Religion/ A crutch created by man

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Haven't you ever wondered why the bible left the dinosaurs out of the creation story? Imean they were the dominate species on this planet for the vast majority of the time which life was able to survive here. Outside of bacteria anyhow.

 

[Avatar4321]

I'd rather use a crutch to stand up and walk in the light than to crawl around in the dark because of my pride.

 

[koshergrl]

Haven't you ever wondered why the bible left the dinosaurs out of the creation story? Imean they were the dominate species on this planet for the vast majority of the time which life was able to survive here. Outside of bacteria anyhow.

The creation story left out the color of Eve's hair, too.

Probably because it's in no way relevant to anything.

 

[Katzndogz]

Haven't you ever wondered why the bible left the dinosaurs out of the creation story? Imean they were the dominate species on this planet for the vast majority of the time which life was able to survive here. Outside of bacteria anyhow.

The creation story left out the color of Eve's hair, too.

Probably because it's in no way relevant to anything.

There's nothing about the playtypus either.

 

[koshergrl]

Aha!

 

[t_polkow]

Haven't you ever wondered why the bible left the dinosaurs out of the creation story? Imean they were the dominate species on this planet for the vast majority of the time which life was able to survive here. Outside of bacteria anyhow.

The creation story left out the color of Eve's hair, too.

Probably because it's in no way relevant to anything.

There's nothing about the playtypus either.

Now which creation myth is the correct one? In your bible Genesis one or two, they contradict each other

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruk0eH9PUGU]God has two creation stories - YouTube[/ame]

 

[koshergrl]

Say it isn't so!

Proof positive that there is no God! There are varying versions of the creation story! At long last, definitive proof that Christianity is a hoax. NOW everybody will surely reject it!

 

[t_polkow]

Say it isn't so!

Proof positive that there is no God! There are varying versions of the creation story! At long last, definitive proof that Christianity is a hoax. NOW everybody will surely reject it!

Everyone but the uneducated and magical "thinkers" where facts don't matter.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Haven't you ever wondered why the bible left the dinosaurs out of the creation story? Imean they were the dominate species on this planet for the vast majority of the time which life was able to survive here. Outside of bacteria anyhow.

The creation story left out the color of Eve's hair, too.

Probably because it's in no way relevant to anything.

The most dominant species to ever rule the earth isn't relevant? Interesting. And if Adam and Ever were real the color of their hair is obvious, black.

 

[amrchaos]

To explain away the things they didn't understand.

And for whatever reason even when we started to understand things we didn't give up the crutch.

If you said "superstition" was the cruthc, I would agree with you.

But religion, it would seem, is a mixture of superstition and philosophy about life and living.

The religion's philosophy concerning life and living is what I consider the important part. The other stuff is just to prove an example--people would say or believe anything if they want to be apart of your org.

 

[PoliticalChic]

To explain away the things they didn't understand.

And for whatever reason even when we started to understand things we didn't give up the crutch.

"To explain away the things they didn't understand."

Largely applies to modern science as well.


1.The premise: science is true. The corollary: religion is false. Why? Philosopher Michael Devitt explains that “there is only one way of knowing, the empirical way that is the basis of science.”
Discuss. (An interesting quote from Michael Devitt)
Therefore, theology cannot be considered in the same terms as science, as belief is not knowledge.


2. This echoes David Hume, “An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding:” “If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.”


3. By the Devitt-Hume guidelines, not mathematics, the law, not even the greater part of ordinary human discourse can be considered as anything substantial. And, with due respect, notice that Hume’s argument itself contains no “abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number,” nor “contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence.”
Well then, Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.”
David Berlinski, mathematician.


Be advised: much of science, the crutch for secularists who want to believe that man can know, can control, all things.....

....is largely based on faith.

 

[Foxfyre]

To explain away the things they didn't understand.

And for whatever reason even when we started to understand things we didn't give up the crutch.

I think humankind has always had a sense of the Divine based on the reality that there is no civilization ever known to exist who did not acknowledge some form of deity. And indeed, many of the legends, lores, myths, allegories, symbolic concepts, etc. have arisen out of a desire to explain that deity or deities.

But while I suppose some people might use their religion as a 'crutch' to avoid consideration of other possibilities or truths, I do not think most people use religion as a crutch. I think for most it is a strong desire to understand, explain, or make contact with something in which they are intensely curious or in which they strongly believe.

Our understanding and perceptions of deity have changed over the millenia just as our understanding and perceptions of medicine, technology, the environment, the Earth, the universe have changed over the millenia. Why should the religious be accused of using religion as a crutch when the same accusation isn't made toward those researching medicine or the environment or the universe?

 

[PoliticalChic]

To explain away the things they didn't understand.

And for whatever reason even when we started to understand things we didn't give up the crutch.

I think humankind has always had a sense of the Divine based on the reality that there is no civilization ever known to exist who did not acknowledge some form of deity. And indeed, many of the legends, lores, myths, allegories, symbolic concepts, etc. have arisen out of a desire to explain that deity or deities.

