Why All Religions are Total Nonsense (souls, myths, church, bible)

[northstar22]

This is the main reason why, on intellectual and rational grounds, I reject the existence of all gods and conclude that religions are simply man-made constructs.

In my opinion, a religion that was actually true, one that really was of divine origin, would need no apologists or defenders. It would be self-evident, so obviously true that no rational person could deny it. The empirical evidence for it would be overwhelming, so thorough that no reasonable person could explain it away.

Its truth would be so clearly plain to us that it would be in the very fiber of our beings. We would have it literally, as the Bible says, "written on our minds and hearts." It would be universal, accepted and practiced by all cultures and people groups. It would provide a coherent, reasonable, and just morality that would tell us exactly how to live, without any gray areas to agonize over, any cultural or historical contexts to decipher, any unjust principles to accept, or any past "divine" indiscretions (like much of the OT) to explain away.

It would accurately describe the past (in scientifically accurate terms, not fables like Creation or Noah's Ark) and provide a reasonable guide for the future (no fantastic apocalypse myths). It would provide useful advice (once again, in explicit and obvious, not vague or culturally dependent, terms) for all societies, such as how to cure cancer, how to manage natural resources, how to develop technology, how to run an economy, and how to punish criminals. It would eliminate the need for schooling, because it would be pure education . . . simply practicing this divinely inspired religion and communing with this hypothetical infinitely intelligent God would educate you far beyond what the best universities could give you in 20 years of advanced graduate courses.

So far, I have yet to find a religion like this. I'm convinced that it does not exist. Therefore, I rationally and logically conclude that there is no personal god (I can't completely rule out a non-interacting Deistic god) and that all world religions and gods are simply nonsensical man-made constructs.

If any theist has a logical argument to refute these things (not just "you need to have faith!!!!"), I'd be really interested in hearing it.

[Mr5150]

Originally Posted by northstar22

This is the main reason why, on intellectual and rational grounds, I reject the existence of all gods and conclude that religions are simply man-made constructs.

. I'm convinced that it does not exist. Therefore, I rationally and logically conclude that there is no personal god (I can't completely rule out a non-interacting Deistic god) and that all world religions and gods are simply nonsensical man-made constructs.

Got evidence? Heck, I'd even settle for some proof. If you could explain how the universe (with all of it's laws, mathematics, life, DNA and structure, gravity) just came to be without a creator, that would be a start.
*************
Honestly, if I thought for a minute that the spiritual, gods and God were just made up and did not exist, I would be in 100% agreement with you.

[northstar22]

Originally Posted by Mr5150

Got evidence? Heck, I'd even settle for some proof. If you could explain how the universe (with all of it's laws, mathematics, life, DNA and structure, gravity) just came to be without a creator, that would be a start.
*************
Honestly, if I thought for a minute that the spiritual, gods and God were just made up and did not exist, I would be in 100% agreement with you.

I was making a philosophical, not an empirical, argument, therefore I do not need to produce evidence.

Evolution explains the DNA, random chance (or possibly determinism) explains the natural laws. A quantum fluctuation could explain the big bang, but science does not know at this point what started the universe. "God did it" is not a good answer.

[DentalFloss]

Originally Posted by northstar22

I'm convinced that it does not exist. Therefore, I rationally and logically conclude that there is no personal god (I can't completely rule out a non-interacting Deistic god) and that all world religions and gods are simply nonsensical man-made constructs.

I (mostly) concur.

However, I have (mostly) come to the conclusion that our universe is, in fact, a digital simulation that our consciousnesses are experiencing as "reality". If I am correct, that implys not only that our consciousness survives physical death (as our bodies don't really exist), and an intelligent creator of some kind, for such a thing does not create itself.

You can read the "book" I wrote on the topic here, no sense writing it again: http://www.city-data.com/forum/relig...beliefs-6.html

[rifleman]

I feel that the rational thinker might well come to the conclusion that, since no such utilitarian religious paradigm actually does exist (not as demo'd so far at any rate...) there is no NEED for such a defined, structured and rigorously strictured belief system. Rather, it reflects the deep personal needs of the individual believer, and they seem completely happy to ignore or dismiss as artifacts those evolving elements that simply don't fit, or that contradict each other, or that stumble on the little reality stones scattered at their feet.

I have concluded, not egotistically BTW, that some folks apparently really do need such constant (daily?) assurances of a Fa-Fig (a recognized and mutually agreed-on Father Figure) to take them by the spiritual and physical hand, and to guide and/or punish them when they have "sinned" (according to a book of defined sins they are also only too happy to lay on you and I, you'll note..)

Others, like me, do not need such an ulterior and inmaginary Fa-Fig persona hovering menacingly or gloatingly over our "souls" (i.e.: our functioning biochemistry...), or alternately; we have found useful, functioning ways and means to manage our own ethics and behavior absent the punishment regime. And it also seems like we also live useful, generous and productive ethical lives, raising good intelligent families and engendering good community relations. Wild, huh?

