the thorny problem of "it's the word of god except the bits which aren't" and as soon as you start crossing parts of it out the whole thing unravels.
I made this point on a previous discussion and was told something like "well, of course it's not expected to be taken literally, no-one thinks that, it's allegorical." But that's surely revisionism, it may be (mostly) true today but people didn't get persecuted or worse historically for disagreeing with allegory.
You don’t see marvel claiming spiderman is real and we should do as he says.
Mattel tried it with He-Man. "Remember kids..." (-:
Role models are role models I guess.
However if I see people using religion to manipulate people then its a different matter…
One of my bones of contention also. I reject the notion that it should receive special privilege and I find it weird that it still has an influence in our political system.
So if the bible had a disclaimer at the start saying it was fictional, that’d be case closed for you?
To be fair, yes. I think it needs to be more than this, but as a metaphor yes.
The rest of your post is us agreeing so no more need be said.
Eg good bits - 10 Commandments
One which is forgiveness, turn the other cheek.
If I could teach my kids anything it is this, took me a long time to learn that I was wasting my life hating or plotting revenge on those who have "wronged me". Forgivness is a ridiculously selfish act, its about you letting go of any pressure to "seek justice" or "put things right".
The act of letting go is a blessed relief.
A sociologist, therapist, philosipher or divorce lawyer may be able to discuss the history and affects of love on humanity, but they have no greater claim to explain the physical process behind it than the layman.
Hence my argument with Molgrips’ position on theology.
Not sure I follow. I don't think that theology is an attempt to explain the creation of the world, is it?
Your edit:
I made this point on a previous discussion and was told something like “well, of course it’s not expected to be taken literally, no-one thinks that, it’s allegorical.” But that’s surely revisionism, it may be (mostly) true today but people didn’t get persecuted or worse historically for disagreeing with allegory.
This is present strongly in this thread, the implication that you can't understand what god means without theological study - which makes the theoligans the gate keepers, the high priests...
That’s pretty much my main problem with it too. Not just our political system but education too. We purposefully found a school with no religious affiliation for our kids. Still learn about Jesus, Christianity etc and it is taught as fact. I had a good conversation with my sons teacher about it. My main gripe is that they should teach evolution first and then cover all the main religions as a ‘Some people believe x’ exercise. Don’t be filling a six year olds head with fantasy and passing it off as fact.
That leads me to the fact that I believe the bible does Jesus a massive disservice if he was a real man. His general philosophy seems pretty sound and I think he was a bit of a rebel. Flipping tables over, sticking up for prostitutes, feeding the poor etc. Add in the miracles, resurrection, son of God bit etc and it takes away from the story of the man in my opinion. On a cheeky side note I always find it amusing that a carpenter was killed using wood and nails.
I made this point on a previous discussion and was told something like “well, of course it’s not expected to be taken literally, no-one thinks that, it’s allegorical.” But that’s surely revisionism, it may be (mostly) true today but people didn’t get persecuted or worse historically for disagreeing with allegory.
No.. see, that's not why people were persecuted. I posted earlier on this thread about St Augustine describing Genesis as allegorical in the 5th century, and some Roman dude in 130AD. You've all seen clips of someone from a tribe in the Americas saying that 'our people believe that the god XYZ fought the god ABC, ripped off his head and tossed it in the sea and that's how our island appeared. Do you think they actually believe that really actually happened? Or is there something deeper going on here? Maybe the stories themselves have value to those people regardless of how the world was actually created?
5plusn8
Free Member
Don’t you find it fascinating that humans seem to need to make up such things?How does science and rational belief affect our acceptance of this need?
I don’t quite see it the same way.
Making things up based on observations and the best knowledge you have at the time, to explain the world around us, or why we are here, is not religion. Making things up is he start of science..
Hmm.
We have astrology columns in most newspapers. They are devoured by people who have had the privilege of a scientific education.
People seem to need to believe in the irrational.
It becomes religion when the made up thng becomes unquestionable or protected by faith and power.
Many, many irrational beliefs become unquestionable when protected by faith and power.
The denial of the Armenian holocaust as one example.
The very malleability of faith is what makes it so fascinating.
Don’t you find it fascinating that humans seem to need to make up such things?
Well especially in light of this current debate.
What I find fascinating though is in this construct, of a religion , for want of a better word.. invented.. millennia ago is their use of language and demographics mostly pertaining to the darker side of religion, the part mean to keep the faithful, faithful.
Here we are obviously talking about the concept of hell, or of a vengeful god, wreaking destruction on the enemies of said religion.
God in these stories is depicted as using his weapon of choice which was a Flaming Sword.
Not a Laser, not some sort of trans-matter device, or even a waving of his magical fingers rendering these enemies unto instant death. No, its a Flaming Sword.
So why or how did were get this weapon as the instrument of gods vengeance. Simply put it was the weapon of mass destruction X number of thousands of years ago. Everyone knew in those times the dangers of swords, the main weapon used to dispatch enemies in war and also criminals. so it would be easy for the faithful to picture the concept. But to give it omnipotent power, the sword becomes flaming, fire being another hardwired fear of the average human.
