Why religion is dumb - reason 1.

If a person went around claiming that a giant cockroach created the universe and demanding that we all repent to the giant cockroach or else burn for all eternity in hell, then we would doubt his sanity.

Why should it be any different when people make the same claim, substituting a human being for the cockroach?

Not all religions are about that.

Originally posted by howardgee
If a person went around claiming that a giant cockroach created the universe and demanding that we all repent to the giant cockroach or else burn for all eternity in hell, then we would doubt his sanity.

Why should it be any different when people make the same claim, substituting a human being for the cockroach?

Hey Howard,

While I agree with you 100% and even rec'ed it and laughed out loud, I still don't think religion is necessarily dumb. For many it gives a sense of community, moral grounding, etc and yes all of these could be obtained without the belief in a deity.

What I think is dumb is that one group of believers has the audacity and the arrogance to believe "they know". My "God can beat up your God" etc. Why does someone's belief system have to come at the expense of mocking another's or lack of one?

If you think about it why is the cockroach belief that insane? Why isn't the belief in anything possible? To me the belief in Christ, with due respect, is no less insane than the cockroach, the belief in no god, or Jerry Lewis being god. Why does mankind actually believe they have a grip on any of this is beyond me.

Originally posted by Joe Fist
If you think about it why is the cockroach belief that insane? Why isn't the belief in anything possible? To me the belief in Christ, with due respect, is no less insane than the cockroach, the belief in no god, or Jerry Lewis being god. Why does mankind actually believe they have a grip on any of this is beyond me.

Now you mention it, there is something a little perverse about our insistence on knowing the answers and feeling certain about things that are cannot be understood by us. To believe certainly in the anthropomorphic God is no crazier than believing certainly in the complete absence of any organizing intelligence whatsoever. Believing certainly in any answer formulated by humans - and then forgetting that the answer was formulated by humans - sounds a little crazy.

Some of the mystical traditions within the great religions seem to put an emphasis on the looking, or the questioning, rather than the answers that follow. Once the mind closes around something, it seems to stop looking.

Originally posted by Algernon
Now you mention it, there is something a little perverse about our insistence on knowing the answers and feeling certain about things that are cannot be understood by us. To believe certainly in the anthropomorphic God is no crazier than believing certainly in the complete absence of any organizing intelligence whatsoever. Believing certainly in any answe ...[text shortened]... than the answers that follow. Once the mind closes around something, it seems to stop looking.

That's my point that you articulated better than I did:

Why can't everyone admit we just plain simply do not know? That is not to say a Christian should stop being a Christian or the Atheist should stop not believing. One should not infringe on the other but I think that is a bit too optimistic.

Originally posted by Joe Fist
Hey Howard,

While I agree with you 100% and even rec'ed it and laughed out loud, I still don't think religion is necessarily dumb. For many it gives a sense of community, moral grounding, etc and yes all of these could be obtained without the belief in a deity.

What I think is dumb is that one group of believers has the audacity and the arrogance t ...[text shortened]... ewis being god. Why does mankind actually believe they have a grip on any of this is beyond me.

In an ideal world, there should be regular community meetings to discuss local events, have a sing-song, and just get to know your neighbours!

This (incidental) element of religion is a good one. That is as far as it goes though!

Originally posted by Joe Fist
Hey Howard,

While I agree with you 100% and even rec'ed it and laughed out loud, I still don't think religion is necessarily dumb. For many it gives a sense of community, moral grounding, etc and yes all of these could be obtained without the belief in a deity.

What I think is dumb is that one group of believers has the audacity and the arrogance t ...[text shortened]... ewis being god. Why does mankind actually believe they have a grip on any of this is beyond me.

I prefer to use my own invented term "unsane" to describe religious people.

This means to have a belief in something which can never be proven.

As you point out, mankind might just as well believe in the giant cockroach creator theory. It is equally (un)provable as our notion of "God".

Originally posted by howardgee
If a person went around claiming that a giant cockroach created the universe and demanding that we all repent to the giant cockroach or else burn for all eternity in hell, then we would doubt his sanity.

