The Flood (2)

[wensdee]

I've never really understood why NDEs and religious experiences are attributed to the God/spirit world being existent and content to just tickle people's brains instead of an obviously localised experience being, um, obviously localised, i.e. merely physiological.

Obviously it's MUCH more rational to assume it's the former and not the latter

Religious people will search high and low to find something, anything that will confirm to them that they are not just being stupid in believing as they do, and they will believe anything that confirms it in their minds.

When they start to grow up and have doubts about what they have been told to believe they need to look for confirmation from others, they get a lot of it from churches where there are other doubting believers who are as desperate as they are, by telling others they are right to believe they are in turn trying to reinforce their own beliefs,
it is in effect self sustaining, when you're down I will prop you up and when I'm down you prop me up, why else do you think they have religious COMMUNITIES?

If what religious people believed was true they would not need to worship in churches because their God is supposed to be everywhere and with them, churches were designed to prop up believers when they start having doubts.

 

[AV1611VET]

If what religious people believed was true they would not need to worship in churches because their God is supposed to be everywhere and with them, churches were designed to prop up believers when they start having doubts.

For your information, churches are made up of the people, not the buildings.

In denominational thinking, two or more people constitute a church, and two or more churches constitute a denomination; but in independent thinking, two or more people constitute a church, and two or more churches constitute two or more churches.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Religious people will search high and low to find something, anything that will confirm to them that they are not just being stupid in believing as they do, and they will believe anything that confirms it in their minds.

This is called 'confirmation bias', and is pervasive in all humans, being neither unique to nor ubiquitous of the religious.

When they start to grow up and have doubts about what they have been told to believe they need to look for confirmation from others, they get a lot of it from churches where there are other doubting believers who are as desperate as they are, by telling others they are right to believe they are in turn trying to reinforce their own beliefs,
it is in effect self sustaining, when you're down I will prop you up and when I'm down you prop me up, why else do you think they have religious COMMUNITIES?

The same could surely be said of any community, but that doesn't invalidate religious claims.

The scientific community is a unique exception, in that the members strive to disprove the unifying beliefs.

If what religious people believed was true they would not need to worship in churches because their God is supposed to be everywhere and with them, churches were designed to prop up believers when they start having doubts.

There is more to going to church than being able to worship - if there is greater satisfaction and joy in worshipping as a group, then logically believers will worship as a group. There's no compulsion in Christianity to go to church, but neither is there any reason why they shouldn't.

 

[wensdee]

Where did the idea of 'backsliding' come from? if they can not prove what they believe people need to act as props to bolster each others beliefs.

Every village in the UK has or at one time had a church, they were not built to benefit the communities they were built to benefit the lords and masters of those communities, they were there to put the fear of God into people and keep them in line and I am sure the same thing applied to the rest of Europe.

Fear can act both as a suppressor and a motivator, they could not prove to people that what they told them was true so they had to ensure that the imaginations of the people was working overtime and that they were well and truly afraid of the God, once the fear had been established it could be toned down and even made to be benevolent but the underlying fear was always there, the fear could then be safely left to the parents to instill into their children with an occasional reminder every so often.

Religions survive because for the have nots reality sucks. [please feel free to use that as a bumper sticker]

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Where did the idea of 'backsliding' come from? if they can not prove what they believe people need to act as props to bolster each others beliefs.

Occasionally, yes. But the majority of religious people really do feel their beliefs are sufficiently justified and rational, as much as any scientific proposition. Why would they build churches?

Every village in the UK has or at one time had a church, they were not built to benefit the communities they were built to benefit the lords and masters of those communities, they were there to put the fear of God into people and keep them in line and I am sure the same thing applied to the rest of Europe.

Do you have any evidence to support this assertion?

Fear can act both as a suppressor and a motivator, they could not prove to people that what they told them was true so they had to ensure that the imaginations of the people was working overtime and that they were well and truly afraid of the God, once the fear had been established it could be toned down and even made to be benevolent but the underlying fear was always there, the fear could then be safely left to the parents to instill into their children with an occasional reminder every so often.

Fear of what, exactly? An all-loving God that protects them?

Religions survive because for the have nots reality sucks. [please feel free to use that as a bumper sticker]

If it more obvious and catchy, or even just grammatically correct, I might well do.

 

[wensdee]

Occasionally, yes. But the majority of religious people really do feel their beliefs are sufficiently justified and rational, as much as any scientific proposition. Why would they build churches?