This now, in modern times doesn't compute. because if an omnipotent being was to 'wreak vengeance' and nothing is off the table so to speak, a sword would be the last thing is such a beings arsenal.
The god who supposedly created the universe could simply 'unmake' anyone who displeased hit/it.
This is one of the points, for me at least, the concept of a supreme being cannot possible exist. He/it(theres 99/100 never a she) it could only exist in a time when the mass majority of the population were superstitious, and had little understanding of the world about them.
Do you think they actually believe that really actually happened?
Do you think they don't?
You're essentially describing a believe system which people don't believe in. If the head-ripping god (or Genesis) isn't true then what is its purpose?
This is why Galileo was put on trial - he was challenging the geocentric model described (and alluded to multiple times) in the bible. Doesn't sound to me like they interpreted it as much of an allegory back then.
molgrips
Full Member
A sociologist, therapist, philosipher or divorce lawyer may be able to discuss the history and affects of love on humanity, but they have no greater claim to explain the physical process behind it than the layman.Hence my argument with Molgrips’ position on theology.
Not sure I follow. I don’t think that theology is an attempt to explain the creation of the world, is it?
Would you mind very much if I addressed your point tomorrow? Rather enjoying his btw, but time for bed.
it could only exist in a time when the mass majority of the population were superstitious, and had little understanding of the world about them.
We've clearly come a long way. (-:
Having read many of your posts on this subject, including the posts in this thread, you seem to believe that a theologian has a greater claim as to the opinion of the existence of a supreme being than any other non-scientific layman.
This also seemed pretty clear to me.
We’ve clearly come a long way. (-:
😂😂😂😂
I swear this is a coincidence. I just refreshed Twitter and:
https://twitter.com/susie_dent/status/1523929945365483520
Just a quick one.
I have been so lucky to have actually met Cougar & Molgrips, both genuinely lovely people.
The bold highlight is a fancy pseudo academic way of saying that God is is made up.
He is made up and used as a tool by the church to generate untold wealth and power by literally putting the fear of god into then to comply. It’s an amazing thing the church has pulled off over the centuries and get away with it. That doesn’t change the fact that so far no one has ever managed to provide any evidence that any religions god has ever existed.
I often wonder how Jenny’s is portrayed and if that changes round the world. In the West he is depicted and a white guy with brown hair. Given where he lived sorry it’s more likely that he works have been alot more Arabic in appearance
It does. "Chinese Jesus" is a thing, as a random example. There's probably others.
You’re essentially describing a believe system which people don’t believe in. If the head-ripping god (or Genesis) isn’t true then what is its purpose?
Well that's a very good question. It clearly has one, I think that you just don't know what it is. I don't either, but I suspect there is quite a deep one that includes some deep aspects of humanity.
I mean, why do we have to be obsessed with the scientific search for how the universe was created? Why can't other stories have value and meaning? It could be considered rather prosaic to only consider that which can be proved. Why can't we inhabit multiple realities at the same time? I think we are now talking about epistemology, something that I, even as a fairly intellectual person (or so I thought) had not even heard of before @SaxonRider mentioned it.
I mean, yeah, there is a physical world, but that is not the same as the world that exists in your head. Even I know this from a Physics point of view.
I have been so lucky to have actually met Cougar & Molgrips, both genuinely lovely people.
Aw shucks.
Here we are obviously talking about the concept of hell, or of a vengeful god, wreaking destruction on the enemies of said religion.
God in these stories is depicted as using his weapon of choice which was a Flaming Sword.
Those stories are far from universal.
This is why Galileo was put on trial – he was challenging the geocentric model described (and alluded to multiple times) in the bible. Doesn’t sound to me like they interpreted it as much of an allegory back then.
I doubt the authorities really cared about what went round what. They cared about power, and they didn't want anyone going round saying they were wrong because it made them look bad. Politics not cosmology.
I have been so lucky to have actually met Cougar & Molgrips, both genuinely lovely people.
Thanks Rusty, who is also lovely 🙂
Was there a deleted post?
Having read many of your posts on this subject, including the posts in this thread, you seem to believe that a theologian has a greater claim as to the opinion of the existence of a supreme being than any other non-scientific layman.
SaxonRider does know a hell of a lot more about religion than most people do, that's for sure. And I don't mean just extant Christianity.
What do people think theologians actually do all day?
I have been so lucky to have actually met Cougar & Molgrips, both genuinely lovely people.
What do people think theologians actually do all day?
Eat sweeties?
SaxonRider does know a hell of a lot more about religion than most people do, that’s for sure. And I don’t mean just extant Christianity.
But ( no offense intended) thats like knowing a lot about Harry Potter. All very interesting and everyone needs a hobby but what relevance to reality is this knowledge? The whole construct is based on a false premise therefore is meaningless
but what relevance to reality is this knowledge? The whole construct is based on a false premise therefore is meaningless
Are you really going to argue that knowledge about religion - Given it's impact on humanity is meaningless? Really?
