Forums → WEPR → Religion's Creation

Christianity has broken up. Instead of like other past religions, instead of wars from breakup, I've noticed theres just been less support.

Moegreche, Asherlee said that apparently religion seems primitive. If it was SO primitive, then how come when society got civilized [I mean like, I take baths] typa civilized, then how come we kept it? Just pointing out a clue.

I don't know about Christianity, Or how vague the bible or other texts are. As there are more books, I've heard. All religions get a breakdown meaning. [I.E., "Christ is Lord" - Christianity]. Their rather useless unless ways to act and live are thrown out.

If Christianity is so broken up by history, I dont' know where the blame goes when they say. "It is justified by god" Since, some people say that things are god-given rights. Its akward, since, if there some or another different sect of Christianity, those god-given rights are different, maybe?

I bet there were moral standards, but I'm sure they weren't kept up as highly. You can't make "Being good" your only religion. The fact is that when you love and fear god, your willing to do anything for him. After all, he is your creator. Therefor, you get the sign of morality in you.

I dont' know about the Christian thing, and its early forms. But I'm wondering, if you say that "Christian" religions don't follow the bible, then how important is it, really?

Catholics for the most part worship Mary, not Jesus or God. There are many other reasons as to why I don't consider Catholics to be true Christians, but I fear I would fall into a Catholic-bashing state, so I will decline from that route.

However, I'm not saying that Catholics cannot be Christians, but most of the time they are just following a preset routine, and don't have any real heart in what they do.

That's a good objection to Asherlee's &quotrimitive" suggestion. I'll try to answer what I got out of her statement, and if she ends up coming on and posting and I'm just way off then we can ignore me
I think the major part of civilization with which Asherlee was concerned was technological advancements and scientific discovery. Before, we didn't have the tools needed to understand the world around us and the idea of god seemed like a reasonable explanation. Now that we have a clearer understanding of the natural world, physics, and our place in the universe we don't need God to explain things anymore.
This paradigm shift would still be really slow because a) people have a hard time letting go of their important beliefs, and rightly so! and, b) the information we have needed in order to "do away" with a god is really just now being synthesized; there are still plenty of people who reject evolution!
You're right in that you can't make "being good" your religion because that phrase has no meaning without certain maxims attached to it. But really the only difference I see between standard religious morality (if there is such a thing) and being a good person that follows certain imperatives is worshiping a god.

I need to get off, have to get up early... but first-

I can understand what you two mean, that before we didn't have technology to explain some things, so God seemed like a reasonable answer. But when I look at all the facts of evolution, I am still not satisfied, as I find many things incoherient with 'scientific facts', as that is what evolution is supposed to be based on - the facts. Granted, not saying that Christianity solves/answers everything, but it still seems more reliable. Way back when it was written (we all can agree it was before we had really any advanced technology, correct?) the Bible states that the life is in the blood (now proven true), that the earth is round (when at that time it was supposedly flat), that a queen ant actually leads all the male ants (when at that time males dominated the society), and that the stars are incredibly far away from earth (in a time where telescopes were just barely being invented, in not invented yet).

I still don't see how evolution disproves God. Can evolution not simply be HOW God did it? His ways are not for us to understand, and simply stating that He can't exist is like me trying to prove beyond a doubt that He DOES exist - it's all in what one person believes. I believe God exists and is watching us, and has left his fingerprint in many places. I believe evolution is simply the explanation for HOW God created things. It is in no way disproving God - Charles Darwin himself even said something like that... but I'd have to go and search to find exactly how he put it. Still, I don't believe my religious beliefs to be falsified, and science should simply work WITH religion instead of trying to disprove it.

True. Even the big bang theory is mentioned in religions. Something or the other about everything being one or imploded together.

Also, some things Science goes along disproving. For example, If god made Adam and Eve, he certainly didn't make them a bit more of a "Pre evolution" human being. That would evolve in about 600 years and become the Alpha Pack creature to lead the world to this day.