Take a look at the history of religion and see for yourself, you will find that the early belief was based on fear.
Perhaps they spent their money building churches to make life that little bit easier and better for their workers because as you know it was the way the rich worked then, who knows?

Do you have any evidence to support this assertion?

Please read it for yourself there is plenty written about the early churches and religions, the monarch usually decided what the populations religion would be that's why following other religions was sometimes punishable by death.

Fear of what, exactly? An all-loving God that protects them?

That's the way the religious see their Gods today but hundreds of years ago it was the exact opposite.
Poverty was the norm then and life for the average person was very hard very short and not very nice so being threatened with the loss of their next life was the only thing keeping them quiet, they had nothing to look forward to except death and the next life, they were told that priests could get God to take that away and they would be sent to purgatory, so they had every right to fear religion.

If it more obvious and catchy, or even just grammatically correct, I might well do.

If you could do me a favour and make it a bit more catchy and grammatically correct I would appreciate it, thanks.

I'm surprised it was you who ask questions and not AV, are you a closet Christian? just asking.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Take a look at the history of religion and see for yourself, you will find that the early belief was based on fear.

Undoubtedly, but not in the way you make out. Religions started as a reaction to the unknown, a way to rationalise natural disasters and unexplained phenomena. They feared lightening, so they worshipped it and gave it a name (Zeus, Thor, Jupiter, etc).

This is different to what you're saying: that churches were built by smart men to keep the pious in line with threats of hell and persecution.

Perhaps they spent their money building churches to make life that little bit easier and better for their workers because as you know it was the way the rich worked then, who knows?

I daresay the historical writings of those early peoples makes it evident: they wanted to revere those they worshipped.

Please read it for yourself there is plenty written about the early churches and religions, the monarch usually decided what the populations religion would be that's why following other religions was sometimes punishable by death.

Read what, exactly? What texts attest to churches being built to keep the peasant in line?

That's the way the religious see their Gods today but hundreds of years ago it was the exact opposite.
Poverty was the norm then and life for the average person was very hard very short and not very nice so being threatened with the loss of their next life was the only thing keeping them quiet, they had nothing to look forward to except death and the next life, they were told that priests could get God to take that away and they would be sent to purgatory, so they had every right to fear religion.

Latter-day Christianity, sure, but that by no means characterises the construction of every church ever built. It's certainly an interesting tale you've woven, but do you have any evidence that churches were built solely to threaten peasants into working, on pain of excommunication?

If you could do me a favour and make it a bit more catchy and grammatically correct I would appreciate it, thanks.

I'm surprised it was you who ask questions and not AV, are you a closet Christian? just asking.

I don't need to be a Christian to defend what reputation the Church has left. At the end of the day, in my opinion, your claims are wrong - that I'm an atheist doesn't change that.

 

[AV1611VET]

Undoubtedly, but not in the way you make out. Religions started as a reaction to the unknown, a way to rationalise natural disasters and unexplained phenomena.

I disagree.

Religions started out when one man -- even described as 'the mighty hunter before the LORD' -- broke away from the rest and gave up his day job to build an empire.

He then had the Flood story rewritten to include false deities; and the rest, as they say, is history.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I disagree.

Religions started out when one man -- even described as 'the mighty hunter before the LORD' -- broke away from the rest and gave up his day job to build an empire.

He then had the Flood story rewritten to include false deities; and the rest, as they say, is history.

You keep believing that, AV -- the rest of us will be sitting over here at the adult table.

 

[Greg1234]

Undoubtedly, but not in the way you make out. Religions started as a reaction to the unknown, a way to rationalise natural disasters and unexplained phenomena. They feared lightening, so they worshipped it and gave it a name (Zeus, Thor, Jupiter, etc).

Only in Darwinian dogma.

 

[MoonLancer]

Only in Darwinian dogma.

whatever you have to tell yourself...

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Only in Darwinian dogma.

There's nothing in evolution that prevents a person from believing in a divinely inspired religion.

 

[Inan3]

I disagree.

Religions started out when one man -- even described as 'the mighty hunter before the LORD' -- broke away from the rest and gave up his day job to build an empire.

He then had the Flood story rewritten to include false deities; and the rest, as they say, is history.

Actually, AV, not to disagree with YOU but I think that religion started much early than Nimrod. I think it started when Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. That is when they desired to go their way instead of God's. That has always been the "broad way." Man doing things "their" way. It then went on to Cain offering up "his" sacrifice the way "he" wanted to and so on and so on, right up until 2011. There is a way that "seemeth" right unto men but the end thereof is the way of death.

