Why organised religion?

It pains me to try and wrap my head round the idea that grown adults these days, after "witnessing some personal, yet seemingly extraordinary phenomenon", compelling enough *for them* to consider more than just a vague possibility there is some sort of god out there then go and immerse themselves in a belief system founded by people with primitive morals and primitive science/insight.

Why such a large move from:
"hmm...perhaps my [insert position of non-belief be it agnosticism, atheism or whatever] is shortsighted, maybe there is some sort of god"
to
"I am absolutely sure that the god of the Bible is true, that Noah's flood was an actual event, that the son of god was sent to pay the price (arbitrarily set by "God" ) for two humans Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit in a magical garden, that I am saved from eternal torture in some fiery hell made by an all loving god, etc..."
Reveal Hidden Content

??? 😕

Originally posted by Agerg
It pains me to try and wrap my head round the idea that grown adults after "witnessing some personal, yet seemingly extraordinary phenomenon", compelling enough *for them* to consider more than just a vague possibility there is some sort of god out there then go and immerse themselves in a belief system founded by people with primitive morals and primitive sci ...[text shortened]... .."
[hidden]Or insert daft beliefs from other religions if you like[/hidden]

??? 😕

How else would you suggest that people organize and make sense of their lives in pre-scientific times?

Originally posted by rwingett
How else would you suggest that people organize and make sense of their lives in pre-scientific times?

I refer to people in present times (let's say in the last 50 years or 100 even) who were not indoctrinated into some religion yet still make such a staggering shift from non-belief to complete acceptance of the stories written by folk in pre-scientific times. To emphasis that slightly more I've re-edited my OP.

Originally posted by Agerg
I refer to people in present times (let's say in the last 50 years or 100 even) who were not indoctrinated into some religion yet still make such a staggering shift from non-belief to complete acceptance of the stories written by folk in pre-scientific times. To emphasis that slightly more I've re-edited my OP.

The roots of religion have sunk deep. They were the ties that bound communities together for hundreds of years. Do you expect them to be abandoned within 50 to 100 years? And what would they be replaced with?

Science, despite telling us how the universe works, tells us nothing about how our society should work. Its greatest effect has not been the enlightenment of man, but the destruction of communal ties that anchored him in a coherent world. It has left mankind as nothing more than a collection of atomized individuals with no ties to anything. The old religions, because of their scientific shortcomings, have been fatally undermined. But organized religion has not been eradicated. It is simply in the process of being replaced by the new religion of technological determinism. Instead of having a misplaced faith that Jesus would save him, mankind now has a misplaced faith that improved technology will be his savior. And in the process, the old communal ties that supported man in society have been replaced by an atomized materialistic consumerism. Even as an atheist, I'm not entirely sure we came out ahead on the deal.

Originally posted by rwingett
The roots of religion have sunk deep. They were the ties that bound communities together for hundreds of years. Do you expect them to be abandoned within 50 to 100 years? And what would they be replaced with?

Science, despite telling us how the universe works, tells us nothing about how our society should work. Its greatest effect has not been the enlig ...[text shortened]... rialistic consumerism. Even as an atheist, I'm not entirely sure we came out ahead on the deal.

You have the wrong boogie man.


Science advocates no such thing.
And it can tell us lots of useful things about how our societies should run.

For example it can, and does, give good solid reasons why living in an "atomized materialistic consumerist"
society is bad, and how and what could be done to fix that.


I agree that rampant consumerism is detrimental to society, and that overuse and depletion of resources is
and will give us great troubles now and in the future.

However that isn't sciences fault, and it science is an essential part of how we will (if we do) fix things.

Science gives immense power to those who wield it. And it can tell us what kind of outcomes that power can lead to
as well as giving objective standards of evaluating those outcomes, as good or bad.

However what we have and eventually chose to do with that power is a moral and political choice of the people,
not that of the scientists and processes by which we develop and discover the technology and knowledge.


There is no such thing as bad knowledge, just how it is used.

Originally posted by Agerg
It pains me to try and wrap my head round the idea that grown adults these days, after "witnessing some personal, yet seemingly extraordinary phenomenon", compelling enough *for them* to consider more than just a vague possibility there is some sort of god out there then go and immerse themselves in a belief system founded by people with primitive morals and p ...[text shortened]... .."
[hidden]Or insert daft beliefs from other religions if you like[/hidden]

??? 😕

Christ once said that the greatest commandment is to love God and your fellow man. At what point will mankind "grow" into knowing how to do that via science?

As St Paul once eloquently stated, if I know all there is to know, but do not have love I am nothing. If I can move mountains with my faith but do not have love I am just making noise etc. Although we have spiritual insight, such insight is primitive and fleeting. In the end it will all pass away but love will be all that is left and eternal. We see God as if peering though a dark glass, but someday we will see him in his completeness.

