Was religion invented by man?

[Bradski]

The fact that society won’t exist doesn’t bother the unscrupulous in the slightest. Provided they get what they want everyone else can “go to hell”. So the hypothesis that it is merely a belief our genes have ‘encouraged’ as a means for survival is unjustified.

If a society ceased to exist because some people were unscrupulous, then being unscrupulous would die out. It only works in balance.

You need to read up on evolutionary psychology. I don’t have the time, the inclination or the permission to explain it to you.

 

[PRmerger]

But the next question is how much evidence is sufficient. I guess that depends on how we judge a particular claim.

Sure.

Just don’t accept that it has to be “extraordinary”.

You’ve believed that mantra (extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence) based on faith, without really examining it.

 

[PRmerger]

There is sufficient evidence for aliens

Ok.

Please give the evidence for this.

(Using the same criteria you use for evidence for God)

 

[PRmerger]

But we need to be careful about attributing things for which there is no current explanation as *therefore *being supernatural. Otherwise if we experience anything we cannot explain, then we could class it as supernatural.

True, true.

And the corollary to that would be: you should look for the answers wherever the truth lies, and not dismiss something that might be supernatural by looking for a natural explanation.

 

[Bradski]

And the corollary to that would be: you should look for the answers wherever the truth lies, and not dismiss something that might be supernatural by looking for a natural explanation.

I’m not looking for why. I’m looking for how. If you class something as being supernatural, then there is no point in looking any further.

 

[PRmerger]

I’m not looking for why. I’m looking for how. If you class something as being supernatural, then there is no point in looking any further.

But if you exclude that as a possibility, then you aren’t really looking for THE answer.

It’s like someone saying, “I want to find the map to the Orient, but I’m only going to look in grandma’s drawers.”

 

[PRmerger]

But if you exclude that as a possibility, then you aren’t really looking for THE answer.

It’s like someone saying, “I want to find the map to the Orient, but I’m only going to look in grandma’s drawers.”

And saying that you won’t consider the possibility of the supernatural is a circular paradigm:

“I don’t believe in the supernatural because I look for answers that are only natural”.

 

[Bradski]

And saying that you won’t consider the possibility of the supernatural is a circular paradigm:

“I don’t believe in the supernatural because I look for answers that are only natural”.

So as far as you are concerned, the search for an answer to, for example, abiogenesis is a complete waste of time. You have the answer. We can stop now.

Or maybe you don’t know enough about the subject to be able to say that we have reached the point where we can discount all natural answers, so we need to keep looking.

Let me know which you propose. And if it’s the second, who do we ask when we can stop?

And please, don’t tell me we can look for both at the same time. Nominating something as supernatural means that there is no natural answer. There is no more to be done. We can all go home. Pack away the microscopes. Use the Bunsen burner for making toast. Sell the flasks and pipettes on eBay.

 

[PRmerger]

So as far as you are concerned, the search for an answer to, for example, abiogenesis is a complete waste of time. You have the answer. We can stop now.

Huh?

What’s my answer that I can stop now?

 

[PRmerger]

Nominating something as supernatural means that there is no natural answer.

Really? You’ve never heard a Catholic talk about how babies are made–there’s a natural answer as well as a supernatural answer?

 

[Cheiron]

Nope. Two people can interpret the same evidence in different ways without invalidating the evidence itself. (Blind men, elephant, etc.)

And they could both be wrong about the thing they agree with. The agreement among believers that their experiences are religious in nature (though pointing at different gods) is a conclusion I don’t share. Their experiences can be explained without reference to something supernatural or divine.

I didn’t grow up in Bronze Age Palestine. The Ten Commandments arent a 21st Century phenomenon. My priest washes peoples’ feet
If I took my religion from the society I grew up in I would be worshipping Mammon.

Did you grow up in a society that had no knowledge of Christianity whatsoever and did you still come to the conclusion that your religious experience was a Christian one?

I disagree. Plus I think you need to take into account the huge weight of numbers of people who aren’t willing to die - or be tortured - because they realise that it is quite possible they are honestly mistaken. And folks certainly don’t de for something they know is a lie.

I agree that the Christian martyrs probably had no doubt about their faith and that not everyone is willing to die for their faith. I fail to see why that means their faith is true.

Did you know that scientific studies into torture show that it’s a pretty ineffective means of determining truth? Why? Because most people will lie (say anything) to avoid torture!

I did not read those studies, but you’re likely right. I would behave similarly, if I were tortured.

So I maintain that those relatively small numbers of people who cling to the truth in the face of torture/death are in fact more likely to be giving credible evidence - notwithstanding your incredulity.

That’s begging the question. You say “people who cling to the truth”. Well, that’s the point of contention! It doesn’t matter how firmly those martyrs believed, even in the face of torture and death. How sincerely someone believes doesn’t determine whether that belief is actually true. David Icke is utterly convinced that the world is run by lizard illuminati. Are his beliefs true because they’re sincerely held by him?

