My favorite explanation for why religions exist is that they are the direct result of our capability to make cause-and-effect connections.
The human mind has a tremendous capability to figure out how the world works, and what causes what. But this capability causes many “false positives”. For example, an early man paints a buffalo on the cave wall, and the next day the buffalo hunt goes better than usual. He falsely makes the connection that the painting had an effect on the hunt, and primitive religion is born. Any time the hunt goes badly, even though the painting was done, is easily explained away with excuses like “I didn’t paint it well enough” or “I painted it too early in the day” or whatever. The excuse possibilities are practically infinite.
To bring it back to the OP, I think that religions indeed are attempts to explain the unexplainable. The unexplainable, in this case, being a false cause-and-effect assumption.
No, it’s not. Religions are attempts to explain a lot of things, such as “why are we here?” “what is right and what is wrong?” and “what happens when we die?”; god is what explains many of them. The idea that all religions stem from the same source seems like a fairly old one…
Geez. I crossed out logic for a reason, you know. “Inductive logic”, as it is often called, but is sometimes called “inductive reasoning” is a historical relic. It is taught in logic classes as being an earlier method of learning. You ever study logic?
Well, if you don’t know, basically, what it means is that every experience in my life lead me to the conclusion that just about every angle of religion is bad. Hardly a “logical methodology” at all. Would you prefer I rant for two pages about everything I see wrong about it? My life story? No.
It doesn’t even prove that. At best, it would only demonstrate that certain religious founders did not provide well for their spouses. (And as you correctly pointed out, even that claim is false in Mohammed’s case.)
Scott_plaid, you claim to have proven that all religions are deliberate scams, but your examples clearly prove nothing of the sort. Do you really know what the inductive process is? It’s not the same as proof by example. Not in the least.
[QUOTE=Scott Plaid]
Geez. I crossed out logic for a reason, you know. “Inductive logic”, as it is often called, but is sometimes called “inductive reasoning” is a historical relic.
Potato, po-tah-to. Even though you crossed out the word “logic,” you substituted the word “reasoning” in its place. Is your reasoning valid? If so, prove it.
I am quite familiar with inductive reasoning. This is exactly why I am challenging you to post your “inductive” proof. Based on what you’ve said so far, I don’t think you’re using inductive reasoning at all.
A vague claim. Hardly scientific.
And even if it were true, stating that religion is “bad” is not the same as stating that it is “a scam.”
Hey, you’re the one who claimed to use “inductive reasoning.” Those are your own words.
Now, if you did not truly use a logical methodology, don’t you think you should reconsider your claim? After all, it’s rather extreme to insist that it’s true of every single religion on earth.
Nobody asked for your life story. I just asked how you would prove your claim that all religions are deliberate deceptions. That way, we can see if your claim has any validity.
Based on what I’ve seen so far, I think your claim has precious little basis in fact.
In order to attrack converts, pretty much every religion on earth teaches that good is good. The founders either really believe that all thought would lead to that conclusion, were big fat liars who really hoped they wwere right, but feared they were wrong, or some other thing. Personally, I believe that the hoped they were right, but were not sure of it thing is the right one. Alll my conclusion lead there. I can not reach back in time and ask them, but I am sure of it. However, if you would like an example of how facts and inductive reasoning would prove them wrong, see the following essay: The “Inductive” Argument From Evil: A Dialogue
Statements like this one are the reason many people find your posts unintelligible. I’m sure it makes perfect sense to you, but a lot of us just are not getting it.
[QUOTE=Scott Plaid]
In order to arrack converts, pretty much every religion on earth teaches that [del]good[/del] god is good. The founders either really believe that all thought would lead to that conclusion, were big fat liars who really hoped they were right, but feared they were wrong, or some other thing. (Here, I am tempted to say “or were insane”, rather then some other thing, but that would lead to the fallacy of “It isn’t just two or three choices.” )
The issue is not whether God exists or whether religion is “right.” The issue raised in the OP is their purpose. And the issue put to you is whether all religions are cons, and how you came to your conclusion.
Fine then, All (pretty much all modern) regions claim to be handed down, personally, from god. In fact, evidence shows that they are pastiches of earlier myths. Happy?
Your creatively shifting spelling aside, the assertion “it was either A, or B, or some other thing,” is an explanation for, oh I don’t know, just about every phenomenon in the world.
Try to keep up, man. At hand is your agreement with this statement:
I believe that’s false. I’m hoping you’ll demonstrate why you believe it to be true. Who’s running the con? In what way do religions not answer or explain things? I know they don’t answer or explain anything to your satisfaction, that’s fine. But they do answer and explain things; whether or not those answers and explanations are valid is AFAICT irrelevant.
I believe he was right to say that. However, I may be misunderstanding him , Personally, I would like to hear what he has to say, before I add my own two cents.
