Tore, as we've discussed before, what people truly fear the end of their concious human experiences and the loss of awareness of themselves, not the idea of death itself. Whether or not there is an afterlife is ultimately aimless philosophic meandering since it doesn't stop most folks from fearing death.

Secondly, the reason that the majority of people truly wish to believe that a more perfect life exists after the life they are living in now is because the average person is usually overwhelmed by stress and uncertainty to some degree with every passing day, though whether or not this is due to the person's own weakness in coping with their surroundings or something else entirelly is another matter entirelly.

Personally, I find it interesting that a universe seemingly guided entirelly by material forces seems to operate by such precise logic in regards to our measurements of things. Hence, although I do not perscribe to the idea of "intelligent design" in the Christian sense, the idea that there is a higher order of organisms or existences that may have given rise to the physical foundations of the material universe is certainly nothing bad to speculate or even believe in if one feels compelled to. It's all just a matter of how relevant concepts such as faith and divine speculation are to individuals in their own lives, and that is where the decision ultimately lies in deciding whether or not you believe in a possibility...or don't.

All this aside, I feel Christianity's main problem is a great majority of its practicioner's thinking of the Bible as infallible and the "word of God" even though it was written in a flawed way by actual human beings, along with the variety of inconsistences within particular books that undermine a lot of arguments that Christians try to make to people who are not such.

be as happy as you possibly can while you are existent now and in the future. People lose their memories everyday due to disease, accident, etc... they still have to go on living without knowing who they are, just be thankful while you are here now.

yeah, I sometimes get wrapped up in a morbid way of thinking. Since I am a songwriter and most of my favorite musicians are dead I tend to glorify the whole "my art still survives after I don't" thing and it's not healthy. Sure the idea of me being gone and some kid listening to me is wonderful but the idea of me not existing and never knowing that kid is listening to me is super frightening and sad. I want to be around to enjoy any successes I achieve. I know this isn't exactly the point being made but it made me think of it.

I understand that a majority of religious adherents, especially those adherents of the big 3 western religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam), are motivated to follow their faith by a deep seated fear of death. I don't think it's fair to ascribe that motivation to every follower. I for one would prefer to not base my spiritual path on the idea of salvation/damnation. Anything that has its impetus in fear will only lead to a low level consciousness, which is one of the reasons why I think you see a lot of hatred, intolerance, and other lower level states of consciousness in the fundamentalist sects of most religions.
For me there is a motivation to have a communion with a higher power, to understand "his" will, and to be mindful of how this relationship plays out in the day to day occurences of life. There is also an ineffable peace that comes with spiritual surrender that is greater than any sense of well-being I've experienced outside of my own spiritual pursuit.

How real is SUPERBOOK!



Edit...
Oh crap. I keep forgetting about the anchor to last post viewed thing.

...first of all I'm sure most people on this forum aren't devout christians so you aren't anything special.

...second, not all christians take a literal interpretation of the old testament. Fundamentalists are called fundamentalists for a reason. Even my uncle who's a devout catholic doesn't take the creation story as literal.

....most teenage atheists have to create strawman arguments so they can have something to rebel against and feel special.I still think god is baloney, but you're rant against christianity is a bit juvenille

Who are you talking to, sir?

the guy who created this thread, the very first post.

Then all those Christians and your Uncle are going to hell according the the book their club is based on and the people who run their club (His Popeness)

...no he's quite devout, he believes in transubstantiation and all that. From what I remember from going to catholic church, the old testament was never really brought up. The old testament was never really called into question because it was never preached.

For some churches the only part you have to take literally is the new testament. Some denominations take the old testament more literally than others.

the great response to religion: institutionalization! you will only believe what is productive (and if that is nothing, so be it)

.....no I'd still say that religious fundamentalists are more of problem than moderates. I highly doubt that fred phelps and "god hates f-ags" are given any credibility by anyone. I think they stand because of their lack of credibility....but what's your definition of a moderate christian?

so it's preferable to worship money over God? isn't the worst part of religion the institutionalization?

i propose we all worship the Sacred Void instead

Not at all

I'd say it's the Crusades and Martyrdom

....did he even propose an the "worshipping money" alternative. Why not just worship nothing?

...and why not state your opinion in plain english and not allusions to books you've read.

I find that it's not real at all. Most christians are hypocrites and single-minded.

That is not the worst part of religion.

