My complete argument against religion
- Thread starter Issoloc
- Start date
While multiple cognates from older languages have been integrated into the common English usage of the word "know", that's not what makes his quest for a better word problematic. Compare his search for a word that means "I know my hand is in front of my face" with your cite at dictionary.com:
This is the plain meaning of what he said. It's the resistance to common usage that makes it problematic.
Hi, arauca.
I do not understand your language exactly, but I think you are asking whether my statement refers to "belief" or "religion". Correct me if I'm wrong.
I am saying that religion is rooted in superstition, and any person who believes ("loves" as universaldistress points out) - any person who loves an idea probably doesn't want to talk about the fact of religious superstition, since it undermines that love.
You jumped from superstition to atheism to arrogance to primordial soup to chemistry.
"Atheists know it all." Not sure what you mean. My comments were specifically directed at the history of religion, which is a history of superstition. I thought that was common knowledge, not the ideas of a know-it-all.
"[atheists] believe the fantasy of primordial soup." As I'm sure you are aware, atheism is a disbelief not a belief, in a Supreme Commander of the Universe. It may or may not be accompanied by any ideas about abiogenesis or evolution, which are also not beliefs. They are theories (plausible explanations) of science. I can say I understand that evolution explains the origin of species and I understand that abiogenesis explains the origins of life. The theist must say he believes (loves the idea of) God.
"many of them did not have more than 3 semesters of chemistry." Some do, many don't. Obviously chemistry doesn't play much of a role in their determination that there is no Supreme Commander of the Universe, and that life probably arose from non-living matter. I'm sure any of them who want to know more about abiogenesis will not be going to religious web sites for their answers.
I notice that your training in chemistry did not prevent you from falling into the pattern I described in my post:
See what I mean? You weren't digging into the question of where religious ideas came from - the history and culture that produced it.
You just proved me right.
There's your arrogant know-it-all-ness .. along with quip that its "common knowledge" (since even a cursory examination of relevant wiki pages indicates it is not at all "common knowledge")
:shrug:
@LG
"Common knowledge" was not a reference to any wiki pages. It was a reference to the material commonly taught in schools, usually the first chapter of a course in world history.
"Common knowledge" was not a reference to any wiki pages. It was a reference to the material commonly taught in schools, usually the first chapter of a course in world history.
More BS
Secondary schooling is hardly "avante garde" enough to lodge the teaching of religion as equivalent to superstition.
My reply addresses "common knowledge".
Hardly
You suggest you are not being arrogant by labeling religion as equivalent with superstition. The only common knowledge is that its simply not the case.
:shrug:
Beside the ad homs, so far you have fulfilled my prediction:
Your resistance in examining the nature of your own bold assertions is just as plainly obvious
:shrug:
The facts I already gave are not mine, just snippets from history. Examine away, if you have something to say about the origins of religion. You've made several replies to me, but thus far I see nothing that indicates your opposition to the factual basis I offered. Your entire thrust has just been characterizations of me.
:shrug: With the requisite shrugs. :shrug: So what's your point? :shrug:
I don't see any facts.
Mainly because there is no consensus about the origins of religion (even if for the sake of argument we are simply looking at atheist perspectives on the question).
That's why I said you are simply speaking from a sense of conceit by saying that it is common knowledge - IOW you try to preempt any debate on the subject by pretending there is no debate on the subject.
hence the : :shrug:
Oh, the bewildering power of the flowery words of the dictionary! How captivating, how attractive!
You cited the dictionary. Oh - you are fawning over yourself, but cynically. OK. :shrug:
You avoided the term "certainty" in the preferred meaning of "knowledge" from your own cite. Tssk tssk. :spank:
Choose another word if "fact" bothers you. In brief:
1. The OP invited a discussion on religious syncretic roots.
2. universaldistress related language to the question.
3. I took etymology from (2) as a cue to attach examples from history.
You attacked me for my use of "common knowledge" which I then said would be consistent with an introductory chapter in World History. You were dissatisfied that this was not "avante garde" and cited Wikipedia.
I am referring to common knowledge as may be disseminated in a world history course. Among those teachings, and by that standard, we can arrive at the same point I made earlier: it is common knowledge that religions arose out of superstition.
I was speaking from a sense of history. If that to you is conceited, then we can analyze your rationale, which is moot to the question of what history teaches.
You allude to a debate on the subject: "It is common knowledge that religion arose out of superstition", where "common knowledge" comes from a class in world history, the chapter that covers origins of religion (often chapter 1). You appear to be saying there is no consensus about the curriculum plan for a typical world history course. I'm not arguing that. I'm saying religions originated out of superstition.
Let me see if we can come to some understanding . since we ask if every religion is based or comes due to superstition .
Was Abraham a Jew ?
Was Abraham Isak or Jacob were religious men ?
