So... I was told to state my theory on Abrahamic religions here.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I mean, when did Judaism actually start? When were the first scrolls of the Torah written? Surely thousands of years before Christ.

The first scrolls may have been written thousands of years ago but they lay hidden for a long time after, it was only when David united the tribes that the Jews rediscovered fragments of them, which made the reforms of King Hezekiah possible. Although even then it was only when the Jews were exiled to Babylon that anything recognizable to modern Judaism emerged. It was only the shock of being separated from the temple that led to the Jews placing more emphasis on studying the Tanakh and it was during their exile in Babylon that they began to observe the sabbath and their other customs that allowed them to keep their identity.

Of course, out of this group came Jesus. Whether you're a religious person or not, the reason Jesus Christ was such a hit was because of the Romans--and the way they dealt with him was classic martyrdom. The results should have been predictable, but for some reason nobody thought of that before they stuck him up on a cross.

Well it was a pretty effective method of dealing with the prophetic leaders of the many cults that were in the area at the time. It was also pretty effective in dealing with Christianity in Judea itself, martyrdom didn't do much for Jesus there. The real question is why Christianity appealed so much to the Jewish diaspora.

Islam is a whole different beast. How many of you knew that Muslims consider Jesus one of the most important Prophets? To Islamic eyes, being a Muslim is not being in opposition to christianity--it is being the next logical step forward like Christianity was to Judaism.

Well yes, four of Islam's five major prophets are Biblical characters. Although this doesn't mean you should get too hopeful about the inter-faith possibilities, the Muslim understanding of the Bible is very different to that of Jews and Christians.

[Beskar]

You got to remember that Christianity was full of converts, most often or not, the most notable were the the rich nobility of the Roman atrocity who used to be believers of religions such as Mithra. These lord and ladies, if you will allow me to address them as such, brought with them great art pieces and styles from their former regions, from songs, poetry and mosaics. As addressing the statement: "Christmas is a plagiarism of all kinds of things" the influences from the others through the major conversions of the area had a massive influence. Great many of Christianities' early traditions came from the converts of other faiths.

But basically Christianity was co-opted the suit the purposes of those in charge.

[Papewaio]

When religion opens the mind and doesn't close it, that is enlightenment with a small e.

Jesuit priests would have to be an example of this. Gene dominance and the Big Bang Theory originate from within that order.

=][=

If you put your trust in evidence and not unprovables you can lead a non Faith based life. Science works when ideas are tested, it doesnt work in untestable absolutes. Also for scientists untestable absolutes are like couch to extreme sportsmen... comfortable but neither satisfying nor challenging and certainly doesnt inform ones life. Trusting in people and evidence is not faith. Faith is believing and trusting in an entity you havn't met, can't measure and can't disprove. Such entities are called tooth fairies, Santa Claus and unicorns for children. An adult who believes in the tooth fairy is ridiculed, yet no one can prove or disprove such an entity any easier then God.

I don't have faith that their is a higher power. If others wish to believe in a tooth fairy they are welcome. Just dont expect me to wear fairy wings, donate to your faith or be impressed with it being exempt to taxes. If evidence comes along to prove one I'll at that point change my mind. After all there is always the chance another black swan event can happen.

[Viking]

I don't think leaders create religions. One often sees that "prophetic" people create new offspring of already existing religions (or mix two or more of them). So I'd place my money on that the more ideological religions (as opposed to those who rely more on rituals rather than moral understanding) are created by "prophetic" people. Maybe not every "prophet" believes his own words, but I'd bet that the majority of them do.

What goes on in North Korea might look related to religion, but relevant to this topic one must note that the 'religion' here focuses on the individuals here on Earth, and do IIRC not provide any mandate from some higher power for the ruling of the guys at the top; so it might not be relevant.

BTW, your understanding of the Christianisation of Scandinavia strikes me as pretty odd. I don't know the story in Denmark and Sweden, but in Norway, it was Vikings that fought Vikings over the issue; and the Christian Viking kings won in the end (unfortunately, I suppose; this bit becomes pretty theoretic).

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I don't understand how I'm a hypocrite. I don't believe in a god. I don't believe in religion. That doesn't mean other people do the same.

Ahhh... You see. There is no god.

If you believe that, it follows that religion is evil - your contention is that religion is used as a dishonest control system, and was created for that purpose.

The Christianisation of Scandinavia was much slower than other parts of the world. The most likely reason for this was opposition of some sort.

What?

The Roman Church sent missionaries, every people killed them except the English, who welcomed them.

I never mentioned anything about the suppression of cultural practices. But either way, Odin was the patron for hanged men. The Norse were barbaric. It's in their culture. Their culture should be respected. If you walk past a holy pagan burial site, it isn't wise to spit, defecate, urinate etc. on it, just because these people were savage. If I walked by Hitler's grave, I would show some deal of respect. The man had discipline, and did A LOT of good things, but also did a lot more bad things which outweigh the good that he did.

Odin was not the "Patron" of hanged men, men were hanged for his pleasure, left to rot. The Norse were not "barbaric" they were violent and bloodthirsty, a Death Cult who glorified and sanctified violence and abuse of those they conquered.

I have been called sociopathic. And I don't care.

Well, if you really don't care about other people - that would be sociopathy.

You are speaking as if people will still hold grudges against the Danes. If something bad happens, learn from your mistakes and move along. Don't dwell on the past.

