What will we replace religion with?

This has been one of the better religious debates here in some time. This is in large part due to Arne, his approach is a historical one not so much a metaphysical one and this is a breath of fresh air, for me anyway.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Do you think, at this point in time, that there can ever be any real debate regarding the historical merit of religion?

That far back, historical conjecture has precedence over historical "fact", moreso than usual.
We know there are precedents, they don't care.

Debate is pointless in the face of belief. Always has been.
The best one can hope for is that unsubstantiated belief will die the natural death it deserves.
The problem is, and always has been, that word "unsubstantiated".

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Understandable that you feel this way and are probably right, but there are some great history lessons as well as some future predictions in this thread that are well worth the time and effort to read.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"History Lessons".

Whatever do you mean by that?

 

Posts #56 and #60 have great historical tidbits in them and one lesson that should not be overlooked regarding Plato and Aristotle. What if Aristotle had been the more popularly read philosopher and not Plato? Would Christianity have ever gained a foothold?

 

I'm having trouble with #56 and #60 because I am, as per usual when I'm on here, as crissed as a pukkin ficket.
As such, having actually been called to account, I may make this my last post tonight (and I may not, because I am so terribly bored and have little else to do other than type the odd one line repudiation).
I did actually try to read them, and more, to understand what was being said, but found myself completely incapable of doing so.

I have to admit, I don't often even bother to read whats been said before when i post anything.
Reason being, and the question resulting being... why? I say this in full awareness of how terribly arrogant I am capable of being.

Did someone say something validating the existence of religion? Did someone else say something to repudiate it?
These types of arguments only serve to perpetuate the entire debate. It goes on, it goes on, it goes on. It goes on because the entire debate regarding religion perpetuates itself.

There are those of us who are done with it all.
History is only that, religion is something else. Never the twain shall meet, as they say.
Yet, having said I am "done with it all", I still feel compelled to say something about it.

I wonder why.
I ask that question only because I feel I should. In other words, I have nothing to offer anyone who still seeks answers from within the predetermined framework.
Truth be told, I don't even have anything to offer anyone who doesn't fall within that framework.

I suppose, by way of answer and in complete awareness of how contradictory it might seem to say so, I'm only here because you're all so very interesting.
I feel as if I should apologise... or something.

 

There's no data, only stories. The only instance of Roman confirmation of the story is from Josephus, but that particular passage is thought by most scholars to be a later addition, a forgery. A work of fiction can certainly contain facts, but that doesn't make it all fact. I could write a book of fiction situated in modern times, talking about modern events and locations, but that wouldn't make it all equally true. One must also acknowledge that people of that time had no particular loyalty to the hard truth, stories were intended to teach a lesson and if they had to make things up then all the better. Then we should look at the Bible itself, with it's many contradictions and multiple versions of events, and non-canonical gospels with their own versions. Maybe Jesus existed and had some new moral ideas, but most likely he simply and justifiably opposed Roman occupation and usurpation of his religion, Judaism. And like a few others of his time, paid the ultimate price. That a legend surrounding these events became it's own religion is not unique in history, we see the same thing happening today with Scientology and Mormonism.

The take away here should be that non-contemporary anecdotes are not considered reliable historical documents, and none are scientifically reliable. This kind of discussion is far from useless, as many people who were believers and read the Bible come to the conclusion that it's a bunch of superstitious nonsense and turn to reason and humanism. There is nothing in the Bible that shows any knowledge of the world and how it works beyond what people knew or might have guessed at the time. They didn't even know what stars were, or that the Earth revolved around the Sun.

 

There is a point to be made that many of the positive and beneficial things about religion have nothing to do with the truth of it. The church as a social institution, group activities like singing and dancing, a shared narrative for linguistic convenience and social cohesion, a set of moral values that society shares and upholds, an inspiring vision for the future, bake sales. We can have all these things without the negative aspects of religion.

