If there wasn't a god....

[Left Turn Only]

As an agnostic, I don't totally dismiss the idea of some central intelligence or entity that is the creator of the universes, but I don't dwell on it much. One thing I'm fairly certain of is that the major religions out there are wrong. Maybe someone out there could explain to me why the vast majority of people believe in these ancient writings written by men. Sure the Christians, Muslims, and Jews all believe that the writers of the Old and New Testaments and the Koran were all inspired by God, but it surprises me how so many people so easily fully believe this basic premise.

Almost everything we know about Jesus only comes from the 4 Gospels of the New Testament, and these were written long after His death. How could a person performing miracles not attract the attention of any writers at the time? Why would it be necessary for God who is all knowledgeable of all things past, present, and future find it necessary to have a Son killed to be able to forgive the very people He created? Why would that make Him feel better? Why create Evil in the first place? Why even create people? Was God lonely?

The Old Testament was translated from the ancient Hebrew, which didn't even have vowels. Translations are rarely perfect, particularly concerning abstract thoughts. From the ancient Hebrew to the Greek, to the Latin, and to King James' English, how much was lost or changed? Was this the best way for a god who exists outside time and space to give His wants to His people for all time? And when people, using their God-given brains, doubt the veracity of these translations, why would God sentence them to eternal suffering? Why would a perfect being have moods, destroying the entire planet with a flood one moment while saving human kind the next?

Why did Allah (God) find the need to have Muhammad as another prophet? Did He change his mind on what He wanted from His people? Since Muhammad was a prophet, why didn't he realize how much bloodshed would happen after he died because he failed to see the necessity for laying out a plan for choosing his successor? Knowing what we now know of illnesses like schizophrenia, why wouldn't a normal human doubt someone who is hearing Allah talking to him through the angel Gabriel? Why should this person suffer in Hell?

Why is it okay to have a concubine in the Old Testament, but you can't even re-marry after divorce in the New Testament? So many more honest questions, and all we get from our religious leaders is that we can't hope to guess the mind of God. Isn't that the perfect con game? The more ridiculous something seems the more we are to have faith because God is testing us. Back in those ancient times when all these religions were forming and borrowing from one another, it was a pretty good gig to be a religious leader compared to the hard work performed by the common person. It just seems to me that promoting a religion had some pretty good perks.

So, again, I ask: Why do so many of you believe in these ancient religions that have so many unanswered questions, denigrate women, promote slavery, and were only written by men?

[tama]

1. For the same reasons

so many believe in myths of nation states, capitalism, etc., which denigrate women, promote slavery, and were only written by men, e.g. US constitution as it was written by founding fathers.

[johnlucas]

4. SUPER intelligent comment!

The error is assuming mythology is only owned by official religions.
If people don't believe in one kind of myth, they'll certainly believe in another one.

One myth that comes to mind is the American Dream.
Lots of people believe in that religiously too.
Another one is the Money System.
John Lucas

P.S.: On a map you see the United States of America, Canada, & Mexico all with their border lines drawn out.
When you look at the actual land where U.S.A., Canada, & Mexico meet, can you find any lines drawn on the land?
To keep up the mythology of borders, they put up walls & fences. But in reality all of it is one single landmass.

[edhopper]

6. That makes no sense

how is the Constitution a myth. It is extremely well documented, and we have the original.
Unless you are talking about the Originalist and their slavery to original intent. They are just another type of fundamentalist. (a lot of them are Christian fundamentalist anyway)

[tama]

7. To quote Okasha's "quick and dirty" definition:

If it tells you what to believe, it's theology.

If it tells you what to do, it's myth, and the doing is religion.

The issue is not between oral and literal traditions, but with different questions, "what" and "how". And answer to "what is a myth" and "what is a constitution" is that they give answers to the question how to act.

[edhopper]

8. I don't find that

applicable at all.
Tho broad a brush stroke to have meaning.

[tama]

10. OK

I often find that particulars find more coherent meaning from broader brushes. Others find meaning only from parts analyzed and chopped up into smaller pieces than they.

[skepticscott]

11. More quantum diarrhea

There's an app for that

[tama]

13. Do you disagree

that words get their meaning from their relation to the whole of network of relations we call language? And that languages as wholes get their meaning from their participatory and evolutionary relation in larger inclusive whole we call nature?

[skepticscott]

16. I agree that

that particular characterization of language serves your purposes at this moment in time, and that a completely different one may serve your purposes tomorrow.

[skepticscott]

9. A very "dirty" definition indeed

One that okasha should know better than, given her intellectual puffery on the subject. "Myth" as encompassed by "mythology" (as opposed to simply the sense of a mistaken belief, two senses that idiots here will no doubt try to conflate) is far, far more than, and not even predominantly, something telling you how to act.

And a quantum spewer like you should know better than to try to define and characterize even the first sense of myth so narrowly. Well, ok...probably you don't.

[tama]

12. It's "dirty" and far from exhaustive

but expresses the difference of "what" of theology and "how" of mythology simply and effectively, which was the context where it was given.

On of the main functions of mythology is to give expression to social organization of community and how the community relates to surrounding world, it's way of life.