Such an unencumbered outlook also allows us to better and more fully see the larger real world absent internecine warfare, and hence, to your OP's excellent point, as religions currently exist, in near-unlimited versions, each one vigorously presented as an absolute, they fully defeat, rather than improve, our outlook, knowledge and experiential basis for an ethical and peaceful co-existence.

Bottom Line? Religion kills, IMHO.

[northstar22]

Originally Posted by DentalFloss

I (mostly) concur.

However, I have (mostly) come to the conclusion that our universe is, in fact, a digital simulation that our consciousnesses are experiencing as "reality". If I am correct, that implys not only that our consciousness survives physical death (as our bodies don't really exist), and an intelligent creator of some kind, for such a thing does not create itself.

You can read the "book" I wrote on the topic here, no sense writing it again: http://www.city-data.com/forum/relig...beliefs-6.html

A digital simulation? That sounds like science fiction. It is science fiction, though I know that a few individuals, like Dr. Nick Bostrom of Sweden, have argued for it. I still think it is false because creating any such simulation would be unethical, and future societies are likely to be more ethically advanced than we are. Also, there is no empirical evidence for any such thing, and no evidence of "glitches" or "flaws" in the simulation (I guess the Simulator must be using a Mac? ).

I think the simulation idea is ridiculous, but not as ridiculous as religion.

[Mr5150]

Originally Posted by northstar22

I was making a philosophical, not an empirical, argument, therefore I do not need to produce evidence.

sigh. I always get answers like this.

Originally Posted by northstar22

Evolution explains the DNA, random chance (or possibly determinism) explains the natural laws. A quantum fluctuation could explain the big bang, but science does not know at this point what started the universe. "God did it" is not a good answer.

"random chance explains natural laws" Now that is rich. Where is the logic?

[DentalFloss]

Originally Posted by northstar22

A digital simulation? That sounds like science fiction.

It certainly does. It sounds completely perposterous. Until you start looking under the covers a bit more.

Go read what I linked to, it will describe 3 natures of "reality" that are impossible under an "it's physically real" hypothesis but that make sense under an "it's a digital simulation" one. All 3 behave as though it's a simulation, not real.

[rifleman]

Originally Posted by Mr5150

Got evidence? Heck, I'd even settle for some proof. If you could explain how the universe (with all of it's laws, mathematics, life, DNA and structure, gravity) just came to be without a creator, that would be a start.
*************
Honestly, if I thought for a minute that the spiritual, gods and God were just made up and did not exist, I would be in 100% agreement with you.

Far less likely, is the truly wild and wooly assumption of an infinitely more complex, more omnipotent and more formed-out-of-nothing Creator individual, who, if we extend your own demanded logic backwards just a tad bit, would also have to have had His own Creator(s)/parents or some such proto-Creator back-lineage. And so on back through eternal time. You have no good (or even bad...) answer for that one, so you ignore it. Yet you demand just such an answer from scientific investigation, and you demand it NOW!

The alternate is that we indeed do have just the few necessary rules and sub-rules of interaction (gravitational, electro-motive, magnetic, sub-atomic, molecular, et al, that we have now absolutely glimpsed and measured and are hot in pursuit of, which such systems as the imminently assertive LHC will show us over the next few years, decades or even centuries. I'm patient; many Christians are obviously not.

Given those possibilities and rules, we have speculated, then predicted, and finally fully observed as operational, those rules and the ways they easily allow for the simple less-to-more-complex interactions and effects that a trial-nd-error but reliable system does afford.

So DNA mutates regularly (you deny this?) but also remembers the good, then re-mutates as it's daily rule of business, and then it records those recent add-on mutations into it's offspring for real-world tests. Over time, obviously, such a classically simple system will add functioning and improving complexities, or might well remain neutral for now, or might just kill off the lethal mutations.

Thus it creates the seemingly irreducible and thus impossibly complex eye structure (at least according to the scientifically illiterate and thus easily awe-struck mindsets of the uneducated religious cohort, who coincidentally prefer the awesome supernatural versions, since that jives with the rest of their fantasy interpretation). But we know differently, don't we? And yet it's still rigorously refuted and vehemently denied.

It all eventually does create a lighter-boned, gliding at first, but eventually flying dinosaur/bird, plus limbs and/or gills, plus homeothermy, and it also evolves an increasing functionally useful intelligence that eventually leads to the big jump to imaginative hominids, etc. You and I.

It all fits so well, that we simply no longer need the once-mandatory (and rigorously enforced, at point of spear...) fantasy components to explain events such as the evening setting sun, meteorites, those odd-ball massive dinosaur bones the kids found out in the church yard cemetery when they dug a hole for old Mrs. McGillicutty, for the most part, with supernatural but highly improbable stories.

The unanswerable parts simply added to the fear component, which was useful while it "sold". Not so much any more.

Fact: most folks do not prefer to be frightened by fairy tales in the real world, don't you know? And that means we're getting stronger and smarter. Some of us at least.

[mensaguy]

This thread was at a stalemate after two posts. One needs empirical evidence of a deity while the other needs a valid explanation for the creation of everything.

There's no middle ground between these two positions.