The fundamental flaw in religion as I see it

I should start off by saying that I consider myself agnostic, as I acknowledge the possibility that there may be a higher power out there somewhere but I certainly wouldn't say I believe in a god.

Now, I could write volumes about how preposterous the notion of religion is (for this discussion I will focus exclusively on the Abrahamic religions of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam), but the fundamental flaw I referred to in the thread title revolves around one question for you religious people out there: why exactly did you choose the religion that you adhere to? In other words, why have you chosen to follow Christianity instead of Judaism, or Judaism instead of Islam, etc.?

On the one hand, religious people like to emphasize that empirical evidence of any kind is not needed to believe in their religion, and that faith in the face of this lack of evidence is virtuous. However, a person must have some rhyme or reason for picking one religion over another, right? I mean, people don't just pick their religions randomly, do they? Of course not (you'd probably be stoned to death in many Muslim countries for even suggesting such a notion).

The one incredibly fallacious line of reasoning that I want to discuss which people to tend to use to justify their belief in a given religion is that they believe because they like the message that the religion sends out. You might hear a Christian say something along the lines of, "I believe in Christianity because I read the Bible and that Jesus preached a lot of things that I agree with and did a lot of really great things for a lot of people." However, preferring the tenets and principles of one religion over the others does not make it more likely that the events and information the religion describes are actually true. It's reverse logic; you're basically saying to yourself, "It would be really great if this were true, so I will believe it is true." For people who think this way, ignorance really is bliss.

To state the fundamental flaw I mentioned earlier a little more clearly, the fact that faith in the face of a complete lack of evidence is a requirement in the Abrahamic religions makes the whole thing a paradox. Consider this situation: two people live identically pure and altruistic lives, except one believed wholeheartedly that Jesus was the son of God and died for our sins and all that jazz, while the other believed nothing of the sort, claiming that it would be foolish to believe such a concept over other concepts like those put forth in Judaism or Islam, which are presented with the same degree of evidence (or lack thereof). Would a supposedly just and loving God who does not possess human characteristics like arrogance and pettiness really send the first person to eternal paradise, and the second to eternal damnation, even though they lived identical lives with regards to how they treated themselves and others? Herein lies the fundamental flaw in religion as I see it, and its only one of many flaws in the idea of religion as we know it. I'll probably discuss the others in separate threads, as this post has gotten kind of long.

For me, I am a spiritual person, based mostly on life's experiences. I've lost many loved ones, people very close to me, I watched them die.

Real life experiences > mental gymnastics and criticisms on Abrahamic thought

Seriously, what are you trying to say here?

Have you tried Kundalini Yoga?
Have you tried Reiki Healing?
Have you studied Native American rituals?

LOL at only making an analysis of Abrahamic religions.... you have to make an analysis of EVERYTHING.

I was agnostic/atheist for 15 years. My spiritual practice is not a naive POV. Why do atheists only criticise Judeo/Christian dogma? Does this have to do with personal indoctrination?

Dude, go do some kundalini yoga... and no, you don't have to be ghey.

I haven't met an atheist that practices this stuff... cuz it's fucking awesome!

:hippy:

what you see as a flaw in religious thought is actually one of the major reasons for its survival throughout the ages. once you strip away all of the happy thoughts and mumbo jumbo you can see religion for what it really is, politics at its basest and most primitive. instead of nationalism and economics, it deals with absolute truth and immortality. with nothing concrete to offer its adherents, it bestows upon them the promise of heavenly favor and the knowledge that they are amongst the few and are therefore better than those who choose to follow another path. the clerics and hierarchs of the true faith need not justify their decisions, they need only point to the heavens and remind the faithful that they rule by divine right and that their words are the words of god (or gods or flying spaghetti monster or whatever).

simple, perfect, infallible. the creation of the cult of elitism based not on achievements or even intent, but on a simple choice of deity.

Most people simply adopt the religious beliefs of their parents. It makes good evolutionary sense for children to believe what their parents say. If children did not have this built-in willingness to accept what their parents say, they would be more likely to disregard their parents when they are being warned of a real danger. When a parent says "Watch out, there's a tiger!" or "Don't touch that flame!" or "There's a cliff behind that bush!", it's a good idea for the child to simply believe their parents because they haven't had enough experience with the world to know what's dangerous and what's not.

So children are naturally gullible. Tell your child that a fat man delivers presents to them every year with a fleet of flying reindeer, and the child will believe you. Tell your child that a magical fairy will replace their lost teeth with money, and the child will believe you. Tell your child that a gigantic bunny rabbit is going to leave chocolate eggs in a basket for you during the night, and the child will believe you. Tell the child that a magical god-man died for our sins and that you'll burn eternally if you don't believe that, and the child will believe you.