This is how we look at and interpret e.g. Greek tragedies and their meaning in their original context, but as they continue to be played beyond polis of Athens, their meaning is obviously not limited to that social context and can find always find new dimensions in the rites of dramatic art. 'Drama" btw originally means 'action', which connection English repeats in words 'actor', 'actress' and 'acting'.

[skepticscott]

17. Not just "far from exhaustive"

but laughable inadequate and grotesquely misleading, was your statement that the answer to the question "what is a myth?" is that it gives an answer to the question of how to act.

[tama]

18. Bad day, again?

Why is it that you seem to have so few good days, if any?

[skepticscott]

19. Sorry, did you have any facts to offer?

Or just more quantum oozing?

Btw, I completely reject the notion that "days" can be forced into arbitrary "categories" like "good" and "bad" or anything in between, or that the concept of a "day" has any but a ridiculously arbitrary meaning.

[tama]

20. Yes

You appear to be constantly in bad mood and just acting like jerk instead of even trying to have sensible discussions.

[skepticscott]

21. I also deny

that such a thing as a "mood" is anything but an arbitrary social construct, or that it can be characterized as "good", "bad" or anything in between with any credibility or connection to objective reality.

And even if it were otherwise, how could I possibly be in a bad mood when I'm laughing so hard at you and taking you so unseriously?

[tama]

22. Well, since you are now so talkative and playfull

I'll congratulate you for having or being a real, rare, true scientific minds that can endure doubt, which is attached to all our knowledge.

[skepticscott]

23. You really are baffled, aren't you?

You have nothing to do but flail when confronted with the fact that no one with any sense here takes you at all seriously...

You're good for a laugh, but that's about it...

[mr blur]

27. This is absolute nonsense

If it tells you what to believe, it's theology.

If it tells you what to do, it's myth, and the doing is religion.

Where on Earth do you people find this drivel?

[tama]

28. For example here on Earth:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_mythhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_myth

[cleanhippie]

29. Apparently, he got a degree in Philosophy from Wiki University.

[ZombieHorde]

25. The paper and ink is real, but the rest is not.

Rights, laws, and authority are not real things. They are strictly imaginary.

[Phillip McCleod]

14. thats stretching the definition of 'religious myth' quite a lot

its like general belief vs 'religious beliefs'. to be precise we ought to make a distinction between the common meaning and the philosophical term, or no mutual understanding is possible.

[tama]

15. Re "religion":

"According to Cicero derived from relegere "go through again, read again," from re- "again" + legere "read" (see lecture (n.)). However, popular etymology among the later ancients (and many modern writers) connects it with religare "to bind fast" (see rely), via notion of "place an obligation on," or "bond between humans and gods." Another possible origin is religiens "careful," opposite of negligens."

Meaning "particular system of faith" is recorded from c.1300. Modern sense of "recognition of, obedience to, and worship of a higher, unseen power" is from 1530s.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=religion

Note that I didn't speak of myth limited to "religious myth", as you did, but more simply and generally (and to avoid complexities and problems of defining "religious&quot .

As for myth (n.):

1830, from Fr. Mythe (1818) and directly from Mod.L. mythus, from Gk. mythos "speech, thought, story, myth, anything delivered by word of mouth," of unknown origin.

General sense of "untrue story, rumor" is from 1840.

it should be clear that I was not using the word in the sense of "untrue story, rumor", but in the sense of "Story of People", of how especially indigenous peoples comprehend the function of their mythologies. Which function is comparable to e.g. functions of written constitutions of communities called nation states, at least from indigenous point of view.

[ZombieHorde]

24. Exactly.

The state is an illusion.

[GeorgeGist]

2. God works in mysterious ways.

[Festivito]

3. ... and as if there was.

Humans connecting to an idealized infinince will do the human thing and be flawed, imperfect, wrong as you will -- as you describe religions. Yet, there is something revelatory about the past writings that seems to transcend our humanness. This is ligature to the infinite.

But, we cannot touch it. We cannot speak of it, not in a complete sense. Maybe leaving those who know without saying it, those who speak of it, not knowing it. That would apply to me as well!

There can be a certain faith that the revelations will continue, and they do. And, if we do not understand some of it now, in time, maybe we will.

And, yes, not everyone who says: Lord, Lord, is to be believed. But, that pretty much goes for everyone, everytime, everywhere.

[uriel1972]

5. I look at holy books as something of an ink blot test.

There is so much packed in there, there is something for everyone to believe in. Notwithstanding latter readings which seek to find justification for a belief in vague wordings.

There is also, I guess a form of cultural inertia. "That's what I was brought up to believe!"

Are they wrong? Can they all be right? I don't know and in the absence of definitive proof one way or the other this argument will go on for a long time.

My point of view is of an agnostic atheist, without proof of a god or gods it would be premature to choose one, or more to believe in.

The flaw in Pascal's wager is that there are many gods to choose from not just the Judeo-Christian one. How would you know you end up believing in the right one? One could die and wake up to find Kali or Hel waiting for your soul.

That is if souls exist, which is another argument.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

26. Why does anyone believe in these ancient writings written by men? Enablers. Mothers mainly.