There may be some validity in using it to understand why people are so weird but the idea that religion has any value, truth or anything to teach us in the 21st century is absurd. Its a load of primitive superstition.
So yes - religion has no meaning at all.
100% with TJ on this, as he said its like knowing lots about Harry Potter, I mean those books have also made a huge impact on the world.
Lets learn about how people can use imaginary characters and force to manipulate people and gain power, but knowing the details of "The Arian Controversy" for example is worthless to human progress. (Is Jesus part of god, or a creation of god, well all are made up so who gives a shit.)
All of theology is like this, long tortured philosophical arguments full of history and big words, all designed to give a veneer of academic importance, when in reality its just fancy ways of talking about made up sky fairies. It is in fact pseudo intellectualism.
I urge everyone to watch this:
Perhaps time to end this thread now. I see that the usual suspects are beginning to pile in with ignorant attacks on anyone with the 'incorrect' view.
Actually buddhism perhaps does have something to teach us in the west. About the only example I can thing of I don't know enough about it to be sure tho
Perhaps time to end this thread now. I see that the usual suspects are beginning to pile in with ignorant attacks on anyone with the ‘incorrect’ view.
Debate, education and curiosity are only acceptable if they fall within the blinkered boundaries.....
I doubt the authorities really cared about what went round what. They cared about power, and they didn’t want anyone going round saying they were wrong because it made them look bad. Politics not cosmology.
Maybe. Point is though, even if that were the case, it wouldn't have washed if people didn't believe it.
As far as I can tell people believed that the bible was literally the divine truth up until the Scientific Revolution - so, what, 1600s-ish - so this hand-wave that it was always supposed to be treated as Aesop's Fables for Grown-Ups is bunk.
Maany bloody wars have been fought in the name of religion, if you're asserting that those at the top knew all along that it was nonsense but simply didn't care then that makes it all manner of kinds of horrifically worse. Remind me again what the difference is between a religion and a cult?
I hope SaxonRider's keeping a list. (-:
if you’re asserting that those at the top knew all along that it was nonsense but simply didn’t care then that makes it all manner of kinds of horrifically worse
We can never know, but I'd be content to believe that some of them did know it was nonsense.
All very interesting and everyone needs a hobby but what relevance to reality is this knowledge? The whole construct is based on a false premise therefore is meaningless
The very fact that you're here, debating it, answers your own question. If you were correct then you'd have closed the thread halfway through the OP.
The very fact that you’re here, debating it, answers your own question.
I don' think this is fair, we are disucssing religion, he is talking about theology. Are you saying they are the same thing?
It will always be debated because religion is all about faith. By definition you have to have blind faith to buy into it because there is no evidence of any truth in it. When you are in that position then it is highly unlikely that a short debate on this forum is going to change that faith.
The reason religion is so successful is because it has managed to pull off that amazing ability to get people to suspend all rational thought and understanding to sign up to its story. Im not sure how they have managed it. It’s a spectacular trick to pull off especially given how much money and power it has taken from the faithful
Im not sure how they have managed it. It’s a spectacular trick to pull off especially given how much money and power it has taken from the faithful
It tapped into that need that people have for belonging, communal activity and shared beliefs and very well.
Perhaps time to end this thread now. I see that the usual suspects are beginning to pile in with ignorant attacks on anyone with the ‘incorrect’ view.
Don't get me wrong. I understand what religion means to some people and thats fine. One of my treasured possessions is a plant given to me as a cutting by a nun. She had of course taken a vow of poverty so for her to given me that has real meaning for her - and I treasure it for that. it doesn't mean I have to give any credence to any of it. I consider taken as a whole the christian church and faith and religion as a whole is a regressive harmful force in modern times.
Wait, I missed this:
Religion is the suppression and the end of science.
What? That has to be a joke surely?
But ( no offense intended) thats like knowing a lot about Harry Potter.
And that is an even worse one. Harry Potter has not underpinned human society for tens of thousands of years. No-one's debating wether or not Harry Potter is intrinsic to humanity, are they? There is SO much more to the question of what faith might be than whether or not the bible is factually correct. Honestly.
So yes – religion has no meaning at all.
It very clearly does to billions of people. It might not mean anything to you (or me) but that's a ridiculous statement from all the evidence staring you in the face.
As far as I can tell people believed that the bible was literally the divine truth up until the Scientific Revolution – so, what, 1600s-ish
No mate that is literally incorrect. Lots of evidence for the contrary. I've posted some of it twice now on this thread.
Anyway. Have we considered that some people actually need faith as opposed to knowledge? That the concept of faith has intrinsic value?
No meaning in the rational world. Of course it have meaning to individuals and groups but that is irrelevant to those of us that live in a rational world. Religion has no intrinsic meaning. Its founded on falsehoods
That does not mean I do not understand the meaning it has to some. (see example above)
Anyway. Have we considered that some people actually need faith as opposed to knowledge? That the concept of faith has intrinsic value?
Now thats an interesting one. I have faith Einstein got his sums right. No way can I check or even come close to understanding the data.
What? That has to be a joke surely?
Is this just blatant disrespect of someone elses opinon? Or are you stuck for an answer?