Well would you prefer irrational, stupid, ignorant, silly, dumb, childish, etc.? I think that’s probably how many of us are defining crazy. I don’t think we mean clinically insane, otherwise we’d need a lot more psychiatrists, and much larger hospitals. As people have stated insanity is based on ‘not normal’, and obviously belief in one or more gods is pretty normal in our current society, however ‘crazy’ is not a medical term and us laypeople can be a bit looser with its meaning. Now with that definition it is possible for something that’s ingrained in humanity to be crazy, in fact it’s likely after all we’re not super-rational logic machines we have our brains because they were useful in evolutionary terms not because they could think straight all the time.
I do not believe the majority of religious people are crazy.
However, as usual I get the impression that the position being argued by the religious side is at best “Abrahamic monotheism” and at worst purely Christian in outlook. Whereas atheism rejects the whole caboodle.
I would therefore request that arguments on the pro-religious side would, when answering, take into account the necessary validity of the beliefs a) that Rama Setu, a series of sandbanks and islands between Sri Lanka and India, was literally made by Hanuman and his monkey army, b) that Buddhist priests in Tibet, Japan and Thailand respectively hold ceremonies and build shrines to appease the Bon, Shinto and Phi spirits of the land on which they build their temples, and c) that to the Yaohnanen of Vanuatu, Prince Philip is a deity.
Yes, Christians in this thread, that’s very interesting, what do you think of people who believe in other gods, in fact multiple gods, or any other examples of the above? These people may have just a strong belief they are right as you do, and can point to the effectiveness of whatever traditions they follow to get whatever results they desire.
[QUOTE=JThunder]
Okay, let’s do that. Now find me some historians who declare that the Iliad was intended to be an historical account. I’ll wait.
[/QUOTE]
Way to move the goal posts. :rolleyes:
By the way, is the Book of Mormon also considered to be God’s Word? Why not put faith into that as well? Is it not documenting historically?
If there is no Marduk, then why did the Sumerians alone among all the nations of the world develop beer?
Same answer. If the vast majority of humans who have ever existed have had religious belief, then the quality of having religious belief can’t be considered that’s something outside the norm, or something that requires a deficiency of some kind. I would say, sure, it’s reasonable to say that being religious is irrational, but I don’t believe that religious people are inherently more irrational than non-believers. All humans are irrational, they just may be irrational about different things. Repeat this sentence with the word “stupid” in place of irrational, then with “ignorant,” then with “silly,” then with “dumb,” then with “childish,” then with "any other negative (or for that matter, positive) adjective you can think of, and it will still be true.
Troy was found because the Iliad recorded it. I defy anyone to find Diagon Alley or Hogwarts. Frther, Rowling has plainly stated her works are fiction and she does not literally believe in wizardry.
:smack:
Well if you get my point, Troy wasn’t theme park created after the fact.
(But I suppose someone will show me a Troy theme park)
How about the Wonder Woman television series, with Lynda Carter? Sure, we can’t find Paradise Island – but we can find Washington DC, and there were Nazis in Germany during the '40s, and episodes kept revolving around Diana visiting a ranch in Texas or a movie studio in Hollywood or whatever – so if we can verify some of the details, how many others must be true?
It’s only been fairly recently that we have been able to explain and understand things that used to be attributed to god. As our understanding of the universe expands, religion should be in decline.
In the past, religion was the only explanation to why things were the way the were. Now we don’t need religion anymore. Unfortunately people are turning a blind eye to truth and being purposefully ignorant. At least for a country like the US, it is really shameful.
I’m not moving the goalposts at all. Your cite merely says that the Iliad was likely based on historical events. This is NOT the same as saying that it was an historical account. My point is that your cite fails to demonstrate what you think it does… and THAT is why I say that the Bible is not comparable to the Iliad. Understand?
Because I wasn’t trying to cover each and every religion in the world, that’s why. I most certainly did not claim that the Book of Mormon is God’s Word. Heck, I went out of my way to point out that one does not have to accept that the Bible is God’s Word in order to recognize that it is dramatically different from the Iliad.
That’s worth repeating. I emphasized that the Bible belongs to a different genre than the Iliad, and then said that similar (though not identical) arguments can be made for other religions. This does not mean that the sacred writings of each and every religion is an historical account, which is why I made no such claim.
With regard to the Book of Mormon, it is indeed entirely different from the Iliad. At the risk of offending my LDS friends, both are works of fiction, but that’s pretty much where the similarities end. The Iliad was written as a saga, albeit one that’s supposedly based on historical events. In contrast, the Book of Mormon is a deliberate hoax.
