Why believe in religion?

No, I recognize the difference between a diest and a thiest, especially in the case of men like Socrates. He used no heavenly rules, he held no sacrificial traditions, he did not rely upon faith at all, and did not ascribe himself to any doctrine. That is no religious piety in the sense normally attributed. The religious continually try to swell their ranks with people who want nothing to do with them. It was done with Socrates, Einstein, Spinoza and many others, and it is pathetic.

Yes, lol, GS needs the old atheist vs. theist threads back.

They were always entertaining.

I just did.....

Cause they think they're right.

They are more happy though. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/religion-is-a-sure-route-to-true-happiness/2014/01/23/f6522120-8452-11e3-bbe5-6a2a3141e3a9_story.html

Oops...

http://www.cbc.ca/newsblogs/yourcommunity/2013/09/religious-believers-more-depressed-than-atheists-study.html

that's a blog.

Yeah, I am far better off not believing in the religion I was brought up into (baptist christian), considering I dont have the yoke of perpetual shame for my "fallen nature".

@still_vicious: your right and they keep the activity up in OT.

On topic I find it hard to fathom why people believe in this modern day, I can't give reasons for it because I don't understand.

We humans are a complex species.

Religion comes from an age when humans had neither the cognitive comprehension or knowledge to understand science and the only way to explain things was to create an "almighty" being.

I find it incredible that seemingly normal, everyday people "believe" in completely made up, created garbage. Fairy tales.

How can you believe in a god but not believe in ghosts/fairys/Santa/vampires/good women drivers/werewolves/easter bunny.

I can't understand why anybody would believe in something that has no empirical evidence whatsover. I also don't understand how believing in something as ridiculous as an almighty deity that could smite you whenever they wanted, gives little babies bone cancer, causes murder, rape and other atrocities would make you feel better about life. With not one single provable documented piece of evidence to prove otherwise.

But I would fight for your right to believe in whatever nonsense you want, just keep it to yourself. Nobody else needs to know what you believe.

People believe because of faith. Simple as that. And if there is no God or(in my case) Christ. So what? Who am I really harming? So I spend 10%(at least) of my income on public works, thrive to live righteously, love my brother, and try to repent when I do generally bad things.

Does it REALLY matter that I worship with other like minded people and espouse my beliefs to my children? I just don't get why religious people get so much flak.

Because they are hell-bent on having their beliefs enshrined above all others. See: The continuing fight against gay rights, abortion, evolution, etc. If they would keep it among themselves we wouldn't have a problem. But that just can't be, can it?

And I wish they'd stop knocking on my fucking door. How many times do I have to curse them out for them to get the fucking message? I'm about to develop an 'accidental short' in my doorbell. Maybe even over-volt it a bit. I have a 'No Trespassing, No soliciting' sign but they must not be literate.

Also stupid shit like this instead of taking care of business: http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/04/15/474344921/bill-making-the-bible-an-official-state-book-is-vetoed-by-tennessee-governor

@sayyy-gaa:

My concern is the very premise of the belief/faith. Can you explain to me why you chose to believe and base your whole life on something that is basically a 2000 year old story book.

If I said I believed in "Powdered Toast man" and each Friday I could only eat Powdered toast and had to say "Hail the toast man" in a certain direction 14 times a day and had to always wear a piece of toast on my head would you think that was perfectly reasonable and you'd accept my beliefs without question, or would you think I was a bit nutty? Would you like to see special buildings erected so people could go and worship the Powdered Toast Man, maybe some public holidays to celebrate his toasting.

What if I just had a loose belief in the Powdered Toast man, and loosely lived my life according to his teachings would that be ok and respected by the world?

My religion would be just as valid any other

.......

If you read this and in the tiniest even slightest way think it's in any way anything less than Christianity/Hinduism/Islam(political Ideology)/Buddism/Morman....ism then you are a hypocrite.

As I said before though I believe anyone should be able to believe anything they want, it just genuinely concerns me that so many people believe in make believe.

I'm concerned for the future of the human race.

Tell that to Albert Einstein, Neil Tyson DeGrasse, Mark Twain, Richard Dawkins, Stephen Jay Gould, Penn Jillette etc.

How can one be religious when they don't believe in what religion teaches?

"When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” —Stephen F Roberts

@klunt_bumskrint: The thing is, if you worship Powdered Toast Man, then why should you even have to justify or explain that to anyone? There are lots of things I don't "get", such as people who are into bondage or people who like to dress up as animals and go to Furry conventions. But as long as they're keeping to themselves and not expecting me to go along with the stuff, why should I have to get it?

@MrGeezer: But they're NOT keeping it to themselves which is one of my points. When wars all over the world are carried out in the name of religion and people die, buildings thrown up in towns/cities, self employed people like me lose money because of things like Easter Bank holiday etc then yes I think you should justify its reason for being.

I'd rather have the truth than the warm fuzzies.