Alfred was only human. No one is perfect.

Congratulations - you completely failed to get the point. Before you bemoan the death of Nordic culture, you might want to see which bits were killed off. Read Snorri Sturlasson.

I don't dwell on the past, but I do study it - more carefully than you.

Since history is not my career, but only an interest, I'll just write this.

There is a lot of contradictory evidence out there in ancient history. Blatantly dismissing a theory purely on the basis of another theory does not make the former theory incorrect. Neither does it make the latter theory incorrect. There could be another theory which is correct.

There's a lot of evidence, Constantine's religious reforms combined Sol Invictus (God of the elite) with Mithras (God the army) with Yeshua (God the poor). It was about unity, and winning an Empire. It is also, believe it or not, a matter of historical record, as is Constantine's life. You can't even distinguish Sol Invictus from Mithras, you're working off hearsay, books written by hack writers, not history.

[Rhyfelwyr]

No, its not the be-all and end-all, but it highlights my point that the Bible is a heavily edited and revised document written by human hands and compiled by human hands. I don't think anyone on this forum thinks otherwise, but there are a lot of people that do.

And I am one of them! As has been pointed out, Nicea had nothing to do with the canon, and it was in fact the Third Council of Carthage that formulated it. However the canon that was approved by that council was not formulated by it, it was merely putting a rubber stamp on what was widely accepted throughout Christendom.

First off, around 80% of the Bible is the Old Testament, which given the Judaic roots of Christianity, meant it was taken for granted by Christians as part of the canon.

So that leaves just 20% which the whole controversy is over. And in fact, there are suggestions within the scripture itself that even while it was still being written, a somewhat coherent set of documents had come to be accepted as scripture:

"As also in all his [Paul's] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction." (2 Peter 3:16)

[The Stranger]

If you believe that, it follows that religion is evil - your contention is that religion is used as a dishonest control system, and was created for that purpose.



The Roman Church sent missionaries, every people killed them except the English, who welcomed them.



Odin was not the "Patron" of hanged men, men were hanged for his pleasure, left to rot. The Norse were not "barbaric" they were violent and bloodthirsty, a Death Cult who glorified and sanctified violence and abuse of those they conquered.



Well, if you really don't care about other people - that would be sociopathy.



Congratulations - you completely failed to get the point. Before you bemoan the death of Nordic culture, you might want to see which bits were killed off. Read Snorri Sturlasson.

I don't dwell on the past, but I do study it - more carefully than you.



There's a lot of evidence, Constantine's religious reforms combined Sol Invictus (God of the elite) with Mithras (God the army) with Yeshua (God the poor). It was about unity, and winning an Empire. It is also, believe it or not, a matter of historical record, as is Constantine's life. You can't even distinguish Sol Invictus from Mithras, you're working off hearsay, books written by hack writers, not history.

faith should be a personal matter. religion a is always a matter of state. whether you unify state with religion or seperate it, doesnt matter. the state will decide upon this. could be so that the religion is (rules) the state tho.

[Sigurd]

No, its not the be-all and end-all, but it highlights my point that the Bible is a heavily edited and revised document written by human hands and compiled by human hands. I don't think anyone on this forum thinks otherwise, but there are a lot of people that do.

Hey... I am not arguing the validity of you point, just the reference to the wrong council.
Even though the Bible apologetics will throw the "It was a widely accepted compilation", it doesn't remove the fact that this is a human construct.
If I am not mistaken, it was the same culprit that formulated the doctrine of the trinity, that was asked to suggest which books were considered canon. He compiled a list and several contemporary scholars agreed. It was not decided on a particular council, but the process would be too similar to ignore.
If only they would recognize the Bible for what it is and what it claims, I think we would have had a bit fewer versions of established denominations in the Christian world.

[spankythehippo]

If you believe that, it follows that religion is evil - your contention is that religion is used as a dishonest control system, and was created for that purpose.

I do not "like" the religious system. That should speak for itself. Judging by your abrasiveness, it suggests that you are religious. It shouldn't matter to you what I think. If you believe in a god, go ahead and worship him. But I won't. And no one will force me to.

The Roman Church sent missionaries, every people killed them except the English, who welcomed them.

And?

Odin was not the "Patron" of hanged men, men were hanged for his pleasure, left to rot. The Norse were not "barbaric" they were violent and bloodthirsty, a Death Cult who glorified and sanctified violence and abuse of those they conquered.

He IS the patron god of hanged men. He was hanged himself on Yggdrasil to gain the knowledge of the Nine Worlds. And gave up his right (?) eye to Mimir.

I don't dwell on the past, but I do study it - more carefully than you.

OK then. Do you want a medal? Being hostile to others brings forth more hostility. If I'm wrong about anything, I question why I am wrong, and why other's are right. It's the process of learning. As I said, history is not my career, so I do not focus my full attention to it.

[naut]

And, lo, suddenly there came forth from the cave many dragons; and when the children saw them, they cried out in great terror. Then Jesus went down from the bosom of His mother, and stood on His feet before the dragons; and they adored Jesus, and thereafter retired.

-Biblical Apocrypha. Book of Matthew.

Stop insulting Abrahamic religion, Jesus was bad-ass.