The thing about religions is that they're not just arbitrary belief systems. They have evolved over time, just like you and me. A religion that has ideas that people are willing to accept will spread far and wide, whereas a religion that has less successful ideas will die out. For instance, if there was a religion where one of the beliefs was you can't talk about the religion to anybody, that religion would get nowhere. If there's a religion where you have to go out and actively evangelize, that religion could easily spread around. If there's a religion that says all sex is wrong always, the followers won't have any children, and they'll have to rely solely on converting people. On the other hand, if you have a religion that urges people to be fruitful and multiply, that religion will have many more supple young minds to prey on.

One of the best features for a religion to evolve is the feature of being emotionally comfortable. People aren't going to be attracted to ideas that make them afraid; they're going to go after ideas that make them feel better about themselves. That's why so many religions promise that you have an immortal soul; that completely takes away the fear of death (or, at least it's supposed to...most religious people I know succumb to their natural fear of death anyways).

Most religions also have some sort of built-in automatic cosmic justice system. People don't like seeing bad people go unpunished and good people go unrewarded, so people believe concepts like heaven/hell and karma which guarantee that justice will eventually be served in the grand scheme of things. The monotheistic God concept is especially popular because it personifies that "ultimate justice" concept. It deludes the believer into thinking that an all-powerful father figure is looking after them and their families, making sure everything turns out all right in the end.

These are very emotionally powerful concepts, and usually strongly reinforced by the child's social network, so they are deeply ingrained in the child's mind before they can really examine the other belief systems that are out there or critically think about the tenets of their own religion. They don't even want to think about the possibility that they might be wrong. The idea of giving up God, giving up eternal life, giving up ultimate cosmic justice is just too scary for them, so they take those ideas to the grave.

hempo points out a big reason for many people choosing the particular religion that they do and that is "personal experience." my belief in a god stems from experiential reasons.

now many just follow it because of being raised with certain beliefs or whatever... that wouldn't cut it for me.

the beauty of personal experience is that nobody can take it away from you... except you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KevinFinnerty

Why exactly did you choose the religion that you adhere to? In other words, why have you chosen to follow Christianity instead of Judaism, or Judaism instead of Islam, etc.?

---

I'm an atheist but like 95% of atheists I was raised in a religious background (in my case, evangelical Christianity) and used to believe in god. I spent five years as an agnostic, which I see as a period of transition people go through before they accept full atheism. It's a logical process to go from theism to atheism because it's based upon the evaluation of logic, reasoning, and evidence. It's blind to cultural bias. However, my point is theists cannot say the same. Christians would be Hindus if they were born in India and Muslims would be Mormons with those silly magic underpants if they were born in Salt Lake City. They believe what they believe because of their emotions shaped by their cultural biases. It's easily anticipated someone will say "But that's not true, what about people who switch religions?" Same difference, the choices are made out of emotion and not rationality.

Quote:

---

Oneironaut:
It makes good evolutionary sense for children to believe what their parents say. If children did not have this built-in willingness to accept what their parents say, they would be more likely to disregard their parents when they are being warned of a real danger. When a parent says "Watch out, there's a tiger!" or "Don't touch that flame!" or "There's a cliff behind that bush!", it's a good idea for the child to simply believe their parents because they haven't had enough experience with the world to know what's dangerous and what's not.

---

Yes! And I'm always reminded of how Richard Dawkins worded it: you can't have children being skeptical to stay away from crocodiles. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oh My High

Yes! And I'm always reminded of how Richard Dawkins worded it: you can't have children being skeptical to stay away from crocodiles. :D

---

Very nice quote! :D
Anyway, like the skeptical children who does not believe their parents advise and are eaten by the crocodiles, im sure that sceptical people who doesnt believe in God will burn forever in hell... the logic is the same... :p

I think what truly makes religion the ultimate political rallying point, is the total lack of accountability of leaders to their people. God is supposed to be suppreme ruler of the universe, the guy who bestowes our most important moral codes of conduct and thought, yet unlike an elected national leader there is no questioning the success of the policies and social strategies of the supposedly infallable diety.

Instead we have a world with the most horrifically greusome diseases, terrible wars, mass ignorance, mass greed, pedophiles, rapists, murderes, global warming, genocides, you name it. The holy scriptures endowed to us are supposed to guide us to an enlightened life, yes, but these teachings are god's plan to guide the world in the rigth direction. Yet his previous strategies have obviously failed, his holy scriptures are obviously not enough to remedie the worlds problems and reach the most terrible people, nor does he provide adaquate evidence of his existence, apparently only to punish those of us with critical thinking skills who have lived in a world that consistantly shows we should only believe something with ample evidence.