Actually, the vast majority of them most certainly ARE keeping it to themselves. Or do you think that most religious people are out there are starting wars or deciding what days are going to be holidays? If you have a beef with the religious people who are starting wars or molesting little boys, then fine. But it's not the job of the average believer who minds his own business to answer for that. Same as if I'm listening to a gangster rap song and someone comes up to me with some lecture about how gangsta culture is ruining the black community. I'd tell him to go **** off. I have a job, I follow the law, I stay away from drugs and gangs, so don't tell me that I'm supposed to answer for someone else's failings.

It would be if the spiritual were synonymous with religious and what has transpired is as you say, but I think that equally disappointing is claiming that all faithful people believe in the divine as you have condemned. It is an overgeneralization that I am not taking seriously.

Because Islam is the truth.

Are you REALLY blaming wars on religion? So no religion no wars? Do you really believe that? Buildings are thrown up for all kinds of reasons. Running groups have buildings to conduct business. Gamblers have casinos. Shoppers have malls. Sororities and fraternities have buildings to congregate. Why not the religious.

Holidays are celebrated by the nation and are not just religious based. Do you bemoan losing money on Veterans Day? Independence Day? MLK day? Everybody is not a supporter of the cause for these holidays but we still celebrate them? How does that differ from Christmas or Easter?

In short the will of the people in democratic nations are the only needed justification. When the will changes and our nation doesn't want to celebrate religious holidays(and that may come sooner than I'd like) than we will abolish them.

Are you arguing for a more vague interpretation of "spirit" and arguing for spirituality in the absence of religion? I think that is worthwhile.

@hillelslovak said:

@hitomo said:

what is that?

its from Hearthstone 'Whisper of the old Gods' ... 26.04. was 'tentacle day' as well as the Bday of my ex.girlfriend, shes 37 now

@hillelslovak: I think that true spirituality is substantiated by facts, interpreted by the individual, and applied to contemporary times with the exegetical process. People saying that something like a spaghetti demon is as substantial as Christ's resurrection have no evidence to support that claim in contrast to his resurrection. I think we should start with the facts and grow from there. This is not to say that a church is built on falsehoods, but rather that falsehoods tend to be built on churches.

When mystics talk of states of the brain, their findings, in terms of neurology, are quite astute.

But if someone will contrast the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, with a Spaghetti monster, I dont see a huge difference. A resurrection of Jesus is not rooted in historical facts. Yes, a man named Jesus of Nazareth was crucified for sedition. But the claim of him resurrecting has no basis other than a claim from a book that promotes uflinching faith, which supposes itself immune to facts and evidence.

whatever it is, I found that most atheist in the free world (not eastern block) are mostly grumpy people, always complaining on everything that they are against. tthey are like bulldozing everything in their way.

and I found it disturbing that they are easily attract to isis

Agree 100%.

The funny thing is, if you look at a lot of religious rules, they actually make a lot of sense. But people at the time needed a better excuse than "it's bad for you", so the higher ups say "God say no" and suddenly people listen.

Case in point: pork. Pigs spoil almost as soon as they're dead, especially in the hot lands where Muslims and Jews lived (both religions prohibit pork, AFAIK). So instead of saying something smart to people that are starving and willing to eat (and poison themselves) rotting pig -- because hey when you're already starving even rotten pig sounds OK -- they just say "God forbids it" and everyone is somehow cool with that. I am sure some smart folks at the time knew that heat and animal fat were a bad mix, but most people at the time were idiots, so they had to appeal to the lowest common denominator, aka The Religious.

There's also an American Indian story of a lady that finds a wounded snake. She nurses it back to health, feeds it, treats it well. And finally when the snake it healthy, she comes to feed it and it bites her. As she lay dying she asks the snake "Snake, why did you kill me?" and the snake says "Lady, I'm a snake, what did you think was going to happen?!". Are we to assume that snakes can talk? Of course not! But the moral of the story still holds merit; you can't change the nature of certain things, and you better use some common sense when dealing with them. Don't take it literally is what I am trying to say.

But yeah, if you want to treat religion like a fable, a story, fine. But I don't understand how people can still actually believe that the things in religious scripture are 100% true, real, and applicable to real life. How a parent can tell their kid about a burning bush and say "This actually happened, it is as real as me and your dad and your pet hamster" is beyond me...

And yeah, keep it to yourself. Hopefully we live in an age soon where people are ashamed that they actually believe this garbage, and keep it to themselves not only out of respect for others, but also because they are embarrassed lol. If I have kids, I will teach them about religion, but I will never teach religion to them.

With that said, anyone else wish Greek mythology was still a thing? That'd be waaaaaaaaaay better than Christians.

Individual examples are meaningless when put up against statistics.

Mormons seem really happy.

*citation needed

It's called being in a cult. They always seem so happy, and then you hear horror stories of women who have left, at how their families and friends will disown them. There was debate between David Silverman, along with an ex polygamous mormon woman, against two Mormons representing the Church. She told a story of how she had to listen to her husband banging another wife in the next room. Does that sound happy to you?

That has a source (from a big name university)...