-----

spankythehippo, IMHO, rational discussion with the religious is pointless. Religion is inherently irrational, and those that "believe" cannot be convinced otherwise through reasoned arguments. They have to discover the logical flaws themselves, and unfortunately many cannot or will not.

[spankythehippo]

-Biblical Apocrypha. Book of Matthew.

Stop insulting Abrahamic religion, Jesus was bad-ass.

-----

spankythehippo, IMHO, rational discussion with the religious is pointless. Religion is inherently irrational, and those that "believe" cannot be convinced otherwise through reasoned arguments. They have to discover the logical flaws themselves, and unfortunately many cannot or will not.

Wow. My name is in bold.

I'm not really trying to convince religious people to not believe. I'm trying to say that atheists and religious people aren't enemies. Although people like this really get on my nerves. I mean, really.

Fus Ro Dah?

Uhhhh. Skyrim memes. It ruined the game for me.

[spankythehippo]

I used to hate Skyrim memes, until I took an arrow to the knee!

I still think Chuck Norris jokes are funny... don't judge me.

Seriously though, people like in the above post are a dime a dozen, and they're all over the country. They outnumber us rational folks by a considerable amount, and are one of the main reasons I fear impending social collapse. Just saying.

Normally, those types of people don't exist here. I guess Australia learnt the error of it's way, when it discriminates against others.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I do not "like" the religious system. That should speak for itself. Judging by your abrasiveness, it suggests that you are religious. It shouldn't matter to you what I think. If you believe in a god, go ahead and worship him. But I won't. And no one will force me to.

As a matter of fact, although I have what are generally recognised as "Christian" beliefs I am extremely leery of organised religion. My objection to your thesis is not the basic point, but rather the evidence you present to report it, which is factually wrong.

Religion is a social construct, that is patently obvious because even the "same" religion varies its practices and nuances its doctrines over time and place. That being said, the major world religions today do not have internal logical problems, and they are not so set against the phyiscally understood reality of the world as many people claim. If they were they would have gone the way of the old religions, which died out when they ceased to have any relevence or grip on reality.

And?

Your opening gambit was, "Christian missionaries killed lots of Pagans in Scandanavia, and everywhere else" My point is that not only is this generally incorrect, certainly before the founding of the Order Militant, but also that the context for the few cases of Christian Kings making war uppon Pagans (such as Charlamagne) were actually reprisal attacks for sending peaceful missionaries home sans heads.

He IS the patron god of hanged men. He was hanged himself on Yggdrasil to gain the knowledge of the Nine Worlds. And gave up his right (?) eye to Mimir.

Yes, and he had two Ravans, and an unerring spear, and he tied Loki up in a cave with his own intestines, and he will be devoured by the Grey Wolf after the final charge of the Holy Dead at the Doom of the Gods, after which the world will be reborn in a flood and the God Baulder the Fair will arise from the dead and rule over a new and perfect world.

Christianity went down well in Scandanavia once Europe had recovered enough that the remaining Pagans realised Ragnorak was not coming and they were not living in a "wolf age". As to Odin, he like having men hanged for him.

OK then. Do you want a medal? Being hostile to others brings forth more hostility. If I'm wrong about anything, I question why I am wrong, and why other's are right. It's the process of learning. As I said, history is not my career, so I do not focus my full attention to it.

I want you to go away, read up on Constantine's reforms, his conversion to Christianity (ish), he refounding of Roman Religion and the differences between the Cults he welded together into the Roman church, and then make an actual argument.

[Rhyfelwyr]

So, it comes down to faith once again. Which makes this argument impossible to have. For me to prove my point, we have to assume that the Old Testament is all man-made too. That's fundamentally at odds with your view, I would imagine.

Whether or not God inspired the individual authors is a matter of faith. But the formation of the Old and New Testaments is a historical process/event and one that we can debate based on the evidence we have.

That Peter referred to the Pauline Epistles as "scripture" hundreds of years before the Third Council of Carthage is significant, since they make up a significant chunk of the New Testament.

[The Stranger]

i dont see how ragnarok is that much different from apocalypse but i havent read much on the matter.

[spankythehippo]

Yes, and he had two Ravans, and an unerring spear, and he tied Loki up in a cave with his own intestines, and he will be devoured by the Grey Wolf after the final charge of the Holy Dead at the Doom of the Gods, after which the world will be reborn in a flood and the God Baulder the Fair will arise from the dead and rule over a new and perfect world.

Wrong. The Aesir transformed Loki's son Narvi (or it could be Vali, I can't remember exactly) into a wolf, which then proceeded to disembowel his brother. From there, Loki's son's intestines were used as shackles, and then turned to stone (or iron).

I want you to go away, read up on Constantine's reforms, his conversion to Christianity (ish), he refounding of Roman Religion and the differences between the Cults he welded together into the Roman church, and then make an actual argument.

I'd rather not. I formulated this "theory" based on current situations, tied loosely with some historical facts. Hence the title of the thread "So... I was told to state my theory on Abrahamic religions here."

If it was a concrete theory, I wouldn't begin the thread with "So...". It's just a weird theory I came up with while on the crapper. And I'm a casual weed smoker, although I do not enjoy smoking. So this the product, a theory that is plausible, but backed by close to no evidence.

So, yes, I do not know a great deal about the intricacies of Christianity, but I know enough to form an opinion on them. An opinion that shouldn't matter to anyone.