Relativism is the worst part religion.

the Crusades, both as a historical event and as a metaphorical attitude, are completely a symptom of the institutionalization of religion. if everyone took a religious humanism/ chrstian existentialism approach and saw religion as essentially personal or with the sole goal of uniting people, such things could not be allowed to take place. as for martyrdom, to die for one's beliefs because of persecution by authorities seems noble enough to me. in the case of sacrificing one's life and taking the lives of others, this most of the time seems indefensible and requires serious religious doubletalk. the exception i would make would be in the case of a war in which the enemy is the aggressor.

in the case of terrorists, which i take it you're hinting at, i think there is a large degree of corruption through institutionalization where people who aren't actually blowing themselves up are convincing others mostly through social pressures and through a distorted justification through certain isolated passages. i don't think someone who had a clear, evolving, personal and direct relation with whatever social text could justify such acts to themselves.

a)that is what i proposed
b)i don't remember alluding to anything. i make my opinions as transparent as possible, but i wouldn't want you to see right through them.

it came from your saying 'exactly' to institutionalization being the response to religion. my point wasn't so much that we should put religious people in insane asylums, but rather that such a view says that we should take whatever the 'clinical view of reality' is and force everyone to agree to it or put them in an asylum until they agree. the 'clinical view of reality' would end up being whatever is 'mentally health,' ie, allows you to be a functional and productive member of society, which in turn is basically just the worship of money.

No Disagreement here

I think this is Chicken and Egg

If someone punches me in the face I'm not mad because their alcoholic father hit them and thus they transfer their frustration through physical aggression, I'm mad because they hit me.

....the proposal came from the assumption that someone or something has to be worshipped.

worship is pretty fun. gives a bunch of people something in common. plus it helps keep your ego in check.

If there was no institutionalization there would be no religion to talk about....Religion only bonds people together because of their common belief in something that doesn't exist. If everyone saw the utility in religion there would be no need for it.

...worship keeps certain ego's in check to feed other egos.

You can say that about anything, like the city you live in, on the other hand people don't use worship for that, no one really know how you worship deep inside. Worship is pretty serious. People use the peripheral things in life to bond, long before they use something how worship they God, the only thing they have in common is they show up in the same temple or chruch. Just because you show up in the same temple or church as they do, doesn't mean you know exactly how they worship God, only God knows that.

I think "institutionalized" religions are the product of cause and consequence, something that has appeared several times independently and will continue to appear and will help religions be competitive against science and other religious beliefs (wrote a lot more about this a couple of posts ago). Religions Have to adapt to their environment and these big, slow-changing religions do much worse in wealthy societies that are open and positive to science because scientific thought often replaces religion .. Their mental niches often overlap in people leading to one outcompeting wholly or partially the other.

In Norway, they've taken christianity out of school which I think is a great step. Kids still learn about christianity and other religions, but not as if they were true. "Truth" is something they're taught in their natural sciences classes.

If you're for lessening the impact of religion on society, stuff like that will likely be a major step.

I'm aware some people think that a society with too much emphasis on science means no spirituality, but I don't think so. I think the more personalized religions and spiritualisms that are more adaptive and often highly individual can thrive in such a society. They are more able to co-exist with science and they're no longer oppressed by the large religions that teach people just what to think and believe.

I'm also for teaching more philosophy personally.

My breast plate, sword and shield,
facing an enemy called negativity.
I am afraid you are mistaken,
its your unbelief that will be shaken.
Time is on my side, though yours short lived
keep ridiculing you rediculous div.

"In truth, there was only one Christian, and he died on the cross."

I most definitely want to know how this conversation ends up... if it ever ends. xD

if it could ever end this thread wouldn't have been made in the first place.

its impossible to have an ending.

think of this thread like the last episode of the Sopranos... we will be questioning and (most likely) be disappointed for eons and eons.

Hahaha, true. But don't let me interrupt. xD

Actually, since I'm in the thread, I have to say how horrible of a mistake I made earlier.

I was in class, and I said something about how god csn't help me with whatever I had to do.

And a student, somebody I'm friends with, turned to me and asked me why. And being the idiot I am, I said because I didn't think he existed.

And he got really pissed at me and told me he would argue about this with me about how god is real. >.> I didn't even know Jewish people believed in god.

Shows how much I know.

But I need to keep my mouth shut in public. Not eveybody needs to know everybody else's beliefs. xX

wtf

than what exactly did you think jewish people believed in?

having more money and power then most other religions?

No, my friend just explained it. Nevermind. ^_^;;

Hahaha

That's exactly what we believe in! Good call bro :)

Christianity is real... God told me so.

Sounds good to me... -_-

Everything you said is wrong

1. It never says it was an apple tree.

2. Cain never had a wife. He was exiled. Besides, he and Adam, Eve, and Abel weren't the only people. There were lots of them, they intermarried for millions of years until God decided it was wrong for family to marry family.

3. I'm an extremely open-minded person. It's YOU that's closed-minded. I searched for years before I became a Christian.

I think the accepted idea is that Cain married a relative, which wasn't such a faux pas in those days. Cain and Able lived later than Adam and Eve anyway, so it's possible that there were more people around. But it's all a moot point anyway, as that part of the bible is almost all metaphorical (or so you must believe if you wish to be taken seriously by logical people).