 

[Inan3]

You keep believing that, AV -- the rest of us will be sitting over here at the adult table.

Is this a POE a parody or just plain rude and hateful???

 

[Skaloop]

Is this a POE a parody or just plain rude and hateful???

None of the above.

Honestly, how do you get "hateful" out of what Poe said? It's no worse than anything AV dishes out on a daily basis.

 

[AV1611VET]

Actually, AV, not to disagree with YOU but I think that religion started much early than Nimrod. I think it started when Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. That is when they desired to go their way instead of God's. That has always been the "broad way." Man doing things "their" way. It then went on to Cain offering up "his" sacrifice the way "he" wanted to and so on and so on, right up until 2011. There is a way that "seemeth" right unto men but the end thereof is the way of death.

Good point, Inan -- you're absolutely right!

 

[Hespera]

None of the above.

Honestly, how do you get "hateful" out of what Poe said? It's no worse than anything AV dishes out on a daily basis.

projecting.

 

[Inan3]

I disagree.

Religions started out when one man -- even described as 'the mighty hunter before the LORD' -- broke away from the rest and gave up his day job to build an empire.

He then had the Flood story rewritten to include false deities; and the rest, as they say, is history.

You keep believing that, AV -- the rest of us will be sitting over here at the adult table.

Is this a POE a parody or just plain rude and hateful???

None of the above.

Honestly, how do you get "hateful" out of what Poe said? It's no worse than anything AV dishes out on a daily basis.

By saying "the REST of US" (whoever that may be) will sit over here at the ADULT table, NP was suggesting that AV's thinking was childish and nothing more than an affront to him. He made no effort to question or debate AV's statement. NP's only intent was to "dis" AV which is mean spirited. You know that, I know that, AV knows that, and NP knows that. So Skaloop, I suggest you HONESTLY admit it as true and man-up to the hatefulness of the post.

Now, as to what AV dishes out and "how" he dishes it out, should be taken on an individual basis. His above statement was not mean spirited and did not deserve to be answered as NP did. Remembering that at any given time the ratio of posters arguing with AV is at best, 15:1, I think he handles himself most of the time in an adult like fashion. You may not like or agree with his content but then your response still should be civil and "adultlike" especially if you are sitting at the table with "so called" adults. I doubt that any of "the REST of you" (at the imaginary adult table) could EVER handle that ratio, never mind without attack, as some of you don't seem to be able to control yourself from doing so with just a 1:1 ratio.

So HONESTLY, yes, I do think NP was being hateful. Read his post again. The evidence is there.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

By saying "the REST of US" (whoever that may be) will sit over here at the ADULT table, NP was suggesting that AV's thinking was childish and nothing more than an affront to him. He made no effort to question or debate AV's statement. NP's only intent was to "dis" AV which is mean spirited. You know that, I know that, AV knows that, and NP knows that. So Skaloop, I suggest you HONESTLY admit it as true and man-up to the hatefulness of the post.

Now, as to what AV dishes out and "how" he dishes it out, should be taken on an individual basis. His above statement was not mean spirited and did not deserve to be answered as NP did. Remembering that at any given time the ratio of posters arguing with AV is at best, 15:1, I think he handles himself most of the time in an adult like fashion. You may not like or agree with his content but then your response still should be civil and "adultlike" especially if you are sitting at the table with "so called" adults. I doubt that any of "the REST of you" (at the imaginary adult table) could EVER handle that ratio, never mind without attack, as some of you don't seem to be able to control yourself from doing so with just a 1:1 ratio.

So HONESTLY, yes, I do think NP was being hateful. Read his post again. The evidence is there.

So, is AV being hateful every time he quotes scripture calling atheists fools?

 

[Skaloop]

By saying "the REST of US" (whoever that may be) will sit over here at the ADULT table, NP was suggesting that AV's thinking was childish and nothing more than an affront to him. He made no effort to question or debate AV's statement. NP's only intent was to "dis" AV which is mean spirited. You know that, I know that, AV knows that, and NP knows that. So Skaloop, I suggest you HONESTLY admit it as true and man-up to the hatefulness of the post.

Mean-spirited does not equal hateful. But I don't even consider it mean-spirited, because I don't think that was Poe's intent. It was dismissive at worst. Basically, though, gentle rib-poking.