[The Stranger]

opinion is the result of a process of careful study and deliberation. its not just waking up one day and thinking hey, i dislike this or that.

thats preference or whatever. your thing you can call it an idea, a hypothesis, a feeling, a rant... but not really theory or opinion.

[Rhyfelwyr]

spankythehippo, IMHO, rational discussion with the religious is pointless. Religion is inherently irrational, and those that "believe" cannot be convinced otherwise through reasoned arguments. They have to discover the logical flaws themselves, and unfortunately many cannot or will not.

I think this is unfair, I seem to have the most changeable views of anyone on the planet. I've went from a born again Evangelical type to a hardcore 'the rapture is coming young earth creationist' type to a liberal type that would believe in evolution etc, to a quite traditional Calvinist, to one of those people that claims to be against organised religion, and finally to a follower of the British Israelite movement.

Indeed, this is a weakness on my part, and the verse from Ephesians 4:14 seems pretty applicable to me:

"That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive"

It's got to the stage where I don't honestly know what I believe anymore.

Bah!

[The Stranger]

spankythehippo, IMHO, rational discussion with the religious is pointless. Religion is inherently irrational, and those that "believe" cannot be convinced otherwise through reasoned arguments. They have to discover the logical flaws themselves, and unfortunately many cannot or will not.

its not just unfair its plainly wrong.

everyone believes things, everyone believes things that cannot be proven. this is irrational, it is true, but it is not unique to religious persons, in fact it is common to all men.

theology can be logically consistent, in fact theology has many arguments to back it. these arguments are not scientific, but the domain of theology is metaphysical so the argumants hardly can be scientific. (besides the fact that most which i know were constructed before the rise of science). you might not accept these arguments, but that doesnt mean they do not exist. and you cannot judge it entirely on the layman. as if all the persons who claim they think evolution and general relativity are true have good reasons to believe this other than the argument of authority. which is basically what the layman religious person is claiming too.

[Sigurd]

About the reference to Odin being hanged.. I think we should be a bit careful to draw any particular conclusions on the nature of this "hanging".
The myth comes from Hávamál (old Edda by Snorre Sturlasson) and a particular verse there. Snorre in Yngligesaga do not mention anything about the tree or a hanging. It is only found in Hávamál and the verse (3 versions under):

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

138.
Véd jeg, jeg hang
paa vindige træ
alle de nætter ni,
med geir saaret
og given Oden,
selv hen til mig selv;
oppe paa træet,
som ingen véd,
af hvad rod det randt.

Eg veit at eg hekk
på vindalt tre
næter heile nie,
med geir-odd såra
og gjeven Odin,
gjeven sjølv til meg sjølv
oppå det treet
som ingen veit
kvar det av rotom renn.

I ween that I hung | on the windy tree,
Hung there for nights full nine;
With the spear I was wounded, | and offered I was
To Othin, myself to myself,
On the tree that none | may ever know
What root beneath it runs.

You should note the preposition "på" (on). If you were hanged with a rope, you would say 'in' a tree and not 'on'. This is more true in my language.
So if someone is hung on a tree, it would be the same as someone being hung on a cross. "Jesus hang på korset. Odin hang på treet". This could mean that he was nailed to the tree and not hanged with a noose on a rope. Which... looks more like something coordinated with the Christian lore. Note also that Odin is wounded in his side by a spear which is also suspiciously close to Christ being stabbed in the heart with a spear while on the cross. Snorri lived during a time where Christendom absorbed/removed the pagan rituals and customs... Some say that he recorded these things to preserve them.

Honestly, I don't even bring it up as a bad thing. There's nothing un-Christian about admitting that the Bible is something that was compiled by human hands.

Oh you poor innocent soul. You haven't "met" the right kind yet

[Rhyfelwyr]

In my point of view, the idea that someone would put their trust in something completely unprovable that is held together only because of powerful establishments that bridge generations for the benefit of a few people over the many makes the entire concept--and thus people who subscribe to it--incredibly suspect. edit: By this I mean the concept of heaven and hell. Us vs. Them. The Believers and the Non Believers. All major organized religions agree on one thing: Its better to be a believer.

My reasons for believing have nothing to do with the church as an establishment nor is it a generational thing that was passed down to me. I also believe there is evidence that supports both the existence of God and the authority of the scripture.

As for the us v them mentality, religion can also be a source of unity that hold society together. Judaism held the tribes of Israel together even when they were divided between two kingdoms. Islam united the Arab tribes. Christianity tore down the barrier between Jew and Gentile. etc.

As for it being better to be a believer, well that is obviously true for any belief. I'm sure many people in this thread feel I would be better off if I was cured of my ignorance.

I understand that this is an unfair prejudice, but that doesn't mean I understand where you're coming from any better. This is the cause for the entire divide.

Religion isn't inherently more divisive than politics or race. For all practical purposes here on earth, I have more in common with the atheist next door than I do with a born again convert over in China, or the Westboro Baptist Church.

Although I'm guessing you might be influenced in saying what you said by the fact that politics, race and religion are all so intertwined in America with your classic white Christian Right Republican.

It only gets worse when people of one faith or another try to push for REAL laws and reforms on the basis of something that the rest of us simply find ridiculous. Its an impossible debate to have. And now we're getting to a point in America where being an intellectual athiest is actually kind of a social stigma. That scares the crap out of me. There are a lot of Americans out there who are only a few steps removed from the Taliban they hate so much--the only difference is that the Americans are benefitting from the REAL and TANGIBLE fruits of intellectual labor while at the same time trying to create a divide between the faithful and the intellectual. It is a scary trend.

