Was religion invented by man?

[Cheiron]

Do you think interventions are dogmas?

No. I just don’t accept PRmerger’s request that I limit myself to dogma’s. Catholicism is much more than a set of dogma’s.

 

[goout]

I don’t know many Catholic dogma’s, but the Bible is full of God’s interventions in only a small part of the Middle-East.

Right. And physics experiments only apply in the Princeton lab.

 

[Cheiron]

Right. And physics experiments only apply in the Princeton lab.

I wrote a post about my argument at the top of page 11. If God is truly a universal God, then He would have revealed more information than He has.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t know many Catholic dogma’s, but the Bible is full of God’s interventions in only a small part of the Middle-East.

Well, maybe if you were on a forum discussing with folks whose religion is based on the Bible, then your objection would have merit.

But you are on a Catholic forum, and you should know that Catholicism is not a religion of the Book.

We do not get our dogmas from a book, no matter how holy.

 

[goout]

I wrote a post about my argument at the top of page 11. If God is truly a universal God, then He would have revealed more information than He has.

Your vision of God is that of a dictator who must forcibly infuse himself into human beings. Fundamentalists have a similar vision of God.

 

[Bradski]

Prominent atheists like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins have declared that they used to be Christians. Many famous Christian apologists like CS Lewis and Lee Strobel used to be atheists. So I don’t see why you cling to the fallacy that what people believe is based on geography rather than persuasive evidence.

I’m sure that you can come up with a few people who don’t follow the religion of their parents or of the geographic are from which they come. But if over 80% of a multicultural Americans class themselves as Christian, why would you think that is?

As compared to Afghanistan or Bahrain or Saudi or Somalia or Turkey where 100% are Muslims. Or Brazil or Armenia or Colombia or Croatia where the percentage of Christians are well over 90%. I wonder why there are over 80% of people following Shinto in Japan and there are only around 7,000 Muslims with a Japanese heritage.

To argue against this would seem to be bordering on the perverse.

 

[PRmerger]

I’m sure that you can come up with a few people who don’t follow the religion of their parents or of the geographic are from which they come. But if over 80% of a multicultural Americans class themselves as Christian, why would you think that is?

As compared to Afghanistan or Bahrain or Saudi or Somalia or Turkey where 100% are Muslims. Or Brazil or Armenia or Colombia or Croatia where the percentage of Christians are well over 90%. I wonder why there are over 80% of people following Shinto in Japan and there are only around 7,000 Muslims with a Japanese heritage.

To argue against this would seem to be bordering on the perverse.

Irrelevant.

80% of Southern white people in the 1860’s believed slavery was correct.

That doesn’t mean there isn’t an objective correct view towards slavery.

 

[Lion_IRC]

I’m sure that you can come up with a few people who don’t follow the religion of their parents or of the geographic are from which they come.

There was a time when the Christian religion wasn’t practiced (by that name) anywhere in the world. Therefore every single Christian on Earth can truthfully assert that they not merely following what was passed on to them by their parents’ parents’ parents, etc.

Your assertion amounts to a claim that religion is continuously inherited going backwards and backwards in time - if I learned it from my society and my parents learned it from their society and their parents from theirs…

…But if over 80% of a multicultural Americans class themselves as Christian, why would you think that is?

It’s because 80% of Anericans are smart - like their parents

…As compared to Afghanistan or Bahrain or Saudi or Somalia or Turkey where 100% are Muslims. Or Brazil or Armenia or Colombia or Croatia where the percentage of Christians are well over 90%.

Muslims and Christians agree that Isaiah was a prophet from God. And Jonah, and Moses and…etc. etc. Muslims & Christians agree that Adam and Eve were created by God in the Garden of Eden. Muslims & Christians agree that we are commanded by (the One True God of Abraham) to Honor our mother and our father. Muslims and Christians agree that…
err…um…sorry, I forgot where I was going with this. What were you saying about Turkey and Brazil again?