Originally posted by Agerg
It pains me to try and wrap my head round the idea that grown adults these days, after "witnessing some personal, yet seemingly extraordinary phenomenon", compelling enough *for them* to consider more than just a vague possibility there is some sort of god out there then go and immerse themselves in a belief system founded by people with primitive morals and p .."
[hidden]Or insert daft beliefs from other religions if you like[/hidden]

??? 😕

WITNESSING SOME PERSONAL, YET SEEMINGLY EXTRAORDINARY PHENOMENON.. AND you question there need to belive,, ive never been witness to something like that but my faith is built on the teachings and my love of the lord in a personal way.
i can only imagine what you would need to belive. and what is insert daft beliefs from other religions??

Originally posted by whodey
Christ once said that the greatest commandment is to love God and your fellow man. At what point will mankind "grow" into knowing how to do that via science?

they already do that. religion is a science of psychology.

I have never been overly taken by the love that Christ mentions.
Compulsory love is as far removed from love as anything can be.

Originally posted by stoker
WITNESSING SOME PERSONAL, YET SEEMINGLY EXTRAORDINARY PHENOMENON.. AND you question there need to belive,, ive never been witness to something like that but my faith is built on the teachings and my love of the lord in a personal way.
i can only imagine what you would need to belive. and what is insert daft beliefs from other religions??

Did you read the entire OP!??

I questioned the need to believe in some specific god associated with the Bible or any other holy book. If we suppose a god was responsible (for sake of argument) there are still infinitely many other potential gods to consider that are different from the one you believe in.

A god exists does not imply your or any other popular notion of god exists.

Originally posted by Agerg
Did you read the entire OP!??

I questioned the need to believe in some [b]specific god associated with the Bible or any other holy book. If we suppose a god was responsible (for sake of argument) there are still infinitely many other potential gods to consider that are different from the one you believe in.

A god exists does not imply your or any other popular notion of god exists.[/b]

In fact I will go further and state that all current popular notions of god, as described in any of the holy books,
are so manifestly human creations subject to all our imperfections and prejudices [at time of writing] and so open
to interpretation and translation errors through the ages that even if a god exists it is evident that they could
not be responsible for any of the myriad of religions present in the world today (or any point in the past).


No religion started or directed by a being that is even a shade of the power and intellect ascribed to a deity could
or would be as contradictory, varied, vague, overly simplistic, muddled, badly translated, unintelligible, open for
interpretation, and just plain morally questionable if not evil, as the religions currently in evidence today
or have ever been started at any time in history.


Thus if there is a/are god/s, and that god isn't simply malicious and messing with us, then that/those god/s
have not at any point in history ever come to earth, appeared to man, and instructed or guided us to do or think
anything.



This is true regardless of any knowledge or ability of science, or anything else, to describe reality and how it, and us,
came about.

For god to be even a shadow of what you claim him to be, he couldn't possibly have been so incompetent or inept at
starting and maintaining a religion or moral code, as is demonstrated by the faiths in evidence.

If god exists, and has morals of any kind, he has never been here.

Originally posted by Krapsparov
I have never been overly taken by the love that Christ mentions.
Compulsory love is as far removed from love as anything can be.

Can you describe "compulsory love" a little more?

Love for others is indeed compulsory once we are graced by God and take on more of His characteristics. Does that make the love we have less worthy than the love you may purport to have for others? Your love is better than ours? Is that it?

Originally posted by sumydid
Can you describe "compulsory love" a little more?

Love for others is indeed compulsory once we are graced by God and take on more of His characteristics.
Does that make the love we have less worthy than the love you may purport to have for others?
Your love is better than ours? Is that it?

If it is compulsory love you have no choice to love or not.

If you don't have a choice of who or what you love, then that love is worth less than love over which you do
have the choice.

The fact that you love someone/something is more meaningful if you had a choice not to have/show that love.


However as I believe your god is non-existent, I would hold you do have a choice over what you do or do not
love and respect. So from that perspective it is no more or less meaningful.

Although if you only love and respect people [or act with love and respect] because you think that is what god
wants and you want to get into his good books, I would say that is pretty hollow.

Well since you don't believe in God, then you don't believe in the "compulsory love" spoken of, and really any debate between us is utterly pointless.

However, from the Christian perspective, the source of all love is God. Therefore anyone who loves anyone, be they believer or not, is using the love given to them by the Creator and therefore it is not genuinely borne from them in the first place.

Originally posted by sumydid
Well since you don't believe in God, then you don't believe in the "compulsory love" spoken of, and really any debate between us is utterly pointless.

However, from the Christian perspective, the source of all love is God. Therefore anyone who loves anyone, be they believer or not, is using the love given to them by the Creator and therefore it is not genuinely borne from them in the first place.

Well that's a pretty sad picture,

Two people in love in that view are simply having their love for each other pumped into
both of them by some external figure, so much for great romance, your view has us as
simple puppets bending to the will of god's whim.
Wouldn't that totally remove free will btw?

Also how many Christians do you think would agree with that view of the world?