What if billions of people are wrong?

[udonoogen]

<< You're assuming that the story is true, which it isn't. It was put in the Bible to remind people what will happen to them if they stop believing in God. >>



debatable. personally, i dont think its right to assert that it was fictionally placed into the Bible to illustrate something just because you dont think it didn't happen



<< Did you know what the reason most believers continue to believe is fear? It's true, they just refuse to admit it. But they also refuse to stop believing because they are terrified of facing the consequences, whether in this life or the next. >>



genuine believers believe because there is truth

 

[silveronsilver]

The purpose of religion was to scare ignorant prehistoric people so that they would not commit crimes.

Since law enforcement was clearly insufficient thousands of years ago, religious myths were meant to serve as a deterrent.

This, it achieved to an extent. So it would be wrong to say that religion had no purpose.

However, it is quite amazing to see how religion still fools the masses in our age of scientific enlightenment and capable law enforcement. There is no more a practical need for religion, yet more and more suckers are taken in every day. It is a damn shame and a sad commentary on the average intelligence of society.

 

[Yzzim]

<<

<< You're assuming that the story is true, which it isn't. It was put in the Bible to remind people what will happen to them if they stop believing in God. Did you know what the reason most believers continue to believe is fear? It's true, they just refuse to admit it. But they also refuse to stop believing because they are terrified of facing the consequences, whether in this life or the next. >>

Thank you! I was just about to say that >>



I still want to see this proof. A book, a magazine article, a website. Something.

*taps foot*

 

[tcsenter]

Either way, any way you cut it, several hundred million people are wrong, or a few billion people are wrong, since most of the world's pop seems to have some religion or another. I hold no advanced degree in theology, but neither am I ignorant about such things. I try to stay out of these threads because I really have nothing to say to those folks who use "because God's word says" as an argument. That means nothing to me. The Bible was written by men, allegedly "inspired" God, but still written by men. You might as well justify an argument by invoking the author of any book..."because Tom Clancy said so".

Serious religious scholars, intelligent thinking people who have dedicated most of their adult life studying theology and the Bible, often disagree, sometimes heatedly, about the way the Bible should be interpreted. The differences in their interpretations are often not small, they can be fundamentally different. Then you have the issue of "the one true religion" in a world where a half dozen distinctly different and age-old religions are practiced, each of those having their own various denominations, many of which differ in fundamental ways.

It all, on its face, seems like an absurd farce. What God would have given to the world "His word" that is so open to fundamental and expansive differences of interpretation, about which people who dedicate their lives to understand can not agree? If He meant for that to happen, then there can be no rational explanation for it other than He INTENDED for there to be the fullest range of opinion and interpretation, up to an including atheism.

 

[Elledan]

<< i would make a slight change to your thesis and say that civilizations require motivation for people to conform to its rules. religion is one, related to religion is perhaps idealism, then force, etc. that is, civilizations certainly requires something to keep people in line, but not necessarily religion. although it is the most easily established and maintained. (whereas force is easily established but not maintained) >>

Like you said in your last sentence, religions are the most easily established and maintained ideologies in a developing civilization.

First of all, this ideology a developing civilization requires must be an intolerant one, otherwise it would not be rigid enough. Differences in opinion would quickly tear the society apart. The only intolerant ideologies I'm aware of are religions and racism (perhaps I forgot one, though). Since racism is quite hard to introduce in a developing civilization and due to the lack of success of such an ideology (racism against a neighbouring civilization isn't a bright idea), mostly because racism doesn't provide people with a set of acceptable ethics, ways to determine and judge 'criminals' etc., only religions remain.

The rules are determined by the religion, the religion determines what is acceptable and what is not (ethics), it also gives clues on how to punish those who refuse to obey the rules as described by the religion.

In short, it's an How-To on constructing a civilization. Due the rigid (intolerant) nature of religions, it provides the civilization with a strong foundation. As long as the majority believes in the ideology, the civilization will thrive.

 

[joohang]

First of all:


<< The purpose of religion was to scare ignorant prehistoric people so that they would not commit crimes. >>


"Prehistoric" people refer to those who lived in the era with no written historical records. I think you mean "premodern" people, however you define that.