If god was indeed omniscient, omnipitant, infallable in all his reasoning, he'd have this world in far better condition than it is. The monotheists rationalize these attrocities by blaming the fallability of man, yet just as a parent is responsible to bring up their child properly, God is responsible for bringing up humanity properly. That's not my opinion, that's what God's already tried to do with holy scriptures. And the scriptures and churches have failed, humanity does not have its values strait, it does not have a clear idea of how to achieve a beautiful world, and God has failed to improve his strategy to reach all of us.

Why do you think churches and mosque's have said for so long that you must never question the almighty authority? Because if we did question his performance, we would have voted in a new guy by now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oh My High

I'm an atheist but like 95% of atheists I was raised in a religious background (in my case, evangelical Christianity) and used to believe in god. I spent five years as an agnostic, which I see as a period of transition people go through before they accept full atheism. It's a logical process to go from theism to atheism because it's based upon the evaluation of logic, reasoning, and evidence. It's blind to cultural bias. However, my point is theists cannot say the same. Christians would be Hindus if they were born in India and Muslims would be Mormons with those silly magic underpants if they were born in Salt Lake City. They believe what they believe because of their emotions shaped by their cultural biases. It's easily anticipated someone will say "But that's not true, what about people who switch religions?" Same difference, the choices are made out of emotion and not rationality.

---

Well then according to you the only rational and free minded choice would be to be an atheist and that is where your argument is flawed

It is true that there are many regions of the world susceptible to a certain religion and cultural bias does influence the percentages of religions but that would raise the question of how religions started. If what you say is true then there couldnâ??t be any other religions since humanity was all born in the same region and also the fact the you assume everyone in India is Hindu and everyone in salt lake city is Mormon makes you look like an asshole

Religion serves one purpose and one purpose only, to explain the unexplainable, that is how the first religions were started and why they were mostly polytheistic. as the human mind expanded and began to explain these things religions became more and more hard to refute and as more and more people began to believe in certain religions other people saw the opportunity to use this to their own gains (this is where all the politics the apparently forms the basis of every religion comes in)

Blind faith is one of the most important aspects of the major Abrahamic religions but even though you wouldnâ??t like to admit it is also a major aspect of atheism

if an atheist didnâ??t truly with all aspects of his being believe that it is impossible for there to be a god then he wouldnâ??t be an atheist so you sir have blind faith that there is no god, and if your a scientific atheist then there are even more things that you blindly believe in called theories

the major flaw of religions is that they are man made and there has yet to be something thought of or created by man that is perfect including your argument

Quote:

---

It is true that there are many regions of the world susceptible to a certain religion and cultural bias does influence the percentages of religions but that would raise the question of how religions started. If what you say is true then there couldnâ??t be any other religions since humanity was all born in the same region and also the fact the you assume everyone in India is Hindu and everyone in salt lake city is Mormon makes you look like an asshole

---

Dude, no need for the name calling.... you asshole! (j/k ;) ) . He didnt' actually say all people of these places are the same religion, just the very true point that religion, at least initially, is based on which culture you were born into. He also never said that new religions couldn't come up, that people don't rebel, or that one can change faith, he's just talking about the general population for which the religion resides. Does a poster really need to specifically state ".... or he would be Hindu if born in India. And by that I mean if he was born into a Hindu family, and no sihk's or muslims tried to convert him, and etc etc etc..." The basic point is there, you're blowing it out of proportion for not going into uncessesary specifics that are a given.

Quote:

---

Religion serves one purpose and one purpose only, to explain the unexplainable, that is how the first religions were started and why they were mostly polytheistic. as the human mind expanded and began to explain these things religions became more and more hard to refute and as more and more people began to believe in certain religions other people saw the opportunity to use this to their own gains (this is where all the politics the apparently forms the basis of every religion comes in)

---

Well I totally agree with you that religions were invented to explain the unexplainable, but how did they become "harder to refute" as we learned more? Thunder was attributed to a blacksmith of the gods one time, stars were explained as pinprick glimpses into heaven, neuro-chemical imbalance later explained what christians initially thought was the work of demons. If anything I'd say religion becomes more and more difficult to justify as human knowledge expands. Of course once you explain one thing, they move onto the next thing we haven't yet explained and say "well how could that possibly work by itself? I don't know so that proves god did it!".