Contradictory? Hardly.

Islam Checklist
Adam & Eve (yep)
Moses (yep)
Noah (yep)
Abraham (yep)
Ten Commandments (yep)
Jesus (sort of)
Isaiah (yep)
Final judgment (yep)

But do they agree that:
Muhammed is God’s messenger? No
Jesus is divine? No
fasting during Ramadan is obligatory? No
salvation through Jesus Christ? No

As you can see, these are not minor issues.

Sure.

Just don’t accept that it has to be “extraordinary”.

You’ve believed that mantra (extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence) based on faith, without really examining it.

Well, I agree I could and should have been more nuanced. Yet I maintain that only extraordinary evidence is sufficient evidence for an extraordinary claim. And before we get into a discussion about where ordinary evidence ends and extraordinary evidence begins, I’ll just say that God, if He exists, probably knows what would convince me of the truth of Christianity.

I also agree with your use of the word faith: accepting a claim without really examining it.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

That’s begging the question. You say “people who cling to the truth”. Well, that’s the point of contention! It doesn’t matter how firmly those martyrs believed, even in the face of torture and death. How sincerely someone believes doesn’t determine whether that belief is actually true. David Icke is utterly convinced that the world is run by lizard illuminati. Are his beliefs true because they’re sincerely held by him?

Atheism is also begging the question, since atheists never offer proof that God does not exist.

Do you know any atheists so convinced of the “truth” that God does not exist they would die for that truth?

That’s how utterly unconvincing atheism is.

 

[Cheiron]

Atheism is also begging the question, since atheists never offer proof that God does not exist.

Do you know any atheists so convinced of the “truth” that God does not exist they would die for that truth?

That’s how utterly unconvincing atheism is.

The burden of proof is not on the atheist. However, depending on the characteristics of God atheists can actually disprove God. If, for example, you insist that God is someone who created the first humans in Mesopotamia, then that God obviously doesn’t exist. Humans evolved on the plains of Africa. It all depends on your concept of God.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Ok.

Please give the evidence for this.

(Using the same criteria you use for evidence for God)

I already did, in this post:

The evidence is right there in the NT

Now, will you claim that the NT events I appeal to are a-historical? Will you claim that the events in the account I referred to were “invented by man?” Will you make the sophisticated philosophical argument: “nuh-uh, God did it. All the Christians say so.” Or will you simply ignore this, and be indignant over the second half of this post?

Whatever the case, I doubt you will make a serious attempt to answer my evidence. The reason for this is the common double standard you have already demonstrated that you have:

So you are willing to entertain the idea that the explanation for this is aliens. FOLKS, especially ATHEIST FOLKS: do you see what absurdities must be embraced in order to hold to one’s atheism?
PRmerger;14097505:

Oh, be careful, Cheiron, about calling one of the central dogmas of Christianity “weird” and absurd". Contempt for Catholicism is not permitted here.

While here you were just talking about forum rules, I believe they reflect rules that most religious people have. They allow themselves to label other beliefs as “absurd,” and there are rules against comparing your religion to “absurd” ideas. That means that if there is ever an argument it is possible to label “absurd,” doing so is an easy way to convince other religious people they don’t need to think about it, even if the “absurdity” falls far short of a proper argument against it.

That’s why it is so hard to have the debate about the human origin of religion. Instead of properly providing evidence of the divine, religious people have a tendency to want to simply label non-religious explanations of events as “absurd.” As in “it’s absurd to think that the apostles were lying if they were willing to be martyrs” or “Its absurd to think that the contemporary evidence was terrible if people were willing to convert.”

 

[goout]

I already did, in this post:

Now, will you claim that the NT events I appeal to are a-historical? Will you claim that the events in the account I referred to were “invented by man?” Will you make the sophisticated philosophical argument: “nuh-uh, God did it. All the Christians say so.” Or will you simply ignore this, and be indignant over the second half of this post?

Whatever the case, I doubt you will make a serious attempt to answer my evidence. The reason for this is the common double standard you have already demonstrated that you have:
While here you were just talking about forum rules, I believe they reflect rules that most religious people have. They allow themselves to label other beliefs as “absurd,” and there are rules against comparing your religion to “absurd” ideas. That means that if there is ever an argument it is possible to label “absurd,” doing so is an easy way to convince other religious people they don’t need to think about it, even if the “absurdity” falls far short of a proper argument against it.

That’s why it is so hard to have the debate about the human origin of religion. Instead of properly providing evidence of the divine, religious people have a tendency to want to simply label non-religious explanations of events as “absurd.” As in “it’s absurd to think that the apostles were lying if they were willing to be martyrs” or “Its absurd to think that the contemporary evidence was terrible if people were willing to convert.”