<< Since law enforcement was clearly insufficient thousands of years ago, religious myths were meant to serve as a deterrent. >>




<< This, it achieved to an extent. So it would be wrong to say that religion had no purpose. >>


Where is the basis for such argument? Insufficient? Really? Ever heard of China's Qin dynasty and their Legalist system? It worked extremely effectively, probably even better than North America today.

There is, however, one effective function of religion from the state's (as in the central government) point of view. The ruler or the ruling class could justify their legitimacy of rule through ritual hegemony. In the case of Europe, it was the king's direct relations with the Pope, and indirect relations with God. In China, it was the Emperor's link between Heaven and Earth in order to maintain harmony - his ability to perform rituals were also considered very important. And I don't think this was a government conspiracy to fool people in any way. People believed in this system as much as engineers and scientists believe in modern theories.



<< However, it is quite amazing to see how religion still fools the masses in our age of scientific enlightenment and capable law enforcement. There is no more a practical need for religion, yet more and more suckers are taken in every day. It is a damn shame and a sad commentary on the average intelligence of society. >>


I personally am not affiliated with any religion, but I believe that it is too absurd to dismiss the role of religion to that extent.

Let me just add an off-topic comment: did you know that Western science advanced dramatically during the early modern period because of religion?

 

[udonoogen]

<< Serious religious scholars, intelligent thinking people who have dedicated most of their adult life studying theology and the Bible, often disagree, sometimes heatedly, about the way the Bible should be interpreted. The differences in their interpretations are often not small, they can be fundamentally different. Then you have the issue of "the one true religion" in a world where a half dozen distinctly different and age-old religions are practiced, each of those having their own various denominations, many of which differ in fundamental ways. >>



you're discrediting the Bible with the same argument that you used in the paragraph before ... because the writers were only men. these scholars, too, are only men. interpret it how you'd like ... but the truly core concepts of Christianity remain the same for most mainstream scholars. it is these pillars of the faith that separate mainstream from "not mainstream." same goes for denominations. for the most part ... they all got the story right. =)



<< What God would have given to the world "His word" that is so open to fundamental and expansive differences of interpretation, about which people who dedicate their lives to understand can not agree? If He meant for that to happen, then there can be no rational explanation for it other than He INTENDED for there to be the fullest range of opinion and interpretation, up to an including atheism. >>



I don't agree that there can be substantially correct fundamental differences in interpretation. it is true that there are differences in interpretation ... as to what was cultural and what was not ... what was figurative and what was not. however, most of these disagreements are considerably minor in comparison to Jesus Christ on the cross. that's whats most important.

i dont think the Bible could ever possibly encompass atheism.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I love these threads. Usually posts are made to the tone of "This is how it is, and others are sick/devious/misled" or the like. Ok for those who "know" - Where did you get your special knowlege? I am agnostic too, but I know a number of Christians. They are what I consider to be fine people and that is what pisses me off here. I let them believe what they will. Why should I try to "enlighten" them, when I don't have the answers.

1.) Why make money when all we need to do is accept Jesus to go to heaven?
2.) Why should we bother living if there is a better afterlife?
3.) Whether we're succesful or not is NOT up to us...it is already predetermined

Let's see how these folks I know would look at each of these points.

1) They do believe they need to accept Jesus. And they need to eat, have a home etc. But perhaps having the most toys before you die isn't the most important thing. They believe bad things like doing to others as they would be want to be treated. Horrible concept. They should be screwing everyone else over. perhaps?
2) Life is a GIFT. That's why you have it. So be careful how you treat yours and others. The fact that you get to continue after is not seen as a negative to these people. They get to be more than rotting meat.
3) Define success. Success = money and power? What good is that to you in a hundred years? Perhaps success is how you treat others. That you love your neighbor as yourself. Take care of your family. Anyway, YOUR life is not predetermined. Humans are free agents. You make your choices, and have to live with the consequences.

Geeze people. Think before you post. If you know nothing it shows. You can post a topic like this. It's ok to debate things, but be a little more considerate and aware of what others actually believe and feel, and not what you think they should so you can put them in a little box to berate them.

By the way I was not picking on Bruin by selecting his points, but they are representative of posts around here.