Quote:

---

Blind faith is one of the most important aspects of the major Abrahamic religions but even though you wouldnâ??t like to admit it is also a major aspect of atheism

if an atheist didnâ??t truly with all aspects of his being believe that it is impossible for there to be a god then he wouldnâ??t be an atheist so you sir have blind faith that there is no god, and if your a scientific atheist then there are even more things that you blindly believe in called theories

---

Sorry but my BULLSHITOMETER is through the roof. I can't count how many times I've heard the argument that atheism requires "faith". It's a typical theist tactic, yet another, to try and put religion on equal grounds of rationality with science.
Religion is a matter of faith, faith in the unseen and the unproven, faith in the existence of things and beings unverified. Atheism is not "I KNOW there's no god!", atheism is a rational decision to not believe in god until there's is ample evidence to do so. The very notion that you have to have "faith" for non-belief is rediculous. If I say gremlims have a mining colony at the center of the sun, can you disprove it? Do you need to have faith that the gremlims aren't there? Or are you just rational enough to know it's illogical to believe in the gremlims without evidence of them?

If a lack of belief in god requires faith, then it's no more faith than a lack of belief in everything else imaginary. In which case, God has no more credibility than the tooth fairy or the flying spagetti monster. It baffles me to this day that millions have now become convinced that "faith" not only applies to belief, but lack of belief as well. This is a very typical example of people who don't understand that atheism is not knowing there isn't a god, it is knowing god is no more plausible than everything else that doesn't exist, until god has been proven or at least has some supporting evidence.

^^^ The flying spaghetti monster again, eh? Reading about that thing always makes me hungry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coelho

Very nice quote! :D
Anyway, like the skeptical children who does not believe their parents advise and are eaten by the crocodiles, im sure that sceptical people who doesnt believe in God will burn forever in hell... the logic is the same... :p

---

Yeah, I guess we weren't explaining *why* religion works. People were stating that religion works because children listen to their parents, not that parents are always right.

I'm sure the people who are sceptical of their parent's scientology teachings will.... whatever that religion has as a negative (unsolved problems in past lives to milk you of your money), and the muslim extremist children will go to hell for not being sceptical about blowing themselves up for virgins. Not all parents can be right about everything. If parents were right about everything they wouldn't tell us about Santa and the easter Bunny.

But yeah, you're analogy is perfect! The fact that you have a little lickey smiley face in regards to your belief that your fellow man will be tortured in hell simply for a deity choice is no reason for concern, hey, but at least you think you're "right". :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gandalf_The_Grey

Dude, no need for the name calling.... you asshole! (j/k ;) ) . He didnt' actually say all people of these places are the same religion, just the very true point that religion, at least initially, is based on which culture you were born into. He also never said that new religions couldn't come up, that people don't rebel, or that one can change faith, he's just talking about the general population for which the religion resides. Does a poster really need to specifically state ".... or he would be Hindu if born in India. And by that I mean if he was born into a Hindu family, and no sihk's or muslims tried to convert him, and etc etc etc..." The basic point is there, you're blowing it out of proportion for not going into uncessesary specifics that are a given.

---

I apologize for the name calling and I did take things a little to literally

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gandalf_The_Grey

Well I totally agree with you that religions were invented to explain the unexplainable, but how did they become "harder to refute" as we learned more? Thunder was attributed to a blacksmith of the gods one time, stars were explained as pinprick glimpses into heaven, neuro-chemical imbalance later explained what christians initially thought was the work of demons. If anything I'd say religion becomes more and more difficult to justify as human knowledge expands. Of course once you explain one thing, they move onto the next thing we haven't yet explained and say "well how could that possibly work by itself? I don't know so that proves god did it!".

---

my meaning is that, the first religions had very abstract ideas to explain everyday forces like the sun rising but as human knowledge progressed, these ideas becamed explained by science but there a certain things that will never be explainable such as creation that will always leave room for a god, without an explanation of somthing there will always be an abstract idea not based on proof to explain it some may be rediculous and other may be more beleivable

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gandalf_The_Grey

Sorry but my BULLSHITOMETER is through the roof. I can't count how many times I've heard the argument that atheism requires "faith". It's a typical theist tactic, yet another, to try and put religion on equal grounds of rationality with science.
Religion is a matter of faith, faith in the unseen and the unproven, faith in the existence of things and beings unverified. Atheism is not "I KNOW there's no god!", atheism is a rational decision to not believe in god until there's is ample evidence to do so. The very notion that you have to have "faith" for non-belief is rediculous. If I say gremlims have a mining colony at the center of the sun, can you disprove it? Do you need to have faith that the gremlims aren't there? Or are you just rational enough to know it's illogical to believe in the gremlims without evidence of them?

