Religion. The evolution, creation and everything in between megathread

[Apostrophe Spacemonkey]

Remember that the Bible is a collection of stories transferred for hundreds of years by word of mouth, only collected into one volume after a LONG period of time, and even then it's likely that some meaning or parts of individual "books" are lost, mistranslated or simply forgotten.

Also, some ideas in the stories passed down over the centuries may have changed as the social and political climate changed too, depending on beliefs by the speaker, by the authors who penned it, by the translators who converted from ancient Hebrew, to Greek, to Latin, to English... take everything with a grain of salt and it all leads to a good way to lead your life. The stories may very well be the word of god, but man has been the vessel for it over many hundreds of years, and we all know how fallible man is?

The book of Genesis could very well be a story that has scientific relevance if you assume that a "day" for God isn't a 24 hour period I think the only thing that ruins the big-bang then water/land then simple plants then fish, dinosaurs leading to birds, then mammals then man is that day 3 and 4 (I think?) are in the wrong order... but given how the stories are 2000 or more years old and passed verbally I don't think that's really so bad It's allegory, God may very well have done all these things, just because we also have scientific reasons behind things doesn't necessarily mean that she didn't set the ball rolling

The problem with reading any religious text is that treating it as fact without interpretation leads to fundamentalism, an evil in itself

Netherai actually makes some good points here.

Interesting though how Netherai refers to God as she, very interesting.

[Apostrophe Spacemonkey]

Verrt makes some good points on the first page, so does that Spacemonkey guy, not that I agree with anything he says.

[dirtyape]

You guys aren't actually saying anything. Kind of pointless imo

[Tiwaking!]

Everything worth saying has already been said.

If the first victim of war is innocence, then the first victim of religion will always be: Language.

Language is what we use to describe the world and all range of human experience is reflected in the creation and use of language.

Religion hates language.

Discuss.

[Apostrophe Spacemonkey]

I disagree.

Religion would have fostered language skills. For instance many religions have scriptures and texts, which would have promoted literacy skills as people would need to learn how read them, and also had to learn how to write so copies could be made.

I would say if it wasn't for religion, literacy would not be as advanced as it is today.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy#History

By the mid-18th century, the ability to read and comprehend translated scripture led to Wales having one of the highest literacy rates. This was the result of a Griffith Jones's system of circulating schools, which aimed to enable everyone to read the Bible in Welsh. Similarly, at least half the population of 18th century New England was literate, perhaps as a consequence of the Puritan belief in the importance of Bible reading. By the time of the American Revolution, literacy in New England is suggested to have been around 90 percent.

[Dr Woomanchu]

I would disagree. Religion IS language. Gods are a human creation and exist only by, and in, their definitions.

Without language there are no gods

[dirtyape]

I would agree with Tiwa. It is my understanding that the information in the bible was disseminated via priests and the bible was written in Latin, a language with a lower literacy rate than that of the common language of the population. It was not until the 16th century that complete English translations begun appearing.

It would seem to me that by limiting access to the knowledge within the bible was in itself a form of control, it allowed the priests to channel the information that they desired to be disseminated. For instance, if the clergy wished the population to become complacent then they could read sermons from the new testament, if they wanted the population to become provoked to violence then they could read from the old testament.

From a control point of view, retaining control of the information within the bible is paramount.

Once literacy rates begun increasing, different translations and different denominations begun arising due to differing philosophies and interpretations. Control begun breaking down. Incidentally, it was around this time that atheism was born.

While it could be argued that schools were formed to promote literacy so that the bible could be read by the population as SM suggests, it could also be argued that the war against keeping people illiterate had been lost at this point and the church had no alternative but to embrace literacy before other denominations begun poaching their "sheep" so to speak.

[Tiwaking!]

It is my understanding that the information in the bible was disseminated via priests and the bible was written in Latin, a language with a lower literacy rate than that of the common language of the population.

Oddly enough I hadnt even considered western religions attitudes towards language. Eastern religions, notably Hinduism, has a very restricted vocabulary. Some words simply do not exist in their religion to describe actions or even sections of society, an interesting example of this is the word 'Lesbian'.

Without a word to either describe female homosexuals it basically makes them persona non grata, people with no rights, worse than the Dalits ('Bhangis') who are caste-less. This state can never be rectified until the acknowledgement of the problem occurs.

