I believe religions to be a man-made constructs. That should explain all, I guess.
Religions have been a useful tool for those who would lead.
Power through the influence of authority.
I don't mind religions. For every negative asssociation, one can cite a positive.
Just don't step on my toes, please.
DSCH: a Soviet artist's reply to unjust criticism.
Now we can go all Pascal with it but I find it a circular and meaningless argument. I dont believe that the reward of heaven should be the reason you believe in Christ although it is one reason , I think that if the fear of hell is the only motivating factor in your faith than it really is not a good thing. I respect you guys who do not believe, I just want to help avoid the oncoming bus and then let you see what more it is about.
R.I.P. Cyrano and Roxanne.
Believers usually answer arguments like those of Sgallan and M Richardson by saying that God's plan is unknowable to man and we must have faith in God's omnipotence and infinite knowledge. "Your parents know what's best for you even if you don't." When I studied philosophy and logic in college, we called this a "shut-up argument." It means that I won't be logical, so don't even bother trying to argue with me.
I agree with LkwdSteve that religion originated as man's attempts to understand a world or universe that his technology was incapable of explaining. Beyond that, it became a tool to comfort and give hope to those who could otherwise find none in their circumstances. As science and technology developed, the initial function of religion became less important (evolution replacing creationism for those rational individuals who trust objective evidence), but the emotional function of religion remained. Unfortunately, this has been exploited by many religious leaders, from ayatollahs, who would exterminate those who believe differently from them, to Popes, who would seek to impose their narrow brand of morality on the entire world. Much good has been done in the name of religion, but I believe that it is more than offset by the evil.
Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
. . . And no religion too
Atrophy: what you get when you win atournament.
Other than natural disaster and some disease all are man made, so according to your logic you should want nothing to do with people either, because not only do we allow these horrible things to happen, we willingly cause them to happen.
This argument apparently operates with a definition of "God" that stems from the Christian Bible's old testament. But what if "God" existed in way that did not assign the entirety of causation to that entity?
What if it was true that you were a spiritual being but still responsible for your own existence? Where would that leave most people?
And what if there was a chance for some sort of spiritual enlightenment and/or salvation but it did not depend upon "faith" nor belief in a Supreme being?
I only say this as I believe most of the faith vs science argument is polarizing & splits the world into 2 camps only when there are many more arguments then just two.
The eastern view takes the all knowing all causative "God" out of the equation & puts salvation in your hands, for example.
Just a thought....