If a lack of belief in god requires faith, then it's no more faith than a lack of belief in everything else imaginary. In which case, God has no more credibility than the tooth fairy or the flying spagetti monster. It baffles me to this day that millions have now become convinced that "faith" not only applies to belief, but lack of belief as well. This is a very typical example of people who don't understand that atheism is not knowing there isn't a god, it is knowing god is no more plausible than everything else that doesn't exist, until god has been proven or at least has some supporting evidence.

---

you have a very different take on atheism than from most people, even most atheists in my expirience. but the way you explain it make it sound more like agnostic than atheistic simply the fact that you would be open to the idea of there being a god if there was ample proof leans you more towards agnostic

everybody has their own opinions about their own religiouns and beliefs there is no uniform religious where everybody belelives the exact same thing and in the same way your subjecting all atheism to be that it is the denial of god untill he can be proven when the definition of atheisn with simply the denial of god

take it as you will

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hempotalogist

For me, I am a spiritual person, based mostly on life's experiences. I've lost many loved ones, people very close to me, I watched them die.

Real life experiences > mental gymnastics and criticisms on Abrahamic thought

---

I don't mean to be rude, but what is this supposed to mean? How does losing a loved one make you say "okay, now I believe that there has to be some sort of higher power out there"? Or is it just that after losing a loved one, you become so distraught over your loss that you're unwilling to even acknowledge the possiblity that your loved one has now completely ceased to exist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hempotalogist

Seriously, what are you trying to say here?

Have you tried Kundalini Yoga?
Have you tried Reiki Healing?
Have you studied Native American rituals?

LOL at only making an analysis of Abrahamic religions.... you have to make an analysis of EVERYTHING.

---

I guess I should have been more clear. The reason I focused on the Abrahamic religions is because my issue is with religions that tell people "believe in this, or suffer eternal damnation." I didn't discuss yoga because, from what I understand, it deals with things like meditation and finding inner calm and not with how to avoid eternal damnation.

Anyway, the main point of my original post was that if the Christian God were as loving and forgiving as described, it would be paradoxical for him to send Ghandi, let's say, to Hell, yet according to the Bible he would do just that. Even though Ghandi lived as purely and altruistically as anyone, he did not believe that Christ had a son named Jesus who died for our sins etc., so he would be forced to suffer eternally.

The bottom line is that I never really get an answer when I ask someone why they believe in one religion as opposed to another. The response is usually something along the lines of "just because." I think it's clear that the real reason is always either familial pressure or because they want to believe that a certain religion speaks the truth (which, as I stated in my original post, is not a valid reason for believing that one set of fairy tales is true and another is false, just like I don't believe that I'll win the lottery if I buy a ticket just because I want it to happen). That being said, I truly believe that EVERY member of any religion which promises eternal paradise in the afterlife in exchange for obedience, on some level, knows that they really have no clue how this universe came to be and has made the conscious decision to deny any possibility that they're wrong about their faith just so they can live easier "knowing" they're going to heaven.

There Is No God

I believe that there is no God. I'm beyond atheism. Atheism is not believing in God. Not believing in God is easy -- you can't prove a negative, so there's no work to do. You can't prove that there isn't an elephant inside the trunk of my car. You sure? How about now? Maybe he was just hiding before. Check again. Did I mention that my personal heartfelt definition of the word ''elephant'' includes mystery, order, goodness, love and a spare tire?(stumble.com)

Quote:

---

Quincyboy:
Religion serves one purpose and one purpose only, to explain the unexplainable, that is how the first religions were started and why they were mostly polytheistic.

---

I agree to the extent that explaining the unexplainable is one function of religionâ??the god in the gaps as we atheists sayâ??but I disagree it's its only purpose. Religion fulfills at least three other functions: to comfort from the viciousness of the human life cycle, to comfort from the inevitability of our own demise, and to provide a sense of meaning to life and of the cosmos. I really don't think, anymore, that philosophical musings of first cause is primarily central to why people believe. When an atheist is discovered by theists, the first response is never "I'm shocked! How could you NOT believe in creationism?" but rather "I'm shocked! How can you live a moral life?"

