Why has religion retained its appeal?

[Annie Bynnol]

Will you give over. You make atheism sound neutral when it isn't neutral, it's a parasitic mite that religion cant shake off. Without religion it doesn't have a host so it clings on for dear life.

 

'Without religion' is the normal position because none of us are born with any of the different religions available.

The vast majority of people without religion are independent of each other and of groups or clubs that have rules.

This huge mass of opinion has no officials or agenda and so is a very difficult to attack and so it is left to some religious types to create a label -like atheist, give them a legend- anti religious, and then insult- "parasitic mite".

 

Quite mild treatment compared to the good old days.

[Robin-H]

These examples I posted earlier adequately illustrates how logical reasoning rejects a cause for the existence of the universe.

 

Because the cause of the universe's existence hasn't been discovered, it's still unknown, but we've created a system of reasoning which enables us to accept there is no cause for its existence.??

 

---------- Post added 10-08-2018 at 23:09 ----------

 

Will you give over. You make atheism sound neutral when it isn't neutral, it's a parasitic mite that religion cant shake off. Without religion it doesn't have a host so it clings on for dear life.

 

Firstly, you still haven't provided proof that I have made a u-turn about anything. If you are going to make accusations, provide some evidence. It shouldn't be hard, all the posts are here.

 

Secondly, those quotes of your own earlier comments aren't descriptions of logical reasoning we use where a cause for the existence of the universe is no longer necessary. You've just quoted yourself saying that there is one. I want to know what it is, not that you think there is.

 

Thirdly, to address your most ridiculous claim. Clearly you don't know what atheism is. Atheism would exist without religion, anyone with any understanding of the word would realise that.

[Cyclone]

Cyclone. I've not been trying to make my point, I'm simply attempting to make you aware of the point. Logical thinkers worldwide accept that a cause for the existence of the universe is no longer necessary since logical reasoning fails to find one. Can't you see that we've created this lack of cause, or is this just something I've created?

 

So you also don't understand the common phrase "making a point", noted.

 

In bold, this makes no sense, also it's untrue AFAIK.

 

It's a fallacy you've created, again AFAIK. Of course if you have any evidence I'll reconsider.

 

---------- Post added 11-08-2018 at 07:55 ----------

 

The answer is on route with this question. What existed before time and space existed?

 

 

I know you know this one.

 

Nobody reasoning logically would try to ask what was before TIME existed. The very question is meaningless and illogical.

 

---------- Post added 11-08-2018 at 07:58 ----------

 

Will you give over. You make atheism sound neutral when it isn't neutral, it's a parasitic mite that religion cant shake off. Without religion it doesn't have a host so it clings on for dear life.

 

Atheism is the default state, to be without theism.

It's also more common than theism... Massively more common, like 70% atheism to 30% theism... (Worldwide figure).

[Robin-H]

 

Nobody reasoning logically would try to ask what was before TIME existed. The very question is meaningless and illogical.

.

 

Exactly. As I’m sure you know (this is for other’s benefit) the word ‘before’ means that the sentence is related to a place in time. You can’t logically ask what was before time any more than you can logically ask what’s north of the North Pole. It’s nonsensical.

[dutch]

Albert Einstein said: "As far as the law of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality"

 

Looking at religion in a philosophical way, calculated it, pumping religion like a load of thoughts through your head then judging every bit of it according to your own preference is not religious at all.

Religion comes from the heart and not from your philosophic calculating judgmental head. Now for those who want to be smart and tell me about religious wars, terrorist. I am not referring to stupid believe systems calling themselves religious. When you feel and see love, religion can be seen, no need to join their clubs or make some judgmental argument out of it. Our mind is restricted and mind cannot feel love, it can only think judge interfere. When you feel love it is a far greater experience than calculating the value of pi. people telling me their minds are more valuable than their heart don't know what they are missing. They are both valuable but neither is to control the other. In humanity there is a large conflict with head and heart and this causes a lot of confusion and misunderstanding.

I like to go on about this but have to go, and will try to explain it better later.