Why should it be any different when people make the same claim, substituting a human being for the cockroach?

Because there is no proof that a giant cockroach created the universe and came back to earth to save "little cockroaches" in order to prevent them from going to that giant can of "Raid" in the center of the earth, but there is proof that Jesus ceme to earth, died, and rose from the dead prooving that he defeated death (over 500 witnessses)....and offered the same to all in His name if only they believed in Him.

You been watching too much Sci-fi TV, Howard....🙄

Originally posted by chancremechanic
Because there is no proof that a giant cockroach created the universe and came back to earth to save "little cockroaches" in order to prevent them from going to that giant can of "Raid" in the center of the earth, but there is proof that Jesus ceme to earth, died, and rose from the dead prooving that he defeated death (over 500 witnessses)....and ...[text shortened]... in His name if only they believed in Him.

You been watching too much Sci-fi TV, Howard....🙄

[delete]

Ah forget it about it. Been down this road way too many times.

Originally posted by chancremechanic
Because there is no proof that a giant cockroach created the universe and came back to earth to save "little cockroaches" in order to prevent them from going to that giant can of "Raid" in the center of the earth, but there is proof that Jesus ceme to earth, died, and rose from the dead prooving that he defeated death (over 500 witnessses)....and ...[text shortened]... in His name if only they believed in Him.

You been watching too much Sci-fi TV, Howard....🙄

But your objection is inaccurate, and the analogy still works:

God = Giant cockroach.
Jesus = little cockroach on planet.

There are plenty of little cockroaches on the planet, millions of whom have died. Whom amongst us can say that one of them was not resurrected being the son of Giant Cockroach and sent to save us (Or cockroach kind)?

Thus there is as much proof for Giant Cockroach as there is for God.

Originally posted by Joe Fist
That's my point that you articulated better than I did:

Why can't everyone admit we just plain simply do not know? That is not to say a Christian should stop being a Christian or the Atheist should stop not believing. One should not infringe on the other but I think that is a bit too optimistic.

Because we do not know is precisely the reason why the atheist does not believe.

Originally posted by rwingett
Because we do not know is precisely the reason why the atheist does not believe.

... and the theist does

Originally posted by widget
... and the theist does

He is unjustified in doing so. There is nothing to indicate that the proposition is true. Therefore, while it's remote possibility must be granted, belief itself must be withheld. Atheism should be the default position from which one starts, and belief given out in proportion to the available evidence. The statement "I don't know if god exists" should logically translate into "therefore, I cannot believe in god."

Originally posted by howardgee
But your objection is inaccurate, and the analogy still works:

God = Giant cockroach.
Jesus = little cockroach on planet.

There are plenty of little cockroaches on the planet, millions of whom have died. Whom amongst us can say that one of them was not resurrected being the son of Giant Cockroach and sent to save us (Or cockroach kind)?

Thus there is as much proof for Giant Cockroach as there is for God.

Hello to all of those who are cockroaches :😕

If I get you in my kitchen, or anywhere else, know that you will be DEAD!

I am glad to see that some ppl refer to themselves as cockroaches, but at the end of the day, we are human. There is proof that Jesus came from heaven, lived and died on the cross.

Will ppl ever believe in Elvis over a 1000 years from now? Yes they will! Cause there is proof.

The problem with religion is that ppl want to create their own one. They want to be the god of that religion.

At the end of the day, Christians believe in capturing souls for Jesus, and we want all to live for Jesus. People who dont believe, simply forces us not to believe. Who is forcing who? You dont believe so no one must believe cause to you, there is no proof. I bet my life on this, and say that even if Jesus was on earth right now, at this very moment, doing what He did a 1000 years ago, U STILL WILL NOT BELIEVE.

Originally posted by rwingett
He is unjustified in doing so. There is nothing to indicate that the proposition is true. Therefore, while it's remote possibility must be granted, belief itself must be withheld. Atheism should be the default position from which one starts, and belief given out in proportion to the available evidence. The statement "I don't know if god exists" should logically translate into "therefore, I cannot believe in god."

Beating this dead horse again? 😉