Quote:

---

as the human mind expanded and began to explain these things religions became more and more hard to refute and as more and more people began to believe in certain religions other people saw the opportunity to use this to their own gains (this is where all the politics the apparently forms the basis of every religion comes in)

---

I'm more inclined to take the position that it has always been so. Religion and its power has been around for about 250,000 years but science has only existed for about 500, starting with the Greeks somewhat but not really kicking in until the 1500's. It was Edward Gibbon who stated various forms of worship were considered by "the people" as equally true, by philosophers as equally false, and by the magistrate as equally useful.

Quote:

---

Blind faith is one of the most important aspects of the major Abrahamic religions but even though you wouldnâ??t like to admit it is also a major aspect of atheism

---

No, blind faith is not a component of atheism. It's the difference between assumptions and presumptions. Atheism takes a leap of belief, surelyâ??it's called provisional acceptanceâ??but a much, much smaller leap.

Quote:

---

the first religions had very abstract ideas to explain everyday forces like the sun rising but as human knowledge progressed, these ideas became explained by science but there a certain things that will never be explainable such as creation that will always leave room for a god, without an explanation of somthing there will always be an abstract idea not based on proof to explain it some may be rediculous and other may be more believable

---

I think Stephen Weinberg said it best during the BBC documentary "The Atheism Tapes":

There is a mystery, I have to admit. We try to understand nature and we ask questions and we get answers and then we ask follow-up questions. "Why is that true?" Ultimately, we hope to come to a set of elegant physical principles that describe everything and when we have it, the mystery will still be there because we will have to ask, "Why is it that theory and not some other theory?" One answer is the regularity imposed on it by a spirit, a designer, but that doesn't answer anything. Then you have to say, "Why is the designer like that?" Either by a designer you have something in particular in mindâ??a god who is benevolent, jealous, or humorousâ??whatever!â??or you have nothing in mind and then let's not talk about it. If you have something in mind, then the question arises, "Why is that true?" So, I don't see that having a designer puts us at rest. I think we are permanently in the tragic position of not being able to understand at the deepest possible level why things are the way they are, and you just have to live with that. But saying it's a designer doesn't settle it, doesn't help.

Quote:

---

johneg:
"I believe that there is no God. I'm beyond atheism. Atheism is not believing in God. Not believing in God is easy -- you can't prove a negative, so there's no work to do. You can't prove that there isn't an elephant inside the trunk of my car. You sure? How about now? Maybe he was just hiding before. Check again. Did I mention that my personal heartfelt definition of the word ''elephant'' includes mystery, order, goodness, love and a spare tire?"

---

I instantly recognized that Penn Jillette quote. :thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hardcore Newbie

Yeah, I guess we weren't explaining *why* religion works. People were stating that religion works because children listen to their parents, not that parents are always right.

I'm sure the people who are sceptical of their parent's scientology teachings will.... whatever that religion has as a negative (unsolved problems in past lives to milk you of your money), and the muslim extremist children will go to hell for not being sceptical about blowing themselves up for virgins. Not all parents can be right about everything. If parents were right about everything they wouldn't tell us about Santa and the easter Bunny.

But yeah, you're analogy is perfect! The fact that you have a little lickey smiley face in regards to your belief that your fellow man will be tortured in hell simply for a deity choice is no reason for concern, hey, but at least you think you're "right". :p

---

Hey... dont take what i said so seriously... even if its a good analogy, i said it as a joke, so the :p. I just did see that i could twist the meaning of that citation, and could not resist to doing so...

Oneironaut, as always, does an amazingly articulate job of explaining how and why people get religion and how religions are arbitrary belief systems, which I wholly agree with.

The fundamental flaw I personally see with religion is very simple. It's belief in the supernatural, and I don't believe in the supernatural.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by birdgirl73

The fundamental flaw I personally see with religion is very simple. It's belief in the supernatural, and I don't believe in the supernatural.

---

Ignorant, abhorrent sheep you all are! The Flying Spaghetti Monster will properly dispose of all ye naysayers come judgment! Every fork will bend, every taste bud shall water, and every napkin tainted with sauce!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coelho

Hey... dont take what i said so seriously... even if its a good analogy, i said it as a joke, so the :p. I just did see that i could twist the meaning of that citation, and could not resist to doing so...

---

Apologies :D But it's not a good analogy ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KevinFinnerty

I don't mean to be rude, but what is this supposed to mean? How does losing a loved one make you say "okay, now I believe that there has to be some sort of higher power out there"? Or is it just that after losing a loved one, you become so distraught over your loss that you're unwilling to even acknowledge the possiblity that your loved one has now completely ceased to exist.

---

For me, it was neither. It's the experience as a whole. I was happily agnostic for many years, 15 or so. I had always been kind of a hippy so I was mostly agnostic, and not atheist. But after losing loved ones, the power of the realtionships, the gravity of the experience - the graphic nature in the way they died - changed me. It doesn't have anything to do with "comfort" per se, and more to do with perception.