Well, the fact is that America has seen massive social upheaval in recent decades that really has eaten away at 'traditional' values. The radical Christian Right is really just a reaction against that, its no surprise that its heartland in the south also happens to be the area with most problems in terms of divorce, single-parents, and the poverty that seems to complement such trends.

I would also suggest that the Christian Right is not as new and terrifying a development as you suggest. It may be a fringe element in political nowadays but it would tbh have been fairly mainstream fifty years back.

I mean we all like to believe that its the end of the world and things are only going to get worse before they get better (whether its the Viking Ragnarok, Christian armageddon or Marx's final class war) but it wasn't that long ago America was enduring McCarthyism and IIRC 'The Buraeu of Un-American Activities'. I'm sure you'll get through this...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Wrong. The Aesir transformed Loki's son Narvi (or it could be Vali, I can't remember exactly) into a wolf, which then proceeded to disembowel his brother. From there, Loki's son's intestines were used as shackles, and then turned to stone (or iron).

Well, I don't know. See, Vali was also the son of Odin born to avenge Baulder, and the important wolf was Fenris (another son of Loki), so I think that version is a later garbling of the myth.

I'd rather not. I formulated this "theory" based on current situations, tied loosely with some historical facts. Hence the title of the thread "So... I was told to state my theory on Abrahamic religions here."

If it was a concrete theory, I wouldn't begin the thread with "So...". It's just a weird theory I came up with while on the crapper. And I'm a casual weed smoker, although I do not enjoy smoking. So this the product, a theory that is plausible, but backed by close to no evidence.

So, yes, I do not know a great deal about the intricacies of Christianity, but I know enough to form an opinion on them. An opinion that shouldn't matter to anyone.

So, basically, you pulled it out of your fundament based on an vague idea about how you don't like religion and a sketchy understanding of the history of Christianity?

And you're surprised it gets ripped into?

[Rhyfelwyr]

Right. None of that is wrong. My contention is this: Religion is an irrational and dangerous way of holding people together with far more pitfalls than benefits.

Well if we're just going to look at the pros/cons regardless of what we believe to be the truth, I think you have to say religion does a lot more good than harm. It's all well and good to talk about the Crusades and jihadism and what not, but its faith/religion (I think I can blur them in this context without engaging in sophistry) that gives people hope when they are lying on their deathbed, or that can give a comforting answer to a kid when someone they love dies.

My beliefs are the result of weighing evidence carefully and with skepticism--from all sides. That is not true of any religion,

Well that is more or less how the Protestant reformers worked, and the later deists of the Enlightenment.

and even though there are many religious intellectuals that temper their beliefs with fact and reason, this is increasingly not the case with young americans.

Again, you're getting upset about the lack of reason and the polarisation of attitudes today, and looking back to a golden age that never existed. For millenia people have held to beliefs simply because they are the ones they were brought up with, and have not really bothered to either understand them never mind challenge them.

Your bog standard atheist is every bit as guilty of this as you bog standard Christian. I bet 90% of those that believe in evolution have a really minimal understanding of it, and the crew over at answersingenesis.com could mop the floor with them if they wanted to.

As for intellectuals being somewhat better in this respect, I don't think they are. Generally, beliefs are not the product of balanced reason, they are instead self-reinforcing prejudices. Rather than objectively analysing information, the more intelligent types are better at finding a narrative that allows them to place new information into their existing belief systems.

This is no more true for the religious than for anything else.

[The Stranger]

Right. None of that is wrong. My contention is this: Religion is an irrational and dangerous way of holding people together with far more pitfalls than benefits. My beliefs are the result of weighing evidence carefully and with skepticism--from all sides. That is not true of any religion, and even though there are many religious intellectuals that temper their beliefs with fact and reason, this is increasingly not the case with young americans.

but you assume then that it is useful to look at the world the way you do and that the type of evidence you have gathered is says anything about this world and that gathering evidence is a good way to get better understanding of this world. for this you need to have arguments too and then you need to have arguments for these as well untill you reach a point where you have an argument which you cannot get an argument for and this you shall have to assume to be true. and if this argument influences how you look at the world and what you see as valid evidence to support claims than whatever evidence you bring forth to strengthen this argument is trivial...

besides that fact that in the 20th century the most horrible crimes were commited and they were not the (direct) result of religion but of political and rational processes (eg holocaust, atombomb, bioindustry if you like) ofcourse you can say that the good of these processes outweigh the bad, but not only is this highly subjective and a rather weak argument, i doubt that it is true for atleast politics.

and these happen to be the only other candidates...

none of this means that i think religion is good... i think its rather bad, but i think a distinction should be made. in a sense religion is politics, or part of it.

Here's a question, then, to any vehemently faithful: Why do you get angry with me because I'm mad at you for pushing agendas that affect my life in a negative way? That question deserves facts, not faith.

really? the only answer to this quite straightforward.

1. i push agenda to affect my life in a positive way or to avoid it getting affected negatively
2. you oppose this, thus hinder me in getting a better life or avoid getting a worse one
3. i get mad at you for hindering me.

and you are both doing that...how can you surprised if you yourself say that you are mad at the other :O

Why do you believe?

can i ask you the same question?

