why Religions?

[the thinker]

I think that people need something to have faith, and that's why religion exists. I don't agree that organized religion is necessairily good. I mean, it can be, but by no means always is. Sadly, it rarely is, and often is used to control people, which sucks.

That's why I'm an agnostic and why I choose to believe in philosohy to keep me going rather than religion. With religion, it seems more like you're accepting someone else's ideas (not that this is always bad, of course!), and with philosophy, it's like you're taking old questions and applying your own beliefs to them, not someone else's. That's just my opinion, though!

[de Silentio]

That's why I'm an agnostic and why I choose to believe in philosophy to keep me going rather than religion. With religion, it seems more like you're accepting someone else's ideas (not that this is always bad, of course!), and with philosophy, it's like you're taking old questions and applying your own beliefs to them, not someone else's. That's just my opinion, though!

The problem I have with some people and religion is that they don't take the outlook you described here. Like you said, they just accept what they hear at face value.

Faith becomes so much more when one starts asking questions. Even theology isn't technically philosophy, they are closely related in their endeavors.

It is imperative that our faith have strong support, and there is no better support than the certainty that one gets from asking questions.

------

I hope it is okay that I posted in this area even though I don't meet the age requirement.

[Paradox1]

Originally Posted by Wizzy

Hi Benjamin and fellow european

I'm what people call an atheist, which means as you seem to do, I don't belive in any higher supernatural fairytale god or the easterbunny.

The main reason why religion work is simple, fear. Fear of death, fear of hell, fear of gods wrath, fear of what comes after death, fear to be on your own in a evil world and most of all fear of "what if they're right?". Also simple things like to refuse to realize that we aren't here to serve a higher cause or not beeing able to accept how mankind came to from other creatures as evolution have enourmous evidence to prove makes religion go around.

And for why children often stay in the same religion as their parents are simple propaganda (people are gonna hate me now) and brainwashing as they are told from the day that they are born how their religion see the world and how it was created, makes them say grace and pray for new things, then reward them with the thing they prayed for while the parents don't understand that they have been manipulated into manipulating. And if somebody claimed that everything you had ever known, that your picture of the world that makes so much sense with flawed logic and no proof apart from some book, which they see as proof, not as the fantasy novel it is. So simply: parents trick their children into beliving in something just because they belive in it.

This is ofcourse just my conclusions and theorys...
Hope I helped

*Edit
Don't know if I should have answerd in the young people forum, Justin, if I shouldn't have, tell me would you?

Well, I just got into this forum, down to this section, saw a thread that interested me, and the second answer was my thoughts exactly, with a few subtle differences.

I agree with the whole fear thing - Christianity is based on the fear that if you do not follow, or you are excommunicated or whatever, you will go to this horribly bad place where you're in eternal pain and demons play bowling with your head and that.

I'm personally atheist, and the way I see this is God saying "Here, children, you can do anything and everything you want, I've given you this entire world to play on, don't make a mess. Any sin, I'll forgive you. In fact, I'll send family to die for you. BUT! ONE THING! Break any of these ten rules (Commandments) and you will be sent down, into my basement, for all eternity, where you shall suffer endless amounts of pain and suffering.

I believe that children aren't tricked, as such, but conform out of young age, ignorance, and .. being too young to understand. As infants (and young children) you typically look up to parental figures, you learn your language off them, your behavioural skills are mimicry of theirs, so naturally their beliefs will become your beliefs, this is all I have for now but I shall try to contribute soon.

[de Silentio]

Paradox1, thanks for posting.

Christianity is based on the fear that if you do not follow, or you are excommunicated or whatever, you will go to this horribly bad place where you're in eternal pain and demons play bowling with your head and that.

When you say based on, do you mean founded on? Because I would say that Christianity is founded on the teachings of Jesus and his followers. Hell is a consequence, not the driving force. From what I remember of the Bible itself, the focus is on living the life of a Christian and entering Heaven, not on going to Hell.

If you mean that Christianity today is based on the fear of going to Hell, I will again say that the focus is not on Hell, it is on living the life in and with Christ. A good Christian lives the Christian life because they love God, not because He will punish them.

Any sin, I'll forgive you. In fact, I'll send family to die for you. BUT! ONE THING! Break any of these ten rules (Commandments) and you will be sent down, into my basement, for all eternity

This statement seems contradictory.

[Paradox1]

Originally Posted by de Silentio

Paradox1, thanks for posting.

A good Christian lives the Christian life because they love God, not because He will punish them.

Not all Christians are good Christians.

But thankyou for your other points, in future I'll rethink what/how I state things.

[VideCorSpoon]

Hmmm… I don’t see how anyone can call themselves an atheist.

To call oneself an atheist is to assert “I believe in not-god,” that is, that god does not exist as a fundamental truth as Christians believes. But doesn’t this seem problematic to anyone, yet alone ironic? Atheists in a way deify the idea of “no-god” the way a religious person would deify the idea of “god.”

One would think it would be more rational to call oneself agnostic rather than atheist. The most fundamental statement atheists assert is “prove the existence of god?” Christians could respond by asking “how can you not prove the existence of god.” Thus regressum ad infinitum. Point is… no one really knows or has proof… but both rely on the concept of faith. Temporal beings may never reach a point where we could actually “prove it,” so both parties, religious or atheistic, rely on faith to guide their convictions on god, and whether or not that being exists. GASP!!! Faith as a fundamental, underlying assumption of both the religious and the atheist!!!! Religiousness and atheism are basically the same, faith in conviction, but only wear different masks to prove their points.