I am spirtualist and I believe in energy. I believe that when our loved ones die, they let us know they are out there, but only for a short period of time, then they are gone.

It's just what I believe from whats happened to me. I do Kundalini yoga and study (a little) Reiki, plus I am really into animals so I try to be aware nature at all times.

I use the Church for weddings and funerals. I have no problem being a spiritualist/Catholic. I like the structure of the Church but do not believe Jesus was the son of G-O-D, and differ on many political issues. I was raised Catholic, so I am very used to the institution.

Some people think I am blasphemous, because I am sort of a "religious dillettante," but I just happen to feel that it's excellent to use what you feel works. For me it's doing rigorous Yoga with Sikhs, which includes chanting, prayer and meditation.

Quote:

---

Kundalini is considered the most comprehensive of yogas, combining meditation, prayer, physical practices and breathing exercises. â??Kundaliniâ?� literally means â??the curl of the lock of hair of the beloved.â?� This poetic metaphor alludes to the flow of energy and consciousness that exists within each of us, and enables us to merge with â?? or â??yokeâ?� â?? the universal Self. Fusing individual and universal consciousness creates a divine union, called â??yoga.â?� The Upanishads, Hinduâ??s sacred scriptures that date back to the fifth century B.C., describe Kundalini, although the oral tradition reaches back even further into history. For thousands of years, this sacred science and technology was veiled in secrecy, passed along verbally from master to chosen disciple.

http://www.3ho.org/yogibhajan.html

---

I just ran out of time, sorry I didn't respond to the second half of your post.

Religion is just politics. Take the Catholic church for example...
They make people eat, breathe, and sleep their doctrines. They give vivid descriptions of heaven and hell, instilling a fear into followers that if they doubt anything that the church says that God will smite them into a fiery pit where they will rot forever. This is their perfect fall back system to keep people going to church and donating their money. I'm really high right now, but hopefully this makes sense.

I think the problem with religion is that it was created by people.

...Really, that's the problem with a lot of things.

Well, Kevin, I will give you a straight answer to your question.

...But after this: I think you need to take into account the fact that most theists don't actually think that everyone is going to hell but their fellow theists. From my experience, most sensible theists say "It is between you and God".

As far as why one chooses one religion or another, it is as simple as reading the doctrine of a religion.
You read and agree, or you disagree and move on.

If you are determined to adapt the scientific method into a belief system, there is really no point in discussing religion at all.

Why open your mouth if you already know that you are not going to be satisfied?

The way I see it is thusly:
People are irrational by nature, but have the ability to recognize their nature for what it is.
The best you can hope to do is come to terms with what it means to be human, and try to improve yourself.

I did not pick christ, he picked me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KevinFinnerty

I should start off by saying that I consider myself agnostic, as I acknowledge the possibility that there may be a higher power out there somewhere but I certainly wouldn't say I believe in a god.

Now, I could write volumes about how preposterous the notion of religion is (for this discussion I will focus exclusively on the Abrahamic religions of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam), but the fundamental flaw I referred to in the thread title revolves around one question for you religious people out there: why exactly did you choose the religion that you adhere to? In other words, why have you chosen to follow Christianity instead of Judaism, or Judaism instead of Islam, etc.?

On the one hand, religious people like to emphasize that empirical evidence of any kind is not needed to believe in their religion, and that faith in the face of this lack of evidence is virtuous. However, a person must have some rhyme or reason for picking one religion over another, right? I mean, people don't just pick their religions randomly, do they? Of course not (you'd probably be stoned to death in many Muslim countries for even suggesting such a notion).

The one incredibly fallacious line of reasoning that I want to discuss which people to tend to use to justify their belief in a given religion is that they believe because they like the message that the religion sends out. You might hear a Christian say something along the lines of, "I believe in Christianity because I read the Bible and that Jesus preached a lot of things that I agree with and did a lot of really great things for a lot of people." However, preferring the tenets and principles of one religion over the others does not make it more likely that the events and information the religion describes are actually true. It's reverse logic; you're basically saying to yourself, "It would be really great if this were true, so I will believe it is true." For people who think this way, ignorance really is bliss.

