All except Greek/Roman mythology hold the golden thread of truth IMHO. The mythology ones are stores of cultural wisdom they do not point to the truth as those others all do in some way. Sihkism might be another exception, I don't know enough about them other then that they were Hindus that formed a group dedicated to fighting the invading Muslim Princes.
I think it's rather obvious that we live in a more skeptical, rationality-based world than when most religions started. So if you're wondering why we view religions like Scientology less reverently/seriously than Christianity, it's because they were borne in a more skeptical era and are faced with a higher standard of proof. However those ancient religious prophets may have been, there's no doubting that they'd face a lot more criticism and disbelief than they did. Would they have faced as much criticism/disbelief as Scientologists do now? I'm not sure we can answer that. Regardless of where you stand on the "Is religion fictitious, or not?" question, I think you have to recognize the ways in which humanity has created or added to religion. A lot of what modern religions consist of can't be traced to its origin, and are human inventions that are meant to respond to some particular need at a given time. You need to consider that dynamic process between religion and its followers (or creators, depending on your perspective), because it helps explain why the "older religions" are treated more respectfully than the newer ones: those older ones have developed into more than basic spiritual teachings. They embody cultural and social norms that are steeped in history and often have little do with with God-related matters. People who believe in monotheistic religions (eg: Christianity, Judaism, Islam) usually do that to distinguish their belief in a single god from religions that believe in many (eg: Hinduism). An aspect of respect has also developed around it as well.
How has lightning being thrown by a god been disproven? If one is willing to believe that god created the earth in 6 days despite all scientific evidence to the contrary, then one should be equally willing to believe in an invisible lightning thrower. barfo
Sikhism developed as a kind of amalgamation of Hindu and Islamic spiritual wisdom (it had founding writers from both faiths). Culturally, it's very similar to Hinduism, but spirituality, it's much closer to Islam (I'd say it's similar to Baha'ism) because of its monotheism. That's a really really brief summary of it, though. The connection to Hinduism and Islam is a good way to understand its history, but it's very different from both religions.
Huh? I don't understand this. What is your point? Their are huge numbers (most?) of Christians that don't take the "6 day" thing literally.
age matters but not necessarily the age itself. just that we know the exact events around when it started. when a science fiction writer starts a religion 60 years ago, it seems pretty easy to dismiss as complete bullshit and that's why most people don't care when it is instantly dismissed. same with someone wanted to worship the jedi or a spaghetti monster. is that difficult to understand? it says nothing towards what religion is correct or if any religion is correct, just that it is easy to dismiss religions when they pop up out of nothing and we are basically there to witness it.
I'm saying, if one is willing to ascribe things to the action of a god, then one can ascribe lightning bolts to a god. Just because it appears to you to be electrical discharges - well, that's the way God intended it to appear to you. You cannot understand his ways, so don't even try. Just accept that he throws lightning bolts. Then they are going to BURN IN HELL My point was that belief in a deity requires suspension of rationality, and if you are going to do that, you are capable of believing in absolutely anything. It's just a matter of choice or chance (or god's will) what irrational set of beliefs is picked. barfo
Logically, one would extrapolate backwards from the current experience and conclude that prior religions are likely to be every bit as phony (or not) as newer religions. Human nature hasn't changed much in the past 2000 years. barfo
I agree with most of what you wrote, except the "irrational" part. If we don't know how something was created, or how it works, or how it exists, then it isn't irrational at all to believe that God created it.
you don't see how a religion that has basically existed since the beginning of recorded history is harder to instantly dismiss as false than one started within the past 60 years by a science fiction writer?
Except that we've had a long history now of people ascribing things to god because they didn't understand how it worked, and then later on someone figures out how it works or where it came from. So it seems rather foolish to continue to ascribe things to god just because we don't yet understand them. God keeps getting smaller and smaller, and yet all along people draw lines in the sand and say, well, this is it. What's left is really god. And then the rising tide of science washes away the line, and someone draws a new line. Now you may point out that there is such a thing as a high tide line, and I'll agree that perhaps we will one day reach the limits of our ability to increase our understanding. But it is very clear we haven't reached that point yet. The tide is still coming in (global warming, don't cha know) and so it seems silly to be drawing lines in the sand today and saying "everything on the other side is god". barfo
I can see how it might be harder for some people to dismiss it. I don't have any such difficulty myself. barfo
It's a matter of intention, as far as I'm concerned. They may become distorted over the years, but these older religions were all founded intending to address some pressing need that existed within the surrounding populace. Greek/Roman religions attempted to preserve and glorify a particular cultural legacy, Judaism developed for those disillusioned with religion confined by ethnic boundaries, Christianity sought to fullfill the promises of Judaism, Islam addressed individuals who felt oppressed by warring mercantile tribes. What has Scientology sought to answer? It hasn't addressed some underlying questions in society, so much as its tricked and preyed upon individuals. You just have to look at how quickly these "older religions" became popular. None of them started off in a position of power where they could force individuals to subscribe to their belief system. People voluntarily subscribed because they felt that they offered something relevant to their current situation/mindset. It's no different than political movements (eg: Marxism).
I don't know much about scientology, but it is clear that at least some of its devotees think it adds something to their lives. You can say they are being tricked, but one could say that about any religion. How is that any different than Scientology? barfo
that's nice. do you disagree with my response as an answer to julius' question about why some religions are routinely mocked but others aren't?
and that there was only one man and one woman to start, because inbreeding wouldn't impact things, right? Or how to fit exactly two of every species onto a boat for 40 days and have ALL survive? (what were they feeding the lions, unicorns and sprites?)
At what point do you say "well we don't believe lightening is real" but "6 days isn't real either" is okay? It seems like you could flip this around. "most greeks don't REALLY think zeus throws lightening, but why would anyone really make the world in 6 days?!"
most don't really believe in the flying spaghetti monster, he's just trying to prove that you have to teach EVERY single religion if you want to teach creationism.