But you cannot acknowledge that which doesnt even have a name to describe it.

Language is what we use to describe the world and all range of human experience is reflected in the creation and use of language.

Religion hates language.

I disagree.

Religion would have fostered language skills. For instance many religions have scriptures and texts, which would have promoted literacy skills as people would need to learn how read them, and also had to learn how to write so copies could be made.

A key point which seems to be missed here is '...for its own benefit'. Educating people in religious scripts is only for the benefit of religion. You could communicate with a god in little more than grunts and vague gestures, if it was a god then it would get the point anyway.

Religious language loves only itself, serves only itself.

Atheists rage on and on about the restrictions of religion in regards to 'actions' or 'civil liberties', but the true victim here is language. Machiavelli was banned, Gallileo too for a while. If religion truly hated learning, it would forbid a persons actions, forbid a person from ever attempting something.

But if you want to simply take away the ability to even know that which should not be known, then you have to take away the books. You have to take away the words. You can never forbid an experience which anyone can have.

But you can silence those who have experienced it.

I would disagree. Religion IS language. Gods are a human creation and exist only by, and in, their definitions.

Without language there are no gods

Without language there is no society. Without society there are no gods. You can have gods without religion (props to you Agnostics!), but you cannot have religion without language.

[swindle]

Can't believe this merry-go-round is still spinning.

Aren't you all a little nauseous by now?

Nothing will be lost, nor gained. Although not the worst thread, not the best either. Its as pointless as it is not.

[Kayne]

Its interesting.

[Apostrophe Spacemonkey]

I still have no idea what Tiwa is on about regarding language.

How is language is victim?

[swindle]

Its interesting.

It is.

I read books about it all the time. Currently just started reading Stephan Hawking - Grand Design. Have read Richard Dawkins books - The Greatest show on Earth, and The God Delusion. All really good stuff. Also a Sam Harris book - The End of Faith.

I just like to see things arrive at a point, and don't like reading crap that people spew and its obvious they have very little idea about how it all works.

[Apostrophe Spacemonkey]

It is.

I read books about it all the time. Currently just started reading Stephan Hawking - Grand Design. Have read Richard Dawkins books - The Greatest show on Earth, and The God Delusion. All really good stuff. Also a Sam Harris book - The End of Faith.

I just like to see things arrive at a point, and don't like reading crap that people spew and its obvious they have very little idea about how it all works.

I don't read those kind of books, instead I read books about science.

[swindle]

It is.

I read books about it all the time. Currently just started reading Stephan Hawking - Grand Design. Have read Richard Dawkins books - The Greatest show on Earth, and The God Delusion. All really good stuff. Also a Sam Harris book - The End of Faith.

I just like to see things arrive at a point, and don't like reading crap that people spew and its obvious they have very little idea about how it all works.

I don't read those kind of books, instead I read books about science.

Lol?

[BerG]

This thread exists so we can flame religious people.

[Apostrophe Spacemonkey]

Burn them at the stake, like witches.

[SteddieEddie]

It's about time we had a new Christian to feed to the lions

[swindle]

I like where this is heading now, it has an ultimate end.

A world without religion, a perfect world.

[BerG]

But then there would be no wars.

The world would be overpopulated.

[Blob_ZPS]

But then there would be no wars.

The world would be overpopulated.

Thats when science takes us to colonise mars.

[SteddieEddie]

But then there would be no wars.

The world would be overpopulated.

I'm sure we can find some other reason to kill each other

[Zarkov]

I like where this is heading now, it has an ultimate end.

A world without religion, a perfect world.

Better than the one we've got at the moment.

[Kayne]

But then there would be no wars.

The world would be overpopulated.

Yes there would be, We would have to decide what to call ourselves.
"The United Atheist Alliance","The Allied Atheist Allegiance" and "The Unified Atheist League"

Spoiler :

[Retardobot]

There would only be 2 groups.

The Atheist Peoples Front and The Peoples Front of Atheism. There would be a 3rd group that would attempt to rise to power by the name of Atheist Popular Peoples Front, but both the Atheist Peoples Front and the Peoples Front of Atheism would cause too much oppression for the Atheist Popular Peoples Front that they would remain as a small cult.

[Speakman]

what about the Front of Peoples Atheism??