[Quote=SenorBeef]
Clearly forming religions is part of the psychological nature of humanity.
[/quote]
I believe that you are a member of humanity. (Correct me if I’m wrong.) Have you formed a religion?
Oh, you misapprehended me as meaning I had done the research myself? I thought it was clear that I was indicating that I find the explanations already out there to be quite satisfying. Lots of them listed at that link.
Notice how I used the word “humanity” rather than “every individual human”?
Okay, so you’re a Christian. You believe that the Christian God exists and the rest of the religions are wrong, correct? Do you doubt that other people who follow those religions sincerely believe and follow and do works in the name of those religions? And yet those religions are wrong - baseless, just made up. So even if you believe that Christianity is a direct revelation from God and incorrect, you can see that other people made up religions anyway. I mean, how can you not?
So many divergent, isolated cultures have created something with the purpose of a religion with its own mythology that it’s clear that religion fills a fundamental psychological need in people. If you were to take a thousand babies and put them on a deserted island somewhere, they’d eventually form a religion.
I have, but since it mostly involves worshiping BrainGlutton, it never seems to catch on. 
Generally when someone says that something is part of human nature, I assume they mean that it’s a trait shared by all humans. That’s the definition of “nature” when used in this context.
The second part is very incorrect. A religion consists of practices, attitudes, and beliefs. Practices generally can’t be classified as wrong or right. At best they can be classified as useful or not useful. Attitudes may be wrong or right, but may also be neither. A set of beliefs may include both correct and incorrect ones. Hence I don’t put a sweeping label of “wrong” on any religion. To say that I believe that “the rest of the religions are wrong” would be wrong.
How so? Many groups of people have created stories of imaginary animals, such as Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster. Does it follow that such stories fill a fundamental psychological need? There’s a huge logical gap in your argument between the creation of religions and the psychological need to do so.
You seem to maybe be kidding around, at least in part. But I have a serious question: Why would your “Brain Glutton” God be any less important or real than any other God? I would say The God Brain Glutton–is as real as any other God. (Although I’m not a believer in Him, or any other being, as a Deity).
The answer I see from believers in the Christian God to this is usually along the lines of “Well, how many other folks worship Brain Glutton the God, hmmm?” As if religion is merely a popularity contest (and maybe it is just that and nothing more).
That’s like saying that since every culture suffers from disease, humans have a fundamental need to be sick. Or for a more sociological example, consider the historical prevalence of slavery; do humans have a need to enslave others? Just because something is endemic doesn’t mean it’s good or necessary in any way.
If it’s such a need, how do atheists function? Are we all psychologically crippled?
I also often hear the argument (especially when the question “Is God evil or indifferent” comes up) “But I don’t want to believe in a God like that”. The apparently seriously meant argument that their desires determine what God must be like; that God can’t be evil or indifferent because they don’t want God to be evil or indifferent. The fact that this amounts to an admission that their god is a self indulgent fantasy seems lost on them.
Some things are true for all (or most) human societies which aren’t true for individuals. Societies have the tendency to create religions. Individuals, not so much.
(As it so happens, I have created a dozen or so religions. I’m a fantasy/sci-fi writer.)
What is the largest known human society that doesn’t have a religion?
Certainly there’s nothing wrong with trying to improve society. I definitely agree with you that removing the power religion once had is a good idea. Lots of things are “natural” that we don’t want any part of.
When surgical anaesthesia was first being developed, some religious spokesmen – and not only men, alas – argued that it should not be given to women to reduce the pain of childbirth, because that pain was God’s curse on Eve. That kind of thing shows religion at its most evil.
Where I (as gently as possible) disagree with you is that you believe all religious expression is evil, and I’m willing to recognize the impulse as being beneficial – or neutral – when sufficiently moderated. Priests must be kept from having the power to have heretics put to death by lapidation. But I will accept the right of priests to say that a particular belief is heresy, just as I will accept your right to say what you say.
The problem is that knowledge is contextual. Facts don’t exist in a vacuum; they are, directly or indirectly, related to every other fact. So if you accept facts that have no basis in reality, they’ll be shown to contradict established facts that do have a basis in reality. So you’ll have a choice between amending the new facts or rethinking the established ones.
So the problem religious people have is that belief in a supreme being flies in the face of everything we know about reality. So they start changing the facts of reality to accommodate their faith. This is why fundamentalists of any religion have to virtually create an alternate reality to justify their faith, e.g. a 6,000-year Earth.
