Truth of religion from an analytical approach.

Amen, sister, very well said.

The point was kind of a way of stepping back and asking nature her opinion instead of figuring everything else ourselves. I might be able to provide a rational explanation to support and promote a specific design of bridge. Yet, even if my math and engineering deductions say the bridge should be solid, if the bridge falls then there is something unaccounted for that I must figure out. I'm not saying religion hasn't done harm. Yet, if religion does more harm than good, those populations with religion would be at a selective disadvantage over the long term and would be slowly crowded out by populations which had cast off the burdens of ancient religion, as it were. But this is not what happens. You must keep in mind the human mind's tendency to mix up memories based on dramatic content. Airplane crashes are commonly estimated as more likely than they actually occur because airplane crashes are so dramatic the memory of hearing or reading about one lodges in the memory. A more sensational memory is more likely to be recalled. This is especially true when surveys are conducted regarding the perceived safety of air transportation after a publicized crash. (Essentially, people rate airplanes as less safe immediately after a crash but then the numbers return to normal gradually.) Religion has done some truly horrible things. But it might be the case that the dramatic horrible things are less weighty than the thousand, humble, unnoticed things religion has accomplished. If this is so, then it explains why religion persists despite the demands it places on the person who adheres to the tenets of faith. If religion had done more harm than good, then certainly we'd need an explanation for it's prevalence in society and, indeed, in societies all around the world in one shape or form. Even with modern science, rational thinking, and solidly established rule of law, religion still persists. If religion were merely an institution of control via superstitious means, it would seem to be less important in a world where superstitions are constantly being drawn out into the light of reason and disproved.

Looks like I came back to the convo a little too late.

I do believe the human mind searches for answers. I even hold that the human mind will invent and believe in a poorly thought out answer when no good one presents itself. In some ways, this is the basis of science because scientists make a hypothesis and then test that hypothesis. They guess and cull out the bad guesses. I think people are still prone to highly superstitious behavior. Confusing coincidence with causation. Coincidence can imply causation, but doesn't mandate causation. People accept something as possibly true and then twist observations to conform to expectation. Bad reasoning. Certainly, I can fully agree with the statement you make regarding religions being a method of control. (Quite possibly also a narcissistic impulse for some like the Pharaohs who were able to claim godhood.) A good moral compass (or at least a consistent one) would, I suppose, provide a framework for society so that everyone kind of knew what to expect from others in their society. Your last point seems solid, but two-edged. For starters, some religious approaches are hell-fire and damnation (not warm and fuzzy.) Others, like Westboro Baptist Church are well known for fully endorsing hatred instead of love (also not warm and fuzzy.) Still others are caste-specific and essentially tell those born down low on the class hierarchy that they deserve to be there because they did something bad in a previous life (seeming depressing to me.) And we have even had highly successful religious movements which seemed highly puritanical, prohibiting all manner of enjoyment almost as if feeling good were, itself, a sin. Then, we should also mention the flagellates and self-mutilating religious fanatics who can't possibly be feeling warm and fuzzy as they beat themselves silly for imagined impurities. The second edge I referred to in your second point, however, is admission. Many people who attend fundamental Christian churches go around seemly happy and believing themselves to be special, saved, or otherwise extraordinarily provided for by a merciful God. They certainly do seem warm and fuzzy. I mention this only because both feel-good and self-hate religions seem to prosper in their own times.

yeah, funny how when people come to the conclusion that there must be a deity of some sort, they always seem to assume it's the one Christians follow. if the wonder of nature makes you assume someone must have made it, how do you then work out which of the many many Gods and Goddesses that have been worshipped over the existance of our species it was?

"It also seems you see no value in seeking to further understand this spirit." Wrong. I see no value in pretending someone can understand. Seeking and trying is the trial called life. [i]"...that which we are, we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts, Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield. To follow knowledge like a sinking star, Beyonf the utmost bound of human thought"[/i] "For example, turning the other cheek, do unto others as you'd have done to you, and judge no lest ye be judged." I think that - in large or in particular - the less of doing those or, if you want, the huge "say something, do the opposite" is religion. Despite George Carlin was atheist and I am agnostic, I must say he was right and I strongly suggest you read / listen his shows related to subjects religion, politics, state, USA. Not only that ALL religions "promote" the phrase I quoted from your post, but also ALL religions do not apply to their own insiders. All is at subliminal level - obey, respect, do, act etc. all I (church, aka religion) say. Again: If Copernicus would have been killed before say loud what he discovered, today you would believe me saying sun is rounding around earth. And pay attention: I always said religion, not christianity. Because all religions are same. Go check, same story. Same behavior. Same will to control and dominate social life. Same will for political and economical power. Same hypocrites. Realy, go check. Try all (if you can) but at least 12, 13 & 14 from here: http://www.amazon.com/Mircea-Eliade-Theory-History-Religion/lm/XRHNZ1PSRHQ ... As about the last phrase, see this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxYtA3VNf0Q&NR=1 and this (from min 4:20) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaa9iw85tW8 And you would probably want to read also the Henry David Thoreau's Civil Disobedience .. Have a nice day

PS: Regarding religion's sole and unique purpose to control people, I don't see evidence of that. Really? - Talibans fighting for what? - What was the purpose of islamic revolutions in Iran and, more or less underground, in other countries? - Why are all religions's priests and members try hard to grab new members? - What was the purpose of crusades? - Why ottoman empire attacked all neighbors? And list can continue at all levels for all religions.