Once again, you don’t have to believe in the Bible as God’s Word (or the Koran, or the Book of Mormon) in order to recognize that it is substantially different from the Iliad, or that it belongs in an entirely different genre. To say that the Bible has exactly the same amount of historical value as the Iliad is to demonstrate ignorance. It’s the sort of statement that’s borne out of prejudice and preconceived notions rather than from any actual knowledge of this subject matter.
Hey brocks, you might wanna look up Julian Jaynes.
He didn’t quite claim that “religious people are crazy”, but he did claim that religion was a remnant from a time when crazy folks were considered prophets, seers, etc.
So yeah, according to Jaynes, religion has its roots in the (mostly aural) hallucinations of old-timey schizophrenics.
Not saying I necessarily believe in this theory, but it makes for some interesting reading.
No, it actually says at least remotely based on a historical conflict of the 12th century BC. You even quoted that up there.
I won’t quote the whole thing but if this is your sticking point, it’s a very weak one. I could argue that Stephen King’s *Dolores Claiborne *should be in a different genre than The Shining. Oh, they’re both fiction, but one’s in a different genre than the other.
Okay, let’s revisit that point. Even if we underscore the phrase “at least,” your point still does not stand. It merely allows for the vague possibility that the Iliad wasn’t quite remotedly based on the historical conflict in question. It does NOT establish the Iliad as a credible historical account.
Look, if you’re going to agree with the OP that the Bible has exactly as much historical authority as the Iliad, then you have to shoulder the burden of proof for that claim. Heck, even if you don’t go that far – even if you just say that they are vaguely similar in their historical authority – then you must be the one to establish that claim. The two writings are of substantially different genres, and that is a critical distinction. One is considered to be a heroic that is based on a historical conflict – perhaps remotely, perhaps a bit more than that. The other is treated by professional historians as having significantly more historical value, even though they may disagree on the extent to which it should be taken as such.
You can quibble all you want about whether the Iliad was remotely based on historical events or not, but this is ultimately a minor point. To paraphrase your own words, if your sticking point is that it might not have been remotely based on history, then that’s a very weak point indeed.
I was brought up Catholic. VERY Catholic 
Over the course of my life I have been drawn to the point where I am now…pretty much athiest.
The OP, while I tend to agree with him, overthinks most people’s religion. Most people, even Catholics, really don’t think about the the bible and analyze it to death. If forced to, they will grin and bear it…but it is not really their ‘thing’.
All they know and care about is that there is a Diety out there that created the universe and has a plan. This Diety cares for them and thier loved ones and anything that happens in this world is for their own good - even suffering. This diety will also punish the ‘bad’ people.
I look back and see it as just that. Humans have a desire that there is someone out there with a plan and they are part of it and that there really is justice in the universe.
The alternative - that the universe exists and doesn’t give a shit about anyone and that people are on their own and that bad people will never have to face their ‘crimes’…well, it really is a nasty realization!
I think religion is probably an evolutionary advantage. Societies that embrace the delusion will function smoother and have more of an identity allowing them to outcompete societies without that delusion.
Therefore, religious belief is probably really ‘being human’ and if current religions were overthrown something would take their place.
I don’t believe that the Bible holds a credible historical authority, so that becomes quickly a moot point. It’s, however, your point (albeit seemingly) that it does, so I would believe the onus goes back on you to substantiate the claim that it does. Feel free to consult Cecil on this one who says things like “(t)here’s little historical evidence to establish the existence of anybody from the period”.
Indeed. That’s where we are today, with the God of Abraham supplanting various forms of polytheism.
Although there are some holdouts, apparently – like that one with the monkey army. Now THAT’S a god I could get behind!
No, they function worse. The idea that religion is good for society in a very old one but baseless. Just because religion spreads well doesn’t mean it is good for the people and societies it parasitizes, any more than the infectiousness of the flu means that it is good for you.
I have a two-part answer to this. First, when culture has evolved for 10,000+ years to include religious worship as a major element, it’s not so easy to let go of it after a only a couple hundred years of real scientific knowledge. Second, there are lots of questions that religion seeks to answer that are more esoteric and less factual than why does the sun rise and set, and what makes the rains come. Questions that science can never answer, but people still need to ponder, like why are we here, what the purpose and the meaning? That’s what religion is for…that’s what it’s always been for. It think it’s facile to say that all religion ever wanted to do was to explain natural phenomenon…that was part of it, but it was never all of it. And science can’t answer those question…that’s why we have religion and philosophy, and always have.