To state the fundamental flaw I mentioned earlier a little more clearly, the fact that faith in the face of a complete lack of evidence is a requirement in the Abrahamic religions makes the whole thing a paradox. Consider this situation: two people live identically pure and altruistic lives, except one believed wholeheartedly that Jesus was the son of God and died for our sins and all that jazz, while the other believed nothing of the sort, claiming that it would be foolish to believe such a concept over other concepts like those put forth in Judaism or Islam, which are presented with the same degree of evidence (or lack thereof). Would a supposedly just and loving God who does not possess human characteristics like arrogance and pettiness really send the first person to eternal paradise, and the second to eternal damnation, even though they lived identical lives with regards to how they treated themselves and others? Herein lies the fundamental flaw in religion as I see it, and its only one of many flaws in the idea of religion as we know it. I'll probably discuss the others in separate threads, as this post has gotten kind of long.

---

well Ive been to many muslim countries and they wouldnt stone you to death for that, etc malaysia, bangladesh, egypt, indonesia. Maybe religion might not be the right thing for you but there's no need to insult anyone now is there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YouAintKnow

Religion is just politics. Take the Catholic church for example...
They make people eat, breathe, and sleep their doctrines. They give vivid descriptions of heaven and hell, instilling a fear into followers that if they doubt anything that the church says that God will smite them into a fiery pit where they will rot forever. This is their perfect fall back system to keep people going to church and donating their money. I'm really high right now, but hopefully this makes sense.

---

They used to do that, but they're a bit more rational now. Official Church teaching is actually that heaven and hell are states of the soul after the body dies, not actual places. Not that I'm a Catholic, at least not anymore.

Religion is like a dummy function that a computer programmer puts into a class to keep it from crashing. Its purpose is just to return any old simple answer; as long as the program keeps running without incident, it serves its purpose. In a case of insufficient processing power, a more complicated answer might crash the system, and we can't have that!

i guess it would be much easier to believe in nothing...and the whole diffrent religion thing can be real miss leading. and 90% of what u learn as a child is sugar coated anyways.and what onironaut said about kids believing all u say can cut both ways. it depends on the child the one in most cases that end up as atheist. the one that listens to nothing and rebels. and listens to nothing the parents say so that can go both ways.

and as far as Christianity it picks up where the jews pretty much droped the ball. and for one thing jesus didn't like the so called religion as it was being taught. if anyone reads the bible for them selfs and not just listen to sum guy in a church that preaches the same thing over and over. just to pay the bills and pocket some for himself. then u would learn alot more if u open ur mind a lil. and i see atheist's as the closed minded ones.

u know the kids that would'nt listen and rebels against everything unless it was thought up by them then it's ok. but anyways i just see that if there was'nt god then it just seem real pointless for all of this. the world everything to just be in vain. i mean the thought of nothing after u die seems childish. what would push people to do better and to strive to do better and keep this world going just to die at the end. and all that u did was in vain. i 4 one don't do things in vain all i do has purpose.

and thats how i would see striving to be faithful and to do gods work as best u can and to prove ur loyalty to god would be a good thing. guess u would have to understand the concept of love to understand this logic.+it didn't start out as religion man made it this way. i mean jesus was pissed and feed up with the so called men of the cloth. at that time the higher up going around collecting money and bribing cheating and stealing.


and look at revelation that book is nothing but judging the churches for there bad doings. so it's not jesus or god thats distorting anything. it's the bad seeds and the human nature of greed among other things. i mean those crazy people that claim god comes and tells them things and all the bs. thats not the case iv'e never seen or heard god but i do believe. this world is perfect and everything in it but what fucks everything up is a lil thing called freewill. thats where things get tricky cause some have a good heart and sum don't and it's all in knowledge. the ones with the closed minds are the ones that most of the time rebel. the ones that step back and look at everything and don't just jump into things seem to get along alil better. theres a whole lot of variables to this world. so to just say u have no soul would be close minded at best. and that is what ur saying right? cause if u believe u have a soul then it would have to go somewhere after u die would it not? and if u believe in no soul then what tells u to do things u know is either right or wrong? what gives u that gut feeling when somethings wrong???

u have to use ur brain alil here. not just make a decision based on growing up, seeing abunch of dead headed people being lead around by the nose just wanting to believe in something(followers).u know that love u seek in life the man/woman u seek to be with the rest of ur life. the person u want to devote themself to u forever and love no one but u. and would never betray u the one that would give themselfs as a whole to u. well thats what we all really seek is it not? we all want the love and attention from that one person. or more for sum of u but u get the point. well read the old testament and read between the lines from the beginning. all god wanted is the same thing we have all longed for. but instead of 1 or 2 people he wanted that kind of love from all his people. and every time as soon as they got what they wanted they would turn there backs on him after all that he did for them time after time.is that to much to ask for well it seems to be.....