[The Stranger]

Stranger! You bring up very good points, and I'm really sorry that the answer is shorter than you probably think the points deserve. In fact, its times like this I wish someone would pay me to write stuff like this, because it deserves a much bigger answer than I'm willing to write out.

thank you lets see how far we get :)

The 20th century was very bloody, as a result of bad people doing bad things with power. That whole Hitler/WWII/Genocide thing would have never happened if the people of the Wiemar Republic hadn't been so easily duped into believing the lies of the Nazi party. Isn't that a pretty epic statement against blind faith and acting like sheep? Are the dangers not incredibly evident?

this is true, but what is important to note is that they were all thinking they were doing the rational thing. and since its incredibly hard for a person who is in the thick of things to judge whether he is doing what is rational or doing what is irrational. this is politics however, and i would say that politics is a weird spectrum of society. and its hard to balance reason and emotion in such heated topics.

as regarding the holocaust, and the atombomb, these were rational processes. what was horrible in particular about the holocaust was the fact that the jews were not treated as humans any longer but just as dispensable items, they were a problem. and the nazis simply tried to solve this problem in the most rational way. and after trying a few methods they concluded that gassing was the most effective. now you can say what you want, but that is as rational as it can get. you can say that their belief in the nazi supremacy was wrong and therefor irrational but how they then acted from that point was wholly rational. they had reasons for their beliefs, and they used these beliefs to solve a problem in the most effective way accordingly. (ofcourse its all more complicated than this.)

also its not as if all those 80 million germans and other euros all followed the nazis and shared their ideals. there was a proportionally small amount (compared to their power and impact even insignificant amount) of true nazis and the rest simply followed because they didnt care or because they were thinking they would be better off (the rational thing to do is follow in such a case) or becuase they were scared. Lets consider that for all people their basic goal is to survive, if you are in a big scary place and the odds that you will survive on your own is very low, than its rational to tag along a bigger group that can protect you. if this group starts killing other people of another group, you shouldnt care because this group is a threat to you. if the group starts to kill members of its own group, than you have to halt, and think about where this is going, that is irrational. sadly the nazis smartly maneauvered the jews outside the community a long time ago. and it has to be said that the jews have always tried to stay seperated from the rest, so this didnt help much either. what happened there wasnt so irrational on individual scale of survival. ofcourse if you will consider that it has to be viewed on the scale of humanity ofcourse the story becomes different. then global cooperation would be the most preferenced. basically weve ended up with a very complicated version of the prisoners dillemma and its life.

atombomb is a result of scientific progress, and you can say that the use of this deadly weapon was a political descision. but i cannot believe that the scientists who were involved in this didnt know that the weapon was going to be used. simple as this, science is about utility as much if not more than knowledge, you make something because you want it to be used. if you make weapons, you know there is a chance that they will be used. now from here there are several ways you can go, you can say that the scientists make stuff and its up to the moral consience of others about how they will use it (you cannot blame apple for making laptops if some idiot bashes someone to death with one). or you can hold the scientists partially responsible for making making something they know could be used to kill others in horrible ways. now for me both options are not really right. its already complicated but will get even more complicated if you take into account rationality. rationality is odd because for making rational descisions its important to know what ones goals are. so with GoalA making descisionY can be rational while with goalB making descisionY can be irrational. So now what stance must the scientist take? if he choses the individual, he will make these bombs, get paid, provide for himself and his family (if he was truly rational he wouldnt have a family, but ok... we still have instincts). but if he choses humanity, then its irrational to make a weapon that can slaughter the planet with just a dozen of them. but how can you judge which he must pick, or regardless of what he would pick, how can you judge him for making a choice with all the knowledge he has available.

then to the throwing of the damned thing... again same thing as with the germans, you can argue that the americans didnt have the right reasons for their belief that throwing the atombomb was a good thing to do (and again it is so damned hard to be the judge of that, whether you are in that moment, or a spectator watching from outside). but they believed they were threathened and that this weapon was sanctioned to save the lives of soldiers that would otherwise die trying to invade japan, even this would go at the cost of hundreds of thousands japs that would die. basically this descision is rational in any way given the situation. they make a sum, 10 million lives lost if japan is invaded, 500k lives lost with the bomb while the result is the same, the unconditional surrender of japan. Weird thing is, while we all want to be rational, the result of this, treating humans as mere statitistics and rescourses has resulted in some terrible things. its counterintuitive because we do not want to be treated as things, that can be disposed of if they end up on the wrong side of the line drawn by a sum.

i hope that still makes any sense...

ill look at the second part of your post after dinner :)

I'll tell you that I don't "believe" in anything. I make up my own mind after weighing evidence from competing viewpoints.

i find this very hard to believe. you are not a total sceptic are you? surely if you make up your mind with weighing evidence than you believe that this is preferred to the rest of what you could do to make a decision. you have a belief of what this evidence must exist of to be qualified as evidence. and since you look at competing viewpoints you believe that it is a virtue to do so, to have a broad perception and try take into account as many possible things. basically the scientific approach, but unless you have invented this approach or have analysed and scrutinized every single part of it, you are taking alot of things for granted from other people about this.

thing is, every person believes in things, and these beliefs are either based on something else or they are selfsufficient. and if they are selfsufficient then you have to assume or claim or postulate their truth (obviously if they required any kind of proof they wouldnt be self sufficient).

im quite sure there are a great many things you believe in that you do not understand but that you accept because of splinters of information you have understood and because they fit into the view of things you have you do understand and because they are told by authorities you respect.