 

[jjones]

<< I am an agnostic so i even though i am leaning towards atheism, i can't say that god doesn't exist for certain. So what IF he doesn't? Then billions of people are wrong, misled, mistaken, lost. That would make religion the biggest mistake in the history of humanity. Picture how much trouble we've gone through because of it. Most of it is ancient history, but recent events, such as the attacks of September 11th are spawned by religion (an extreme interpritation of it that is). Imagine how much time Muslims spend praying. Several hours a day, for their entire lives, billions of people. We're talking astronimical numbers here, quadrillions of man-hours wasted. Scary. Just a thought >>


for me, the origin and development of religion is simple. as has already been said, it is a means to explain the unexplainable. it is a leap of faith born amidst the comprehension of the world around us. all of us do this whether you are religious, agnostic, athiest or whatever; we all make a leap of faith at some point to give us answers to the questions without answers.

to me, there cannot be a world such as it is without religion. man has always sought to comprehend and explain the world around him and inevitably, as we fail in our understanding, a leap of faith must be made to explain that which we do not know. this will lead to groups of people who will make a similar leap of faith, hence the birth of religions, agnostics, athiests, etc.

are we wasting our time or are we wrong? i don't think any of us is wasting time or wrong in our beliefs, but that is just one of my leaps of faith.

 

[JohnCU]

Pascal's Wager: it is in one's best interest to believe in God. You really have nothing to lose, and everything to gain if infact God is real.

 

[Gorgonzola]

<< Modern religion has shaped the modern world in so many ways. Religions shaped the geographical, political, and economic status of the world and with out religion the world would be vastly different. >>



yes without religion there would be less wars.

 

[Pastore]

<< yes without religion there would be less wars. >>



the bible has shaped our entire system of laws, and brought to us many different things that no other literature has...

whether you believe in God is irrelevant, the Bible has shaped this world as we know it... you cant deny that

 

[911paramedic]

All people need something to believe in, or have faith, in something. It can be God or it can be your pursuit of success, but all people need something to believe in.

I myself don't go to church but if it makes you feel better to go, more power to you. I think that whatever works for you, do it, just don't blame me or put me down because I don't...

I don't call you uninformed or wrong for going to church, so don't tell me I am uninformed or wrong for not going.

Most wars are due to differences in religion or beliefs, whats the point?

 

[Riprorin]

<< So what IF he doesn't (exisit)? >>



What if He does? Ever considered that concept?

 

[tcsenter]

<< you're discrediting the Bible with the same argument that you used in the paragraph before ... because the writers were only men. >>

You misunderstand my position. I don't need to "discredit" the Bible, no more than you would need to discredit me if I claimed I was Jesus Christ. It was in fact written by men, a good portion of it several hundred years AFTER Christ. That is not open to dispute, and I said it only to explain the reasons I have no desire to enter religious discussions.

"How do you know there is a God?"

"Because the Bible says so."

"But, the Bible is just a book."

"No, its the Word of God."

"How do you know its the 'Word of God'?"

"Because the Bible says so."

"But you do agree the Bible was written by men?"

"Sure, but these men were inspired by God."

"How do you know?"

"Because the Bible says so."

Perfect circular reasoning. It is with these people I have no desire to converse or debate. They're like...Stepford Wives or something. Zombies - "must...eat...flesh" "Bible...says...so".

<< these scholars, too, are only men. interpret it how you'd like ... but the truly core concepts of Christianity remain the same for most mainstream scholars. >>

Part of the dispute is indeed over what are in fact "truly core concepts of Christianity". You can pick and chose which concepts you wish to deem "truly core" to Christianity according to those "mainstream" scholars you agree with - that is the point. More to the point, those areas on which scholars agree do not magically erase or make irrelevant all of those points scholars DISAGREE.

<< it is these pillars of the faith that separate mainstream from "not mainstream." same goes for denominations. for the most part ... they all got the story right >>

For the most part? lol! Well, if its good enough for horseshoes and hand grenades...

<< I don't agree that there can be substantially correct fundamental differences in interpretation. >>

Serious scholars who have spent most of their adult lives studying this issue disagree with you. You can dismiss or rationalize this, heck you can even pretend it isn't true, if you want. Your choice.

<< i dont think the Bible could ever possibly encompass atheism. >>

No, the Bible doesn't (because it was meant to discourage dissent and encourage conformity).

I concluded based on the logic of it all that, if there WERE a God, and the Bible WAS a product of his inspiration, there can be no other rational conclusion than He DELIBERATELY intended there to be the fullest range of debate and interpretation because the entire affair is such a far-fetched and fantastic proposition. It seems to me that a God would have, if he were "all knowing", or at least should have, left for his "children" something more compelling than "bible...says...so".