BTW -- Who's Charles Darwin? o.O

The fact is, First God is believed as "Adam and Eve, born and made, first 2 humans, on earth. Smart, able to start life as we know it". If that is such, then how come god has NOW apparently evolved humans.

Its the change thats getting everyone. If the Christian/Jewish/Anything Higher power created it with evolution or not. Obviously, before people just believed that Adam and Eve were born with the skills to live and take on life as nomads, until we altered it with thought and techonological advances.

Charles Darwin is the guy credited with formulating the principles for the current popularly accepted theory of evolution.

That said, having read the history in-depth, it was more like Darwin didn't do most of the legwork, some of his methodology was dodgy, and his name is touted throughout the scientific community merely because he was in the right place at the right time.

No matter!

You find problems in History, but when a mans name is written down into it, theres no way of snatching it out.

Anyway, to the technological advances thing, When people back then didn't know about the world around them couldn't ANYTHING seem like a reasonable answer? Some fell to it others didn't. Those others were either 1) As you say fools that just accepted god as an swer.
2) Or had a reason, a justifiable answer that they had seen and wished to spread on. Because they hadn't fallen to worshipping a son or a stone. They had tooken a path they've seen with their eyes. People that wished to spread this so that lives could be holy and people are justified.

Christianity is thought to be a sect of Judaism, which grew so strong that it cracked in reformation.
Same thing, Judaism is considered to be Jews after they kept changing the torahs and ideas.
Even Islam was considered "A bunch of mixses with the true and righeous facts from the Torah".

As it goes, Our Religious history DEFINES our belief. I could say the muslims belief, but then again that would be controversial to a christian person, witha different history.

Its based on faith. Faith is the drive to belief. If everything was based on science, then our faith would be a lie. If Jesus was fake, the story would be neglected. As science cannot, will not prove all. And has no historical record of doing so. Unlike god.

Now, I was going to synthesise my own response to all this, but it would have been a stretch and I have to go already T_T In brief, I was going to remind everybody of the politics at stake here- the import of the various connotations in such words as "rational" as opposed to "spiritual", what with its mythical, mystical connections.

However I'm also talking to a friend who, coincidentally, wrote a post which is surprisingly relevant to this thread, and furthermore, freakishly encapsulates what I was planning to write regarding this 'compartmentalisation'.

Without further ado then: http://strawcat.livejournal.com/103757.html

Warning- it's lengthy and because it was written independently of this discussion, the particulars may be tangential.

Argh, damnit, the link broke.

http://strawcat.livejournal.com/103757.html

Well, maybe I have been coming at this from the wrong angle. I am not trying to prove Christianity is right, as there are many forms of this religion, most of which are distorted from what it was originally meant to be. I am trying to show my point that the Bible is correct; a true Christian only believes what the Bible says, not what some priest or some so-called 'religious' leader says. And some of you might say, 'That is just a book written up to explain things before we have technology'. How then, was it so advanced for it's time, if just plain old human beings had written it (see my last post for examples)? The Bible does not explain everything (no duh there) and it is not a scientic textbook, but whenever it does speak on science, every word it says is correct. So technically, the Bible is more scientifically correct than evolution, as I could go on and on as why evolution is not scientific and has many faults that can break it down.

As for evolution and God coinciding, it may work with some religions, but an evolutionist will still never believe that. Do you know why? The reason someone believes evolution is because they do not want to have to submit to a god when they die, not because it is 'scientifically' accurate, because it is not.

First, I'd like to point out that saying evolution isn't scientifically accurate just isn't cogent. We are far more in the ballpark with evolutionary theories than anything else has gotten us.
I would also like to point out that even if you accept that the books that are in the bible were divinely inspired or written by God, the inclusion and exclusion of books into the bible was a clear human event and not divinely inspired. If, however, you insist that the Councils of Nicea and the inclusion of certain books in the bible was also divinely inspired, the the deity who wrote the books as erred - something which a perfect god should try to avoid.
I'm not sure the scientific data in bible to which you're referring, but there are plenty of historical accuracies. That being said, there are some logical fallacies also. If god didn't make the sun and moon until the third day, then how were the first and second days defined?
Even though there might be some typos or outdated information in a science text, there is far more legitimate information there than in the bible - but the bible's objective is to tell a story, not to convince people of that story's truth or to teach about scientific theories.
Aristotle's concept of the "teleos" held fast for quite a long time as have many of his other writings. Does that make him correct? I hope not!
I don't believe evolution because I'm trying to avoid god, in fact the two don't have to be mutually exclusive. Both atheism and evolution are the most rational concepts for me. I really wish there was a god or that I at least believed in one sometimes, but the lack of evidence is overwhelming.