There is no (physical) evidence for God, as in scientifically verifiable proof. Christianity does not depend on verifiable physical evidence. It relies on the union of reason and faith. Reason is not totally dependent on physical evidence.
Physical evidence points to God, but only through the eyes of faith. If you do not have faith in God, the evidence is not sufficient. In fact, by insisting on the scientific method as your only method, you could easily come to a logical conclusion that God does not exist.

What doesn’t work is the atheist proposition that God definitively does not exist. You can coherently claim God is not proven, and that is a fair conclusion. But it is pointless to make the definitive claim that God does not exist. Agnosticism is the best logical answer against God, which simply states “I don’t know. The case for God does not add up for me, or my faith does not lean towards God”. That is a sensible proposition.

And there is a difference between the aliens/NT theory which no one has held, ever, and the 2000 year old teaching of Christianity. You may choose not to accept Christianity but the case for Christianity is more solid than the case for aliens.

 

[goout]

I’m not looking for why. I’m looking for how. If you class something as being supernatural, then there is no point in looking any further.

Christianity is not merely about the why or the how, it’s about the who. It’s about being and identity, not just doing, thinking, proving, etc…
The most basic of things is to be. Before a person can do, a person must be. Christianity and religion in general address questions of being, meaning, identity, purpose.
These are questions that weigh on the heart of every person regardless of belief system, whether theist or atheist. There is no such thing as a person who does not believe, who has not sought answers to the questions of being, meaning and purpose, and given their heart to what they perceive as truth (the response of faith). You seem to do it quite eloquently proposing your atheist beliefs.

The mere fact that human beings seek, means they are seeking something other. Other than what? Other than themselves. There is something out there worth pursuing, or rather, worth knowing. I happen to call that other “God”. But you and I have both sought that other, and have come to a belief about it.

Fundamentalists go wrong by reducing belief to mere adherence to the letter of the book. Many atheists seem to glom onto the same paradigm by pointing out (correctly!) the inconsistencies that are part of the written word, human life and relations, and using them in the same rigid manner as fundamentalists, but for opposing conclusions.

In regards to your issue with natural/supernatural, seen/unseen verifiable/unverifiable, how do you handle love?

 

[JapaneseKappa]

There is no (physical) evidence for God, as in scientifically verifiable proof. Christianity does not depend on verifiable physical evidence. It relies on the union of reason and faith. Reason is not totally dependent on physical evidence.
Physical evidence points to God, but only through the eyes of faith. If you do not have faith in God, the evidence is not sufficient. In fact, by insisting on the scientific method as your only method, you could easily come to a logical conclusion that God does not exist.

What doesn’t work is the atheist proposition that God definitively does not exist. You can coherently claim God is not proven, and that is a fair conclusion. But it is pointless to make the definitive claim that God does not exist. Agnosticism is the best logical answer against God, which simply states “I don’t know. The case for God does not add up for me, or my faith does not lean towards God”. That is a sensible proposition.

And there is a difference between the aliens/NT theory which no one has held, ever, and the 2000 year old teaching of Christianity. You may choose not to accept Christianity but the case for Christianity is more solid than the case for aliens.

Earlier in the thread, I allowed people to assume that God existed. In other words, God exists, AND aliens were responsible for the events of the NT.

 

[goout]

Earlier in the thread, I allowed people to assume that God existed. In other words, God exists, AND aliens were responsible for the events of the NT.

I am not sure what you are getting at.

There is no reason to believe aliens are responsible for the events of the NT.

You may choose not to believe in the events of the Gospels, but there is a well accepted work of literature that sprung forth from human events, that was transmitted from events to story to written word. You may choose not to accept the authenticity of that substance, but there is substance.

There is no substance to the aliens claim.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

I am not sure what you are getting at.

There is no reason to believe aliens are responsible for the events of the NT.

You may choose not to believe in the events of the Gospels, but there is a well accepted work of literature that sprung forth from human events, that was transmitted from events to story to written word. You may choose not to accept the authenticity of that substance, but there is substance.

There is no substance to the aliens claim.

I was allowing people to assume the historicity of whatever NT events they liked. My point was that there is nothing among the “substance” that allows us to decide between the “God did it” and the “aliens did it” accounts, unless you straight up assume what you’re trying to prove (i.e. that the religious version of events is accurate.)

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Atheism is also begging the question, since atheists never offer proof that God does not exist.

Do you know any atheists so convinced of the “truth” that God does not exist they would die for that truth?

That’s how utterly unconvincing atheism is.

Martyrdom does not prove truth. Martyrdom proves sincerity.

Besides that, the supposed martyrdom of early Christians is questionable: badnewsaboutchristianity.com/gba_christians.htm

Yes, many atheists, free-thinkers, deists, and those with differing opinions about God have been tortured and executed by believers:

badnewsaboutchristianity.com/gea_belief.htm#atheists

They could have easily recanted right? Therefore their opinions are true!! QED!! QED!!!

Just kidding, their deaths do absolutely nothing to prove one way or another the veracity of their beliefs.