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=DCFCFF729DDC4E2C54C3777B694EBFC0.journals?aid=8988733&fileId=S0033291712003066

Or did you not bother to read the article?

That would be a strong contention if there were no extra-Biblical sources supporting the resurrection.

There are zero historical documents supporting the resurrection of Christ.

@foxhound_fox: You have not done your due diligence in researching that claim.

The burden of proof lies with you my friend. You assert there is, you must present them.

I really do not need to assert them on GameSpot when I have in the past. The data is available to those willing to study. I would suggest enrolling in a course on the New Testament at an accredited school. For additional assurance, use U.S. News & World Report to find a prestigious one like Notre Dame.

Are they?

So you don't have the facts to back up your assertion? I will reiterate, there is no non-Biblical evidence to support the resurrection of Christ. ON TOP OF THAT, the original Book of Mark stops at the closed tomb door. The resurrection was added well after the original Bible manuscripts were written.

It isn't my responsibility to prove your argument true. If you want to be in this discussion, you either have to come up with the goods, or not participate. It's as simple as that.

The existence of Christ is spurious at best. His supernatural qualities are about as far from historical fact as you can get when it comes to religion.

There are none. Josephus is not a reliable source. His writings were like 70 years after the non events. And people saying they heard someone say Jesus rose from the dead is not evidence, especially considering the standard of evidence at the time. The Shroud of Turin is a clear fake as well. Furthermore, the stories that claim he was resurrected do not even internally cohere, and show a startling lack of knowledge of Jews, Romans or the customs of either during the time.

Here's a historical fact: The Romans crucified people to send a message to the Jews as to what would happen if they committed sedition. Jesus would have been sitting long after death, on the cross, rotting and being picked apart by birds. That was the point of the crucifixion. So all this stuff of the empty tomb and all that crap is absurd.

Not even the gospels themselves can agree.

When did Jesus ascend?

Day of resurrection - Luke 24

At least 8 days after - Mark 16

Forty days later : Acts 1

Who discovered the empty tomb?

Matthew 28 - The two Marys

Mark 16 - Two Marys and Salome

Luke 23 - Large crowd

John - Mary by herself

Not just that, but most of the events of Jesus' life described are not agreed upon, and take into account none of the culture, context or practices of Jews or Romans. The are so many basic errors that anybody can see past. Furthermore, the Bible is not a historical reference. I'm so sick of the religious asserting that the Bible is a factual document because it says it is.

I have enough of this fascism ... cant you people just have a normal conversation with each other ?

Oh it goes much further than just contradictions. When read in the original languages, The Bible is a very different book. Especially the OT, but the NT as well.

For instance, the serpent, Lucifer and Satan are all separate, distinct beings. There's nothing in the original languages that describe a hell as people understand that word to mean. The seven (or eight, depending on how you are counting) words translated as hell doesn't mean anything like the imagery that word conjures and are clear allegories to simply being abandoned.

And then you have shocking stuff like clear allusions to multiple deities that denotes a clear line to the Canaanite pantheon.

Yahweh and his female consort Asherah, where Asherah was the wife of El (El being the father God, with Baal and Yahweh among his 70 sons). Genesis 1:1 says "In the beginning Elohim", Elohim being the plural of El and denoting the entire Canaanite pantheon. And then this astounding verse:

Deuteronomy 32:8 (From Greek)

"When Elyon gave the nations as an inheritance, when he separated the sons of man, he set the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God. For Yahweh's portion was his people; Jacob was the lot of his inheritance".

Even the name Israel means "struggled with El".

I feel like you've never been to Utah, and that you're confusing the larger church with a very small sect that the main church doesn't recognize.

Yeah, while researching this stuff as a teenager, what was most striking was how the ancient Jews were actually a people whose culture was the product of assimilation and mixing with other cultures. The Bible promotes an idea that Jews were these conquering warlords, cutting a wide swathe of conquered territories. Then you find out when the Bible says The Jews conquered Canaan, in reality, the Babylonians had the area, uncontested, for a long time before and after. How people do not see narrative and drama in these books, and take them literally, is mind boggling.

Yes, https://www.quora.com/Why-are-religious-people-on-average-happier-than-atheists

I did, it didn't say religious people were less happy.

Hardly conclusive... a very broad statement.

And if we're going to be that broad, you can also say that you don't see atheists blowing up/hating other people because they don't "believe" the same thing as you.

like I said, fascists !

found a nother way to put the blame on the people who actually have to suffer by their decisions ... unbelievable ! ... it just never stops !

'what you do is making us sick ! ... no, the fact you think we make you sick is making you sick, you uneducated nonscientifical dumbass!'

even you should be able to see that pattern by now ...

I have been to Utah, and Polygamy was official church doctrine until the late 1970's, as was not allowing black people into the church. And dont forget, since the church insisted on polygamy throughout the 19th century in America, they made themselves forts, and fought wars against Mexicans, Native Americans, US military, and anyone who came near their forts. The ingratiating smiles you see on the religious is a guise. We owe it to them, and to ourselves to remember how they act when they have power.