Just throwing a guess. First day was all dark, a day is earth revolving on its axis, has NOTHING to do wif the sun. :P [According to "Scientolofigic Dictionary terms"]

I'm trying to prove one thing though, One peice of evidence is that its been passed down for long. Or else where else would we have gotten this all from? It also doesn't seem logical to say someone made up a story and influenced and dramatically changed the lives of over a billion people.
Also, when the bible tells that story, it is for the reader to learn a lesson. Not for the reader to think their reading the next big fantasy book by shakespear. [Hopefully, no body does, either. xP]
I've never heard of any logical fallacies.
Also, Science text = Theory. Aristotle's concept of the "telos" whatever that was may have been wrong [Guessing by your text] but then again, he didn't have much proof for it.
Science doesn't have proof for its rational theory, either. If DNA is all that means, then we may be 98% To an ape but were also 75% to a chicken. Now explaint to me how a chicken evolves into an ape. :P
In atheism you get no where, believing you were born straight out into a never ending world with no concept of how to live or go anywhere, and all you end up with may be, luckily, a good life if you learn how to live on your own. [Hard to do]. So thats something where you're basically lost spiritually, and if your atheists parents don't teach you well or not give you enough time, also morally. Then you're stuck.
It ends up like even though theres lack of evidence nowadays, theres more evidence in what I'm saying then science.
It could be true we may have been rather hairyer and less "Civilized/Cultured" All those years back, but as far as anyone else knows all those people were still humans. They could differ some silly story to truth. The lack of evidence is overwhelming across the table.

The &quotassing it down" argument:
I brought in Aristotle to show that just because stories have been around for thousands of years (and Aristotle was before Christianity and Judaism) doesn't give it inherent credence. I also pointed out that the story itself and the way in which it's presented have changed dramatically to mesh with the times.

As far as the logical fallacies, or inconsistencies:
The earth spinning around on its axis relative to the sun is the definition of one day. You can't just pick a point in space and rotate and call that a day. Also in the bible it says something like "...and the evening and night were the nth day." And while you might have a definition for what a day is without a sun, there certainly isn't a definition for evening or night without a sun.

DNA and Evolution:
I brought this point up on another thread, but basically it comes down to the following: DNA has TONS of sequences in it - I was just trying to look up how many, but suffice it to say, there are a lot. Consider 1% of this huge number - it becomes incredibly significant, not to mention chromosome structure, number, and arrangement. Each animal we see now can be traced back to common ancestors, but many of these such as chicken and apes might not have a common ancestor until very early on.

On Atheism:
I don't believe we are born into a "never ending world." Our existence is finite and filled with suffering, so I try to live my life in a manner that reduces my suffering and I try to not do anything that will make others suffer more. You just don't need religion to be able to live a healthy and productive life. And the money and time I save by not going to church or praying I can waste playing games

When you say "They could differ some silly story to truth" what I understood what that they might have differed an original story until it actually got right. If we take this approach then 1) we have demonstrated Religion's man made creating and 2) truth becomes an accidental shifting of an old story.

The Bible was written by man through God. The books in the actual Bible were selected by a group of people within the church. Bah, the church. But even still, most of the books thrown out were nonsensical accounts that existed only to create doubt in Christianity. The ones that made sense that were thrown out were only thrown out because they didn't fit in chronologically with the current Bible - IE, the Lives of Adam and Eve. It would have to fit in after Genesis, but that'd change the order of things, which were generally arranged by time written.