 

[Elledan]

<< Pascal's Wager: it is in one's best interest to believe in God. You really have nothing to lose, and everything to gain if infact God is real. >>

That would equal gambling: which religions do you choose? Which one do you think is right?

You can choose only one religion... or create your own religion

 

[Elledan]

<<

<< yes without religion there would be less wars. >>



the bible has shaped our entire system of laws, and brought to us many different things that no other literature has...

whether you believe in God is irrelevant, the Bible has shaped this world as we know it... you cant deny that >>

Not just the bible.... Christianity is just one of many religions which once flourished (or still flourish) on this planet.

 

[Lucky]

Imagine how much time Muslims spend praying. Several hours a day, for their entire lives, billions of people




Muslims dont pray for hours each day. They pray 5 times a day, IIRC, but that doesnt mean they pray for hours. thats ridiculous.

 

[Elledan]

<<

<< So what IF he doesn't (exisit)? >>



What if He does? Ever considered that concept? >>

How about making the only possible choice: that there's no way to prove or disprove the existance of supernatural being/forces.

Agnosticism doesn't require blind faith, like atheism and theism, which are actually the same thing, except for one minor difference.

 

[Elledan]

<< Elledan - Not sure if you know it, but Revelations says something similar to your last statement:

"Some centuries later, depending on the acquired knowledge (curiosity; science), those who still blindly follow any of the intolerant ideologies will become a minority. They won't disappear for a long time, but their influence on society has become almost non-existant."


More and more people will stop believing in God. That's what was predicted in Revelations. Once that happens, the end is near but not quite. (Matthew 24)

Usually I don't take part in these threads, but I just found that quite interesting. >>

And because we're all getting scared now, we'll all start believe in what all Christian religions tell us?
How about the 'end-of-the-world' stories of other religions? Are we supposed to get scared too if something which happens now or in the future coincides with such a 'prediction'?

Sorry, I'm not really superstitious

 

[MustangSVT]

humans think they are so special

:Q

not that im some kind of an alien or something,..

 

[Murphyrulez]

I think the scary question would be, "What if the agnostics are WRONG and there IS a God?"

What does it hurt to believe in God? Nothing bad happens to you here on earth, and you goto heaven.

On the other hand. You don't believe in God. Nothing bad happens to you here on earth, but you spend eternal damnation in hell.

Hmmmmm... Let's see, which of those two is the better choice???

You would rather risk hell than change your lifestyle a little bit?

Smart folks, those agnostics.

 

[Elledan]

<< I think the scary question would be, "What if the agnostics are WRONG and there IS a God?"

What does it hurt to believe in God? Nothing bad happens to you here on earth, and you goto heaven.

On the other hand. You don't believe in God. Nothing bad happens to you here on earth, but you spend eternal damnation in hell.

Hmmmmm... Let's see, which of those two is the better choice???

You would rather risk hell than change your lifestyle a little bit?

Smart folks, those agnostics. >>


- I think you mean atheists.

- I already pointed out the idiocy of this reasoning in an earlier post (Pascal's Wager).

 

[Xenon14]

The agnostic viewpoint poses as fair, impartial, and balanced. See how many fallacies you can find in it. Here are a few obvious ones:

First, the agnostic allows the arbitrary into the realm of human cognition. He treats arbitrary claims as ideas proper to consider, discuss, evaluate- and then he regretfully says, "I don't know," instead of dismissing the arbitrary out of hand.

Second, the onus-of-proof issue: the agnostic demands proof of a negative in a context where there is no evidence the positive. "It is up to you," he says, "to prove that the fourth moon of Jupiter did not cause your sex life and that it was not a result of your previous incarnation as the Pharaoh of Egypt."

Third, the agnostic says, "Maybe these things will one day be proved." In other words, he asserts possibilities or hypotheses with no jot of evidential basis.

The agnostic miscalculates. He thinks he is avoiding any position that will antagonize anybody. In fact, he is taking a position which is much more irrational than that of a man who takes a definite but mistaken stand on a given issue.

 

[Time2Kill]

<<

<< Modern religion has shaped the modern world in so many ways. Religions shaped the geographical, political, and economic status of the world and with out religion the world would be vastly different. >>



yes without religion there would be less wars. >>



You really think so? Without religion, what reason would there be to be nonviolent?