"Religion is an idea that does not hinder our ability to reproduce." From and evolutionary perspective, it has negative selective pressures on reproduction if no other forces can counter balance it. For one, it requires time. Now, you can still reproduce at some time other than Sunday morning service, but time is a resource of limited quantity. You can relax, mow the lawn, do a side job, take your wife on a date, read to your children, or any of a number of things with that time. Religion also requires money in the form of tithes. This is a resource which most of us possess in a limited quantity. That 10-% given to the church is not available for paying off your mortgage, saving for your kids college, paying medical bills, or any of a number of other things which might also assist with reproduction. Religion also places restrictions on behavior that may not seen self-serving. For example, prohibiting birth control or encouraging having more children than you reasonably know how to provide for. Our species is a reproduce and nurture pattern of procreation but some religious approaches seem more like salmon spawning with the vain hope that some will make it out alright. When your religion causes you to act at odds with how your species is designed, you are kind of pushing against the grain. (And if the species was designed by God, working contrary to God's apparent plan or wisdom, but that's a discussion for a different topic.) Remember, evolution isn't only concerned with popping out a baby. It is also concerned with how your baby is prepared for life. If your limited resources (time/money) are diminished so you are less able to provide for that child and launch them into the world as prepared and ready as possible, then your generation of ancestors down the line will possibly be diminished. And, evolution doesn't focus just on one person at a time.. but all people in the population. Here's a way to think about it. Imagine you are a predator. You have a cold while your rival does not. The bacteria sap some of your energy (which can represent time, money, or other resource by analogy.) Because of that slight drain, that small inefficiency, you have a small chance of not being as successful as another predator without a cold. You might beat the odds and have children anyway.. even more children than the predator with a stronger immune system.. but over time his descendants will still have an advantage. Given the lengths of time over which evolution operates, your weaker immune system will be a disadvantage to your prodigy and the healthier hunter will prevail genetically.

If you will forgive my saying so, you aren't really having a conversation related to the topic of the discussion. I appreciate any voice or perspective which tries to communicate and add to this discussion, but you seem out of touch. Essentially, you've re-iterated prepackaged pat Christianized answers without considering the discussion. But, to address the topic you did fill to cover: The Christian perspective is not unselfish. Christian theology teaches that there is a reward in heaven for things you do on earth. Ergo, for those who believe, their every unselfish seeming act achieves a self-serving purpose... to achieve a reward in heaven. It is a weakness in the Christian theology which absolutely unravels the basic concept of altruism by postulating altruism does not exist because all altruistic seeming acts will receive a reward (and therefor cease to be altruistic.) Your Christian faith also stipulates that you are to love even your enemies. And, if one is really doing this, then one must be trying to understand why they think and feel the way they do. In this particular thread, your discussion touches not on only people of a Christian perspective, but non-Christians also. Your response should take that into consideration, or else you lose the opportunity to reach those not yet touched by the light of your faith. Essentially, making an argument that assumes Christian theology to a non-Christian crowd would be offensive and push away people who might be seeking to find God (even if they do not know this about themselves.) After all, these people did respond to a religious discussion... so faith and religion are issues which occupy their mind. It is an occasion to reach people, if you keep that in mind. In light of people contributing to this thread, you seem to be unaware or unwilling to admit the darker history of religion. In particular, Christian religion has had dark moments... like burning people alive for believing differently about things that no one can really prove anyway. This is the matter which has been under discussion.. are the ultimate benefits of Religion greater than the violations and outright tyrannical sins perpetuated in it's name. And, in this, we don't ONLY mean Christian Religion... but all religion considered as a whole.

Still not comprehending you. You gave answers. I said, but you aren't replying to the conversation. In your response to my response, you don't pull yourself on topic, either. As before, although I feel somewhat insulted that you don't speak about my discussion topic, I will respond to what you do decide to say. You feel that your answers are from experience, but they seem and sound like stock responses. More to the point, they are responses that serve no constructive purpose as this discussion is between people who do not subscribe to your particular type or level of faith. "Before I was saved.." I know Christian ideology throws that out, but as you are still human and you are still capable of sin, no one is saved until the fat lady sings as it were. I detest to hear people speak of being saved because people who have hurt others and never made amends can say they were saved. Christianity, on that topic, is a lazy religion. Accepting Christ is taken as forgiveness of all wrongs without any need to address said wrongs and do right by those you have hurt. Forgive my lack of faith, but I don't think God is so simple minded as that. "I have learned an am learning that there is no reason to defend Christianity." Then, that's sad. In defending Christianity's virtues you might be able to reach others who want to see some of God's light but cannot because of the abuses Religion has foisted upon us in the past. Your loose the opportunity to affect the lives of those who want to believe but can't because you fail to evangelize to those who need rational conversation in order to come to God. Even worse, your answers turn people away. You have spoken in a conversation but have no addressed the conversation. To those who have a crises of faith and could believe, you paint belief as the last refuge of fractured minds who do not even attempt to analyze what they claim to believe. The idea that God uses foolish things to confound the so-called wise is a co-out employed by those of faith. Because faith has loopholes and problems that prevent the lost sheep from accepting the message, those who believe choose to use illogical logic instead of considering the issues raised by the lost sheep. The phrase you use is a gloss to .. essentially... but your fingers in your ears and go LALALALALLALA instead of answering honest criticism or .. at the very least... reasons voiced by the lost sheep for their inability to believe. In providing such a reason, you do not seek to go after and recover the lost sheep--- you leave the lost sheep lost. Great discussions on religion when it comes to God is the greatest and most honest form of prayer possible.

I may have seemed pre-packaged, but actually it is more like from experience when I gave these answers. Before I was saved, I found it easy to find reasons not to become a Christian and these type of discussions were a great help. However, I have learned and am learning that there is no need to explain or defend Christianity. The great feature of Christianity is that God uses foolish things to confound the so-called wise. There is no need for great discussions on religion when it concerns God.