Also, you don't qualify to answer my question directed at the vehemently faithful.

i dont believe that, but still i can answer the question i think... tho i didnt really answer it, i was just trying to show that you are doing the exact same thing. and its funny cuz thats what people all over the world are doing. they are basically looking into the mirror without recognising that they are identical in many aspects (even tho they are reversed).

I'm speaking very broadly here. I'm questioning the idea of believing in something just because you are told to. That is not the same as what I do. I question people who tell me things, and if the answers meet a basic criteria for objectivity then I'll possibly consider it truth pending further investigation. That is the scientific process.

cmon... you do not question everything that people tell you. when you watch the news and it tells you a man got shot you will not go check if its true. if your mom comes in soaking wet you and tells you its raining you will not go outside and check if she did not hide a bucket somewhere to prank you into believing that its raining. you do not question the belief that it is better to question things than not to. you talk about basic criterias for objectivity, but you have to be more explicit as to what it means. you have questioned it before u assumed it to be an acceptable criteria so surely you shouldnt have trouble to explain what it means. also what does truth mean exactly. and how do you know that what you belief is justified, how do know what are proper criterion for justification etc. you must question all this before u can say anything and decide that its true. and then you still have to assume that its significant to do so.

(sorry if this seems a bit hostile, i dont mean to slate you off. no offense was intended.)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I ask people of solid faith and conviction: Why do you believe? If the answer is "because I do" or "because people told me to" then it is not an answer that satisfies me. But that's fine, since I'm not trying to change anyone's mind.

The answer to your question, the only fair one, is "why don't you believe?"

That fact is, you do believe you have chosen rationally not to take the faith of any religion, yet I believe that the same rational process has led me to the conviction that there is a God, one best represented by Christian philosophy. Further, this is a situation that many people, on both sides, are in - so the only rational conclusion is that something other than our rational mind is making a decision somewhere. Increasingly, I have come to the conclusion that faith comes first, and then you develop beliefs that spring from that faith.

[The Stranger]

Okay.. wow. That's not just a wall of text, that's a wall of really good text. I'm not sure what to say other than "Yes, you're absolutely right."

I am a lot more skeptical than most people, and that is something I do actively and on purpose with the knowledge that people will try and manipulate me to their point of view if given the chance. This is a historical given, and something that I think everyone should do for their own safety and well-being, but that doesn't mean that I'm right. It just means that I'm cautious and take an active role in ensuring that I don't become part of "the problem."

It is my belief that for people to really move on and become enlightened citizens of a better world, we need to embrace the ideas of honesty, justice, and equality for their own merits and not because one political or religious entity is using them to promote their brand. That is the closest thing I have to a religious-like belief.

But beyond that, there's not a lot I can say without sounding like an arrogant prick. I really don't think I'm better than anyone else because I choose to be more skeptical, but I do think the world would be a better place if more people chose to be more suspicious of any and all establishments that would seek to get your support. There are a lot of good causes out there, but not nearly so many as people would have you believe--or so I believe.

In short, good post. If everyone in the world thought like you, I wouldn't have anything to get mad at. I generally go out of my way to be polite and soft-spoken in public, because I know that my own personal outlook on the world is much harsher and more rigid than most people are comfortable with. So, there is an inherant dysfunction in my own world-view that makes it suspect anyhow.

The numbers game is an unfortunate byproduct of reason. People have to tread the line between being rational and being empathetic. Both are important, and both are undervalued by too many people.

the thing is i agree with you, but if you are consistent with it you will have to notice that in daily life many things happens which you do not question, cannot question all the time. Skepticism is logically coherent and correct, just impossible to live. I too would opt for tolerance and mutual understanding, but i think that by opposing yourself to other people you are making a similar mistake.

like PCV said, i too believe everything starts at faith, and that in this all humans are the same, whatever springs for from that which they initially believe can be wholly different, and they can believe in opposing things. but the fact is that the process is the same for all men, and if we start there perhaps we can find the common ground to unite all. basically every person thinks he is right in believing what he believes, and if not for all people than for himself. and if we can understand that everyone is trying to make sense of it all in his own way perhaps we can perceive each other as brothers.

this might be idealistic, but this is what i believe in, and i have no argument for it other than that i think it is for the better of all.




just ignore this -_- i wrote it so i find it sad to delete... so i wont but its off topic XD

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

also some thought ive had since late, and this is off topic, is that rationality alone cannot fullfill the role of savior for mankind that many people wish it to fullfill. plain and simple if we were all going to be rational i cannot see how mankind will cease to exist within a couple of decades (being rational does not mean being brilliant so unless they find a way to become immortal i think what i have to say is sound)

like i said before being rationial (making rational descisions) is connected to whatever goal you have. in general we can say that our main goal in life is to stay alive best we can as long as we can

lets look at the west specifically, centuries ago it was rational for a human being to produce offspring for the following reason, there was no social network that would take care of you when you became old. so you needed children who you can rely upon more than a stranger or friends to take care of you in your time of need. also family provides protection in a hostile world, thus thats why you would get a partner, and to ensure protection and care when you are old, you get children.