 

Its all about what you dedicate your religion to. Try pacifisim!

 

Of course.

Unfortunately, the institutions themselves perpetuate the negatives. When people speak of religion having outlived its usefulness, it's this they speak of.

 

Through all this

Humanity is what we should replace " religion " with , end of story .

 

"The kingdom of God is consists not of words, but of power." (1 Corinthians 4;20)​

You're looking at The Bible all wrong, friend. The main character is God. He wrote it, albeit through the prophets over many generations and thousands of years. He used terminology that the prophets could understand. For instance, when John writes in Revelations that the sea will turn to blood like a dead man's, this is because God knew saying something about rising mercury levels and an influx of industrial contaminants would make no sense whatsoever to neither John nor his contemporaries.

'Scientifically reliable!?" It's obvious what temple you worship at -modern science. And that's fine for you, 21st century spidergoat that you are, but science wasn't even 'a thing' in Biblical times. You can't expect them to have mindsetss that had not been invented yet. Sure, God knows 'science' as you call it, so thoroughly that our highest 21st century tech gives Him giggling fits, but what would be the point of Him saying in Leviticus that you shouldn't marry your sister because your DNA is too close to hers and gene pools require diversification? Moses would have gone bug-eyed in bafflement and turned to Baal. What possible motive could God have in telling the ancient Hebrews what stars are, or what neutrinos are? In His infinite wisdom, He knew it would be better for humanity to work all these things out by itself. And what do you know!? Five thousand years later we've moved from square one to square three. In another couple of threads here on our beloved forum, members are discussing black holes, while in another they're discussing how Dr. Hawking, the same genius who first theorized their existence, now says they're ain't no such thing! Who knows which is correct?

God knows.

 

And returning once again to the original question: what should religion be replaced with. I've already said, "nothing." However, if you all want something simple, I will quote my very favorite Old Testament verse.

If the entire Old testament was lost, and heck, the entire New Testament as well, this one second half of The Book of Micah, verse six chapter four, would be enough to sustain us, IMHO

There's your gosh-darned so-called 'Humanism' in a nutshell, eloquently stated by God through one of His holy mouthpieces.

 

Actually, what's so gosh-darned hilarious is the belief God uses "holy mouthpieces". We see them standing on street corners raving all the time, eloquently, of course.,

 

Really? A bowling league that has teams of 3-5 people and is all about "us vs. them" offers an equal sense of community to a church of potentially hundreds of people? Each denomination is not completely disconnected from others, especially considering more recent interdenominational efforts, as most still uphold the same general ideology. You can also find "pockets" of any specific denomination just about anywhere, but you can only find your bowling team at your local lanes. IOW, you obviously have no clue what you are talking about. Social cohesion, i.e. shared ideology, is a sense of community. Bowling can only offer a sense of camaraderie.

 

The distinction is that Jesus made an intentional sacrifice that a natural death would not have illustrated. Paine even assumes he "came on Purpose to die", so Paine should have realized the equal importance of making that purpose clear.

 

So just what did he "illustrate" by committing "suicide by cop"? That's the part of the whole Jesus myth makes the least sense. (That and the miraculous stuff.)

It is just beyond all human reason to latch on to a body of fables and myths so absurd that it can only have taken place in eons past. Today if someone made the same claims today, the xians would be wanting to call false prophets, heretic, Antichrist, con artist, delusional or worse. What made god decide to get out of the miracle business after the invention of photography, audio and video recording?

Why not just let reason replace religion? It's outlived it's usefulness, there are more rational approaches to instruct people in morals.

 

Human beings are inherently purpose driven and goal oriented and when we realize that meaning is something we make and not made for us, it can make us feel anxious. There is a feeling of freedom though, I alone am responsible for the decisions and life that I choose to lead and am not waiting on the universe or supernatural being to determine my fate.

 

"Whether you end up in Heaven or Hell isn't God's plan, it's your own." - Cowboys & Aliens (2011)