[Cyclone]

You don't need to redefine what religion is;

 

religion

rɪˈlɪdʒ(ə)n/Submit

noun

the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

synonyms: faith, belief, divinity, worship, creed, teaching, doctrine, theology; More

a particular system of faith and worship.

 

I've no idea what you're talking about, but it's not religion.

[danot]

Firstly, you still haven't provided proof that I have made a u-turn about anything. If you are going to make accusations, provide some evidence. It shouldn't be hard, all the posts are here.

Pages back you were scoffing at me not being able to define the something far greater than my self that I believe in. Now, you say we're not sure whether there is an actual cause for the universes existence. A cause that can't be defined I might add. Why didn't you just dismiss the idea of a cause that you can't define?

 

Secondly, those quotes of your own earlier comments aren't descriptions of logical reasoning we use where a cause for the existence of the universe is no longer necessary. You've just quoted yourself saying that there is one. I want to know what it is, not that you think there is.

Everything has a cause Robin, It's how nature functions. Pages back you were saying you had a reasonable expectation of still being alive tomorrow based solely on the past 18000 mornings where you haven't died. So, why don't you have a reasonable expectation of there being a cause for the universes existence based on there being a cause for the existence f everything else?

 

Thirdly, to address your most ridiculous claim. Clearly you don't know what atheism is. Atheism would exist without religion, anyone with any understanding of the word would realise that.

Forget the literal definition of the word. The new age atheists who worship Richard Dawkin are not neutral, neither are many atheistic posters on thus forum. They have an agender.

[Penistone999]

Why has religion retained its appeal through the ages and continued to flourish in an age of scientific discovery and cynicism?

 

Is it an inherent flaw that lies within some of us. a delusional handicap that persuades a believer to disregard anything to the contrary and recognise this as true faith? Is it family pressures. intimidation, brainwashing. a desire for a sense of belonging. or perhaps the scientific theory hasn't provided enough tangible evidence to undermine creationism? Maybe its none of the above?

 

Any views on this?

 

Religion never had any appeal to me. If people want to be brainwashed by religion thats up to then ,but id rather live in the real world , not have some imaginary friend who says i must do this ,and cant do that .

[Robin-H]

Pages back you were scoffing at me not being able to define the something far greater than my self that I believe in. Now, you say we're not sure whether there is an actual cause for the universes existence. A cause that can't be defined I might add. Why didn't you just dismiss the idea of a cause that you can't define?

 

Everything has a cause Robin, It's how nature functions. Pages back you were saying you had a reasonable expectation of still being alive tomorrow based solely on the past 18000 mornings where you haven't died. So, why don't you have a reasonable expectation of there being a cause for the universes existence based on there being a cause for the existence f everything else?

 

Forget the literal definition of the word. The new age atheists who worship Richard Dawkin are not neutral, neither are many atheistic posters on thus forum. They have an agender.

 

Sigh. You can’t just make things up and think im not going to challenge then.

 

Where have a said that we’re not sure whether there is an actual cause for the universe? If said we are unsure what the cause is, not that there is a cause. The evidence for the universe existing, and therefore having a cause, is literally all around is. There is not a single piece of evidence for some mystical higher power.

[danot]

So you also don't understand the common phrase "making a point", noted.

 

In bold, this makes no sense, also it's untrue AFAIK.

 

It's a fallacy you've created, again AFAIK. Of course if you have any evidence I'll reconsider.

 

---------- Post added 11-08-2018 at 07:55 ----------

 

 

Nobody reasoning logically would try to ask what was before TIME existed. The very question is meaningless and illogical.

 

---------- Post added 11-08-2018 at 07:58 ----------

 

 

Atheism is the default state, to be without theism.

It's also more common than theism... Massively more common, like 70% atheism to 30% theism... (Worldwide figure).

 

Logically speaking, a cause isn't necessary. That's an accurate statement that can't be argued with. So, what's your argument? And the reason no logical thinker wants to ask- "what was before time" is their belief of nothing existing before time and space existed, which rules out a cause immediately. So what's your argument against my statement above?

 

Atheism is no longer the default position, it is no longer neutral. It's been hijacked by the likes of Dawkin.