however nowadays we have gotten to a point where there is a social network, people get paid to take care of you, so as long as you have money you will be taken care off when you are old. and its easier to get alot of money if you have no children. it rids you of all the effort that goes into raising children. you can basically work which you would have to anyway because you have to ensure your basic needs. you can do whatever you want in your free time, which you have cuz u have no children to take care off, and this will increase your quality of life. perhaps a partner would still be rational, i havent given this much thought, i guess if you see love as a basic need, then you would get a partner. when you get old you have alot of money cuz u worked and didnt have hungry mouths to feed, since you are a rational person you will not have any debts and such. you pay someone go into retirement and die old and grumpy without kids, while you have everything that people with kids have with less effort, thus it would be irrational to chose the path which requires more effort. thus if all people were rational they wouldnt get children (unless they do it from emotional perspective but this we have disabled in all people, because emotions are irrational and cause trouble)

hmm just thought of this... ofcourse this would mean that for the unlucky late comers there would be nobody to take care of them, and thus they would have to get children again, so i guess humanity might not die out after all...

[rvg]

kumbaya...

[spankythehippo]

Well, I don't know. See, Vali was also the son of Odin born to avenge Baulder, and the important wolf was Fenris (another son of Loki), so I think that version is a later garbling of the myth.

Loki had 3 wives. With his first wife, Glut, he had Einmyria and Eisa. With his second wife, Angrboda, he had Hel, Jormungand and Fenris. With his third and current wife, Sigyn, he had Narvi and Vali (not to be confused with the Vali that Odin made with Rind to avenge Balder's death.)

So, basically, you pulled it out of your fundament based on an vague idea about how you don't like religion and a sketchy understanding of the history of Christianity?

And you're surprised it gets ripped into?

No. I base my theory on the messages the Bible taught. Same with the Qu'ran. Same with the Torah. All 3 religions had very good morals. But nowadays, this is distorted. Albeit, some of the things said in the religious texts are questionable by today's standards.

And no, I'm not surprised it got ripped into. I'm surprised that people will go so far to challenge my thoughts.

[Kadagar_AV]

My reasons for believing have nothing to do with the church as an establishment nor is it a generational thing that was passed down to me. I also believe there is evidence that supports both the existence of God and the authority of the scripture./

That is, of course, a laughable excuse for a reason. Your reason for believing has nothing to do with the church as an establishment? Let me correct you.

If the same things happened as you have encountered in your life, but without the church, would you have gone all "I think this is because Jesus built a ship and Moses got people drunk on water alone".

As for the us v them mentality, religion can also be a source of unity that hold society together. Judaism held the tribes of Israel together even when they were divided between two kingdoms. Islam united the Arab tribes. Christianity tore down the barrier between Jew and Gentile. etc.

If anyone wanted a textbook example of the term: "can't see the forest for all the trees" this would be it. You are indeed absolutely 100% right that religion has kept the (as an example) jews together. Now that has got them a load of joy, right?

If not for the religion, the very same people might have discovered that there is a whole world out there, with humans just like them, who are seeking to have a good life!

As for it being better to be a believer, well that is obviously true for any belief. I'm sure many people in this thread feel I would be better off if I was cured of my ignorance.

Yepp! That reply is directed towards the later part of the quote.

Religion isn't inherently more divisive than politics or race. For all practical purposes here on earth, I have more in common with the atheist next door than I do with a born again convert over in China, or the Westboro Baptist Church.

I see your point, but I do not agree.

It is way harder to talk someone into killing himself/others with political arguments than it is with religious ones. So I would argue that religion is more divisive.

Example A: "If you detonate the bomb on your body among that crowd you will get 30% less tax" - not a very selling argument.
Example B: "If you detonate the bomb on your body among that crowd you will get eternal bliss and several virgins and stuff" - A best selling argument.

Although I'm guessing you might be influenced in saying what you said by the fact that politics, race and religion are all so intertwined in America with your classic white Christian Right Republican.

Gah, really?

Error 1: America = USA
Error 2: Like anyone cares about the united states these days, they can not contend with countries like Afghanistan militarily or politicly, and their economy is an absolute joke.

Basically, let them elect Palin for president and walk on with a knowing smile.

Well, the fact is that America has seen massive social upheaval in recent decades that really has eaten away at 'traditional' values. The radical Christian Right is really just a reaction against that, its no surprise that its heartland in the south also happens to be the area with most problems in terms of divorce, single-parents, and the poverty that seems to complement such trends.

I think the hen just ate the egg. Or did the egg eat the hen?

But then again - are people radical christians because they are [insert], or are they [insert] because they are christian? All I can tell is that there seem to be a denominating factor.

I would also suggest that the Christian Right is not as new and terrifying a development as you suggest. It may be a fringe element in political nowadays but it would tbh have been fairly mainstream fifty years back.

Nah, 50 years back people more took church for what it is - Go there, bend your knee some, say "amen", enjoy being part of community.

Now it is more like "Ah mah gawd, day sayz sam darwenian monkey is godz!"

I mean we all like to believe that its the end of the world and things are only going to get worse before they get better (whether its the Viking Ragnarok, Christian armageddon or Marx's final class war) but it wasn't that long ago America was enduring McCarthyism and IIRC 'The Buraeu of Un-American Activities'. I'm sure you'll get through this...

You see it as a state they will get through.

Others might claim that the winner writes history.