Why has religion retained its appeal?

[RootsBooster]

Religion's maintained it's appeal because atheism offers absolutely nothing spiritually.

 

Nor is it meant to. Atheism isn't meant to offer anything, it's just an absence of theistic belief.

I would argue that religion hasn't necessarily maintained any appeal, few (adult) people suddenly decide to believe in a god and take up a religion in comparison to the millions of children who are indoctrinated into religions.

Therefore it would be more appropriate that religion is perpetuated, rather than being appealing.

[Cyclone]

Religion's maintained it's appeal because atheism offers absolutely nothing spiritually.

 

No comforting stories (or lies).

So religion retains it's appeal like a comfort blanket. People like the idea that there's something after, they don't just cease to exist. I like the idea too, but it seems unlikely doesn't it, when you think about it.

[dutch]

No comforting stories (or lies).

So religion retains it's appeal like a comfort blanket. People like the idea that there's something after, they don't just cease to exist. I like the idea too, but it seems unlikely doesn't it, when you think about it.

 

Certain people look for answers to their origins. Digging in philosophical ideas of your existence doesn't go far or deep enough to find that answer. Looking at the surface like science or organised religion will keep going around in circles. Thinking about it, looking for assumptions, believing in scriptures, performing scientific experiments. All of that looks the other way, to the opposite direction of your origins.

Religion will keep its appeal, science has reduced religion so far but will not answer the unanswered question of your true existence either. That question will remain unanswered until mind religion and physics are completed by being fully aware of your consciousness. Then physical and religious become one, that is why many religious scriptures say god is all everything.

[danot]

Yes, you did. Look at the words.

 

 

You don't even understand what questions you're asking.

Is there a question here? It reads like nonsense.

Nope, because that wouldn't be a beginning would it. There would have been a small dense thing there before.

Nope, empty space would be space that does exist. Expansion is OF space, not into space.

You're back to mind reading again are you?

I'll correct your guesswork. That theory is the best working model we have at the moment.

That's how science works, we try to explain things, but we know that further evidence or just a mathematical insight even might cause those hypotheses and theories to be revised.

 

---------- Post added 31-07-2018 at 07:32 ----------

 

 

Is this it? This is what you wanted to call out as illogical?

Your failure to understand something doesn't make it illogical.

No one understands it, not even scientists. But at least I recognise how preposterous it is, which is why I question the plausibility of it and ask myself- Which is most likely? That the universe has always existed and particles can miraculously appear from out of nowhere, or is it the theory that's wrong since such things aren't possible?

[Robin-H]

No one understands it, not even scientists. But at least I recognise how preposterous it is, which is why I question the plausibility of it and ask myself- Which is most likely? That the universe has always existed and particles can miraculously appear from out of nowhere, or is it the theory that's wrong since such things aren't possible?

 

Just because you don't understand it it doesn't mean that nobody does. There is a great deal of plausible scientific literature which discusses the origin of the Universe.

[SnailyBoy]

Just because you don't understand it it doesn't mean that nobody does. There is a great deal of plausible scientific literature which discusses the origin of the Universe.

 

Indeed, the argument from personal incredulity rears its head.

[danot]

Just because you don't understand it it doesn't mean that nobody does. There is a great deal of plausible scientific literature which discusses the origin of the Universe.

Yes, "they discuss" it. That's all anyone can do at present. No one can answer the fundamental questions that surrounds existence- Why is there something rather than nothing? Was there an actual beginning? Did everything miraculously spring into existence or as it always existed? There is no definitive answer to these questions. They can't be answered.

[Robin-H]

Yes, "they discuss" it. That's all anyone can do at present. No one can answer the fundamental questions that surrounds existence- Why is there something rather than nothing? Was there an actual beginning? Did everything miraculously spring into existence or as it always existed? There is no definitive answer to these questions. They can't be answered.

 

There is a big difference between 'they can't be answered' and 'they haven't been answered'. Read some Lawrence Krauss as a starter. Science doesn't deal with 'why' (in that philosophical sense), and nor should it, why is an irrelevant question.

[danot]

Indeed, the argument from personal incredulity rears its head.

 

Incredulity is always accompanied by implausibility.

[SnailyBoy]

Incredulity is always accompanied by implausibility.

 

Oh dear, you're at it again.

 

Look up the logical fallacy - argument from incredulity.

 

Your argument is textbook.