But while I suppose some people might use their religion as a 'crutch' to avoid consideration of other possibilities or truths, I do not think most people use religion as a crutch. I think for most it is a strong desire to understand, explain, or make contact with something in which they are intensely curious or in which they strongly believe.

Our understanding and perceptions of deity have changed over the millenia just as our understanding and perceptions of medicine, technology, the environment, the Earth, the universe have changed over the millenia. Why should the religious be accused of using religion as a crutch when the same accusation isn't made toward those researching medicine or the environment or the universe?

".... there is no civilization ever known to exist who did not acknowledge some form of deity."

Secular progressives.....
Big Government as 'deity'?

 

[Foxfyre]

To explain away the things they didn't understand.

And for whatever reason even when we started to understand things we didn't give up the crutch.

I think humankind has always had a sense of the Divine based on the reality that there is no civilization ever known to exist who did not acknowledge some form of deity. And indeed, many of the legends, lores, myths, allegories, symbolic concepts, etc. have arisen out of a desire to explain that deity or deities.

But while I suppose some people might use their religion as a 'crutch' to avoid consideration of other possibilities or truths, I do not think most people use religion as a crutch. I think for most it is a strong desire to understand, explain, or make contact with something in which they are intensely curious or in which they strongly believe.

Our understanding and perceptions of deity have changed over the millenia just as our understanding and perceptions of medicine, technology, the environment, the Earth, the universe have changed over the millenia. Why should the religious be accused of using religion as a crutch when the same accusation isn't made toward those researching medicine or the environment or the universe?

".... there is no civilization ever known to exist who did not acknowledge some form of deity."

Secular progressives.....
Big Government as 'deity'?

Yes, the secular progressive activists do look upon government as their deity or at least the agent of their ideological deity, and assign to that deity great confidence and powers and they worship at its altar.

But the true secular progressive activists, though very visible and noisy, are in a minority in this country and probably most countries. The average progressive can be just as religious or even more so than are many conservatives. There will be differences of opinion and even scholarship about who Jesus was and what the Bible teaches within these two groups, however. And unfortunately, the religious progressives are too often prone to accept the activists as authority and march in lockstep to their dictates.

 

[amrchaos]

Question

If we do not know of it--does that mean it does not exist?

 

[Katzndogz]

Haven't you ever wondered why the bible left the dinosaurs out of the creation story? Imean they were the dominate species on this planet for the vast majority of the time which life was able to survive here. Outside of bacteria anyhow.

The creation story left out the color of Eve's hair, too.

Probably because it's in no way relevant to anything.

The most dominant species to ever rule the earth isn't relevant? Interesting. And if Adam and Ever were real the color of their hair is obvious, black.

It certainly isn't relevant to the development of human beings, nor the development of the relationship between human beings and God. 90% of all animal or reptile species that were in existence at the time the Bible was written isn't mentioned in the Bible. They are irrelevant to the telling of the story. If someone whose life account is written in the Bible had an important encounter with a dinosaur it would have been included.

 

[dblack]

Question

If we do not know of it--does that mean it does not exist?

Does it mean it does?

 

[amrchaos]

Question

If we do not know of it--does that mean it does not exist?

Does it mean it does?

Actually--I would say it does not mean it does or it does not. So using our lack of knowledge for the basis of an argument does not gurantee anything!

 

[koshergrl]

That was a yes or no question.

 

[Foxfyre]

The creation story left out the color of Eve's hair, too.

Probably because it's in no way relevant to anything.

The most dominant species to ever rule the earth isn't relevant? Interesting. And if Adam and Ever were real the color of their hair is obvious, black.

It certainly isn't relevant to the development of human beings, nor the development of the relationship between human beings and God. 90% of all animal or reptile species that were in existence at the time the Bible was written isn't mentioned in the Bible. They are irrelevant to the telling of the story. If someone whose life account is written in the Bible had an important encounter with a dinosaur it would have been included.

The thing is, we almost certainly have only a tiny fraction of the peceptions, concepts, observations, and attitudes of the people of the Bible. They wrote down stuff for their own generation, not ours more than two millenia later. Just as we would not feel obligated to explain every detail of our life experience as we write it--we assume people just know there are places like Albuquerque or Chicago, that people use cars and trains and planes for transportation, that going to church provokes a certain kind of image, that paying our income tax involves a specific process, etc. And when we are writing in our diaries or to each other or writing fiction or non fiction, we don't bother to explain cars and light bulbs and Facebook and telephones, etc. etc. etc. Nor do we describe every detail of our daily routines and often don't bother to elaborate on what specific religious and political terms mean to us. We just use them on the theory they are familiar to pretty much everybody.

Now after some enormous global catastrophe that wiped out all but a couple of extra primitive cultures, let's pretend fragments of our civilization were unearthed 2,000 years from now by the civilization that had evolved. How much of our language, customs, lifestyles, etc. would they understand from the artifacts they discovered, the geological understandings they had developed, and the writings that had survived?

Unless we see the world through the eyes of the ancients, as much as that is possible to do, we simply cannot begin to understand the writings and artifacts they left for posterity. To interpret their culture in the same we we interpret ours is almost certainly going to be a fool's errand.