… I wonder why there are over 80% of people following Shinto in Japan and there are only around 7,000 Muslims with a Japanese heritage.

I give up. Is it because ancient Japan shunned outsiders and never heard of Islam?
That simply means Islam didn’t try hard enough.

 

[Bradski]

80% of Southern white people in the 1860’s believed slavery was correct.

That doesn’t mean there isn’t an objective correct view towards slavery.

We’re not talking about what is correct. We are talking about cultural beliefs, right OR wrong.

 

[o_mlly]

All religions based on man reaching to God are invented by men (man defining God).

All religions based on God reaching to man are divine in origin (God reveals Himself to man).

Atheism is always and everywhere the invention of men (man does not know and cannot know his Creator).

 

[Bradski]

Atheism is always and everywhere the invention of men (man does not know and cannot know his Creator).

I never cease to be amazed at the number of people who cannot grasp a simple definition.

 

[PRmerger]

We’re not talking about what is correct. We are talking about cultural beliefs, right OR wrong.

That’s an otiose discussion, then.

We all agree that certain beliefs arise from one’s culture.

And, I think, we would all agree that some of these beliefs can be MORALLY WRONG.

 

[Cheiron]

Your vision of God is that of a dictator who must forcibly infuse himself into human beings. Fundamentalists have a similar vision of God.

I have two objections. One: a fundamental difference between fundamentalists and me is that I don’t believe this God exists. Secondly, I don’t expect God to force himself upon people. He could have revealed completely new knowledge, like the germ theory of disease or E=mc2 and that would be enough for me to say that the Abrahamic faith is really different from all the others. There is no need for God to force people to believe.

 

[goout]

I have two objections. One: a fundamental difference between fundamentalists and me is that I don’t believe this God exists.

Different conclusions, same world view. Reliance on literalism to prove something.

“Look, God did not give the same revelation to the American Indian that he gave to the Jewish people!”
Conclusions:

1. This proves he does not exist cause he wouldn’t allow contradiction. He would have made all people see him and express him the same way. *Christianity is contained by what it says on the page. *
   Or
2. He does exist and he only chose the specifically chosen people in the bible as his friends. He didn’t choose the American Indian as his loved ones. That’s why they didn’t have the bible. *Christianity is contained by what it says on the page. *

Both are superficial and rigid and unreasonable.
Finding the full truth of something frequently requires some nuance of thought and some acceptance of the human side of things.

Secondly, I don’t expect God to force himself upon people. He could have revealed completely new knowledge, like the germ theory of disease or E=mc2 and that would be enough for me to say that the Abrahamic faith is really different from all the others. There is no need for God to force people to believe.

Your expectation is of a God who is experienced the same by all people and expressed by them all in the exact same way. As if every human being should be the same. Human beings can only be the same by force.

In your objection the uniqueness and free expression of human beings and cultures is not respected.

 

[o_mlly]

I never cease to be amazed at the number of people who cannot grasp a simple definition.

And I am amazed that the atheists continue to stumble attempting to give themselves a simple definition: Intellectual Atheist/Agnostics, Activist Atheist/Agnostics, Seeker Agnostics, Antitheists, Non-theists and Ritual Atheist/Agnostics.

So one must go to their leader in hopes of a simple definition. Can one grasp this simple definition?
“Atheism is the acceptance that there is no credible scientific or factually reliable evidence for the existence of a god, gods or the supernatural.”
atheistfoundation.org.au/

 

[Bradski]

So one must go to their leader in hopes of a simple definition. Can you grasp this definition?
“Atheism is the acceptance that there is no credible scientific or factually reliable evidence for the existence of a god, gods or the supernatural.”
atheistfoundation.org.au/

Badda bing. Nailed it.

 

[goout]

I never cease to be amazed at the number of people who cannot grasp a simple definition.

If I did not know better from reading your posts, I would be tempted to think you do not even comprehend what you yourself believe.

If atheism is not a purely human invention, then what is it? Infused knowledge from a supernatural being? A popular consciousness that spreads it’s karma by meditation?