But it seems to me the biggest beef with atheists (on this forum anyway) is “control,” or whether it be in this world or the next. Faith and freedom???

[Wizzy]

Originally Posted by VideCorSpoon

Hmmm… I don’t see how anyone can call themselves an atheist.

To call oneself an atheist is to assert “I believe in not-god,” that is, that god does not exist as a fundamental truth as Christians believes. But doesn’t this seem problematic to anyone, yet alone ironic? Atheists in a way deify the idea of “no-god” the way a religious person would deify the idea of “god.”

One would think it would be more rational to call oneself agnostic rather than atheist. The most fundamental statement atheists assert is “prove the existence of god?” Christians could respond by asking “how can you not prove the existence of god.” Thus regressum ad infinitum. Point is… no one really knows or has proof… but both rely on the concept of faith. Temporal beings may never reach a point where we could actually “prove it,” so both parties, religious or atheistic, rely on faith to guide their convictions on god, and whether or not that being exists. GASP!!! Faith as a fundamental, underlying assumption of both the religious and the atheist!!!! Religiousness and atheism are basically the same, faith in conviction, but only wear different masks to prove their points.

But it seems to me the biggest beef with atheists (on this forum anyway) is “control,” or whether it be in this world or the next. Faith and freedom???

Well, I see your point that athiests have faith in that there is no god but what I don't understand is the two arguments about proving back and forward.

It doesn't really matter if -for an example- I can't prove that there isn't a god, because you can't prove that there is one and because you have to doubt anything until it's proven or have proof to back up that theory and to tell you the truth it's pretty hard to prove that something doesn't exsist.

If I would claim that unicorns exsist but we just doesn't know that they exsist because you can't capture them and they are invisible but one of them presented themselves to me because I'm speciall, I might even get a few witnesses to back up my story for a few bucks.. How would you go about to prove me wrong? Or even: how would you prove me wrong 2000 years from now?

The point is that..
• I don't belive in a god, and that's just common sense because of the massive lack of evidence to back it up while there's a lot of evidence to back up for instance the evolution theory which is the opposit of the christian creationism theory.
• I'm convinced that there isn't a god because of the world around me. Why would people starve if there would be somebody that would stop it in seconds? Why would there be evil in the world? And why would there be bad people, commiting bad deeds be able to live like kings while good people, commiting good deeds are able to live like suckers? Karma should be real if god is real.

The first point isn't really philosophy, it's just as I said, common sense to doubt anything that isn't proven or have proof to back up the theory. The second one is philosophical because I don't have any real proof, just scenarios and facts to draw conclusions from..

[de Silentio]

• I don't belive in a god, and that's just common sense because of the massive lack of evidence to back it up while there's a lot of evidence to back up for instance the evolution theory which is the opposit of the christian creationism theory.

Evolution explains how life evolved after it had already began, but cannot explain how life started. In fact, I don't think science can at all explain how life started, but I could be wrong.

Creationism can incorporate evolution. Not a literal translation of the creation that is in the Bible, but one must remember that the Bible is not the only 'book' that God gave man.

[de Silentio]

Not all Christians are good Christians.

You are correct, but are they then Christians?

It seems that we must have a method for determining if someone is a Christian before we call them a Christian or not. For, I would say that someone who believes in the Son of Man, but does not love and obey him, and in fact hates him, is not a Christian.

[VideCorSpoon]

Wizzy,

The religious worship god the way the atheistic worship no god. The two embody concepts that are similar in all respects except the entity of god. The atheist and the religious operate at extreme ends of the same spectrum.

And because we can neither prove nor disprove the existence or non-existence of god, it is prudent and rational to assume that God might or might not exist. One can no more prove there is no god than proving there was one.

To address your points;

1.That you do not believe in god is not common sense because you are substituting god for no god. It would be like substituting Christianity for Buddhism. That there is a lot of evidence to support atheism is nonexistent. It would be as impossible to disprove the existence of god then it would be to prove gods existence. Also, science and empirical observation have a built in disclaimer in every notion, and that is that evolution, relativity, etc are “theories” and just that. When it is said it is a theory, it is no law, it is merely the most reasonable hypothesis available taking into account variables that cannot be explained. (Also, it is very much a philosophical point you make)

2.That you are convinced there is no god because of the world around you is problematic. We all can admit there are things in the world that we cannot explain. Because we cannot explain them, does this mean they do not exist? Yet unexplainable things do exist and we do not discount them. Many people adopt the notion of god to fill in the blank so to speak for the unexplainable.

Why would there be starving people when an entity exists that would stop it in seconds? I would be disappointed in an all perfect being that mended in an imperfect world that should by all means have been perfect in the first place. Suffice to say, that’s not Gods job. Thats human corruption. Why would there be evil? What better way to understand good than to contrast with evil. Both must exist to accentuate the other. Why do bad people reap the rewards while good people suffer? That’s life… god doesn’t have any part in that… that’s human corruption, not gods inaction.