And this is why it’s impossible to argue with fundamentalists. Their reality is no longer the “real” one, and since it’s based on faith, they can say virtually anything they want, as long as it’s supported by their beliefs.
I don’t see any problem with people not wanting their god to be evil or indifferent, or wanting their god to be purple-striped or covered in suction cups. Knock yourself out, I say.
Anyone can have his or her god anyway they want it because humans are the creators of gods. You can buy one off the shelf (let somebody else manufacture it) or, if you’re handy and have the time, you can DIY–create your own God customized to your liking.
In a way, can’t it be said with certainty that God(s) do actually exist? At least if you define God(s) in the only way that’s logical… to wit, Gods are ideas in individuals’ minds. Ideas are real, right?
Only if your name is Plato.
Couldn’t have said it better myself.
The last sentence is, I think vital to this discussion. I will elaborate further on.
That is exactly the sort of pointless strawmanism that always makes political or religious discussions irritating and non-productive.
It was Stranger In a Strange Land that made me Christian. It made me see that religion is a matter of labels you put on the things you believe. It showed me that all religions are equally worthless and priceless. And it showed me that just because you apply the same label as someone else doesn’t mean you’re talking about the same thing.
I am Christian. I’ve never been baptized and I don’t go to church. I am Christian by convenience.
I was raised in a Christian culture and I’m familiar with the mythology. I agree with the tenets - as I see them - of Christianity.
I don’t think God hates fags, or made white folk superior. I don’t think God gives a shit about abortions or anything related and I don’t believe that cataclysmic weather is a manifestation of divine fury at our immorality.
I take my Christianity entirely from the Gospels and largely from the Sermon on the Mount.
I also believe that all religions largely come down to the same basic precepts. It’s just that we big-brained primates get hung up on labels as opposed to content. The Medium is the Massage.
So, yes it is impossible to prove that Christians are right or wrong. There are as many shades of Christian as there are shades of grey (at least 50 I’m told).
In my opinion some Christians are completely right, others are completely wrong and most fall in between. Some make me ashamed to have adopted the same label.
I believe in a God. I believe that by being honest, courteous, fair and defending those weaker than me I serve that God. I believe most Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists etc believe the same things.
What I want to know is why there aren’t any decent-sized denominations or even sects that use something like a Jefferson Bible. I just can’t take the liberal Christians seriously as long as they are walking around with Bibles that contain Deuteronomy and all that sort of vile garbage that would be instantly denounced as hate language if anyone tried to write it in modern times (like Dianetics or something).
I have dozens in an old chest in the basement. I sometimes give them away as gifts to people I like, but don’t like enough to give really good stuff to. My brother-in-law has several, and when I come to visit, he gets them out and puts them on a shelf so I can see he still has them.
I’ve always adored the good old medieval tautology: since I can imagine a perfect God, having no faults or flaws, then he must not have the flaw of “non-existence.” Thus, he must exist. The most excellent bootstrapping in human philosophy.
Of course, such a God also would not have the flaw of not providing me with a winning lottery ticket, and thus, I should have one. But somehow…
Because they still need the Bible to validate the things they do believe.
‘I believe God wants this and this, because of the sermon on the mount, it’s right in the bible! see?’ ‘My view has as much worth as anyone elses, cause it’s based on the Bible.’
The bible is still the authoritive source for any Christian, no matter how much of it they don’t want to be true.
In the same sense that Christians, as a whole, still need the Old Testament to validate the New Testament. No matter how many times you say that the New Testament replaces the Old, it still needs to be included. Else the whole thing about original sin and a Messiah, and even the One God, wouldn’t make any sense. The New testament can’t stand on it’s own.
The Muslims and that Smith fellow did a better job of breaking with the old and starting something new.
But that doesn’t answer the question of why no denomination or sect uses a pared down version of the Bible. I feel pretty sure that there are a lot of liberal Christian churches where Revelations and Deuteronomy, among others, are rarely if ever referenced; so why not actually edit them out?
Because that would be censorship. And because it’s a fringe view, even among the most liberal Christians, that there are books of the Bible that have absolutely zero value or are actually harmful to read.
Although I suppose from the Catholic point of view, Protestants do use a “pared down” version of the Bible.
It’s entirely possible for a believing Christian (or maybe an observant Jew, or a Muslim, but I’m a Christian) to absoutely agree, without any reservations, with this statement and to remain a believing Christian.
Of course they can.
All well and good, Voyager, and I’m sure all believers are weak and developmentally delayed and so on, but I’m simply pointing out that there’s no contradiction between SlackerInc’s statement and religious belief.