And by the way, there is nothing objectionable about the human side of belief. Atheists and theists alike form responses to questions, think about those beliefs, debate those beliefs, and live by them.
That’s a good thing isn’t it?

 

[Cheiron]

Atheism is always and everywhere the invention of men (man does not know and cannot know his Creator).

Almost all ideas are human. If there are no more humans, there is no atheism. I don’t know a single animal, apart from humans, that thinks about these matters. That doesn’t mean that all ideas or philosophies are therefore wrong.

Secondly, not all atheists (#notallatheists) say we can’t know our Creator. The evidence points to the Subject That Cannot Be Named and doesn’t point towards a Creator. If humans appeared suddenly in Mesopotamia, then that would be a mark in Christianity’s favor.

Different conclusions, same world view. Reliance on literalism to prove something.

You weren’t talking about literalism in your previous post. That was about my views on God, not on the Bible.

“Look, God did not give the same revelation to the American Indian that he gave to the Jewish people!”
Conclusions:

1. This proves he does not exist cause he wouldn’t allow contradiction. He would have made all people see him and express him the same way. *Christianity is contained by what it says on the page. *
   Or
2. He does exist and he only chose the specifically chosen people in the bible as his friends. He didn’t choose the American Indian as his loved ones. That’s why they didn’t have the bible. *Christianity is contained by what it says on the page. *

Both are superficial and rigid and unreasonable.
Finding the full truth of something frequently requires some nuance of thought and some acceptance of the human side of things.

I’m not sure what you mean by “Christianity is contained by what it says on the page.” It certainly isn’t my position. Christianity (or any religion for that matter) is more than its holy book. I’m saying that God doesn’t seem to transcend the limits of time and space in which scripture was written. Which is odd for God. Also, a universal God, a god for all humans, should not have a chosen people. I repeat the critcism of the emperor Julian:

Therefore it is fair to ask of Paul why God, if he was not the God of the Jews only but also of the Gentiles, sent the blessed gift of prophecy to the Jews in abundance and gave them Moses and the oil of anointing, and the prophets and the law and the incredible and monstrous elements in their myths? …] And finally God sent unto them Jesus also, but unto us no prophet, no oil of anointing, no teacher, no herald to announce his love for man which should one day, though late, reach even unto us also.

What is unreasonable about what I’ve argued so far? Please tell me.

Your expectation is of a God who is experienced the same by all people and expressed by them all in the exact same way. As if every human being should be the same. Human beings can only be the same by force.

Well, if all religions are expressions of God, what then remains of exclusive claims of the Catholic Church? Is baptism needed for salvation or not? If it is, why then does God allow millions of people to walk around in complete ignorance of this requirement? The Aztecs didn’t know that baptism was needed to go to heaven untill the Spanish arrived, almost 1500 years after Jesus Christ died.

In your objection the uniqueness and free expression of human beings and cultures is not respected.

Ofcourse it is. I’m not saying that God should force anyone. All I’m asking for is consistency on His part. Also, if God didn’t reveal Roman Catholicism as the right religion, because He wanted to respect the uniqueness and free expression of human beings, why then did missionaries start spreading the faith in the Americas? Was it wrong for them to spread the faith? Or do they have greater freedom than God?

TL;DR: You can’t claim that all religions are in some way expressions of the Divine and maintain that Christianity is the exclusively true religion. This is also the key issue in my discussion with Lion IRC.

 

[o_mlly]

Almost all ideas are human. If there are no more humans, there is no atheism. …

Almost all ideas are human.
Then some ideas are non-human.
*
If there are no more humans, there is no atheism.*
Then all atheists ideas are always and everywhere human inventions.
Therefore, you agree. Thank you.

 

[PRmerger]

He could have revealed completely new knowledge, like the germ theory of disease or E=mc2 and that would be enough for me to say that the Abrahamic faith is really different from all the others. There is no need for God to force people to believe.

LOL.

Emmm…He did reveal germ theory and E= mc2.