Why did they embrace to a Deity ?
Were they believer in God
Can a believer be a religious, can a believer be nin religious
Could you help me to answer those questions
If you want to use this to back up the factual conclusion that religion is non-different from superstition it might be time to rethink your conclusion
Perhaps in a book written by you.
Not even atheists can consistently agree that religion is superstition
I cited wiki as a general indication that there are a variety of approaches to the question of religion, and even a variety of atheistic approaches, that stand stand outside of your estimations of "general knowledge"
And as I said, not even atheists agree with that (what to speak of theists)
Its conceited since you are simply talking about your particular atheist flavor of a sense of history.
That generally is the nature of being conceited - namely by focusing on one's particular flavour and using it to the exclusion of all others to nullify any alternative discussion, perspective or debate
The topic is so diverse that a class in world history wouldn't think to exclusively suggest "religion arose out of superstition" .. unless its a curriculum devised by some dogmatic atheist who finds it convenient to overlook the contributions of his (both atheist and theist) peers in the fields of psychology, sociology and history.
:shrug:
Last edited:
I merely acknowledged how the words and their definitions in the dictionary can have an enormous impact on some people; so much so that they forget how a dictionary comes to be, and instead presume themselves to be certain.
A better question to ask is: how do we know that the stories of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are legends, not to be taken literally?
In the Creation Myth of the Bible, Abraham is met by Yahweh, who calls him by name, then renames him, then identifies him as the father of the throng of nations. This statement uses Hebrew alliteration, playing on "ab", a root for "father". It's the literary device of a storyteller, a spinner of fables. The miraculous nature of Yahweh's interaction with Abraham is another device of a spinner of legend. Other miracles, such as Abraham's survival unharmed from immolation in the Book of Jubilees or the Quranic legend that Allah sent a bolt of lightening from heaven, causing Abraham's house to appear out of thin air, are similar devices used by spinners of subsequent legends that padded the initial version with their own miraculous innovations.
Abram of the Bible supposedly led people of Ur into Canaan. This element of the story is a continuation of the Creation Myth, one that establishes the origins of the Israel ethnically and geographically. Even if it were to construed symbolically as an ancient collective memory of a migration out of Mesopotamia, there is no physical evidence to support it. The people of Canaan could just as well have originated in Syria, Arabia or Egypt.
Since the entire Creation Myth is designed around the emergence of the monotheistic Yahweh from the pantheistic Elohim, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob all have been portrayed as Patriarchs who were subjugated by Yahweh, yet they were great men in the nation of Canaanites. The story is woven to build the supremacy of Yahweh over humans, the necessity for obedience to him, and to establish the central theme - the Covenant, leading to the delivery of the Ten Commandments and Yahweh's promise of protection of his "chosen people".
Unfortunately, by the time of the Books of Maccabees, Yahweh had not delivered on his end of the bargain, having left his people to enslavement by the Persians, and having turned his back on them during the destruction of the Temple. The ultimate humiliation comes in 70 AD with the second destruction of the Temple by Nero's army. It is at this time that the Jesus Myth appears and takes root, and draws a new regional populace - the Hellenized people of the Levant - into a new version of Covenant, this time delivered in the person of the legendary Jesus.
Was Abraham a Jew? There were no Jews at the time of the legend of Abraham. Their original nationality is unknown, but they would become known as Canaanites, also known as Phoenicians.
Were Abraham, Isaac or Jacob religious men? They are religious patriarchs of Judaism. They are characters in a fable, one that takes place while Yahweh interacts with humans in miraculous ways.
Why did they embrace a Deity? This goes more to the question of why people are ever religious, what is the cause of religious ideology. The legends of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are part of the elaborate cautionary tale of the Covenant. The legend appears as Canaanites were moving away from their ancestral deities, such as the Elohim - the gods who created the heavens and the earth - and Ashereh, the mother-creator and/or wife of Yahweh - into embracing Yahweh.
But the central reasons that people were seeking deities was superstition. Statues of Ashereh found in the homes of ancient Canaanites reveal that they were seeking fertility and protection from the mother-god, a form of superstition.
Were they believers in God? At some point they believed in Yahweh, but the date of that transition is uncertain. The worship of Ashereh continued for some substantial period after the switch from the Elohim to Yahweh.
Can a believer be religious, can a believer be non-religious? Anyone who holds a belief in supernatural forces, typically a Supreme Commander of the Universe, would either be exhibiting superstition or religion. I'm not sure that it matters too much how we draw the line. Religious believers may reserve the word "superstition" to characterize the anomalous behavior of their fellow believers - such as those who keep seeing the Virgin Mary appearing in paint chips and on steamy windows. However, we can use the words interchangeably by referring to superstition as any irrational belief. Religion is irrational, insofar as it requires us to accept irrational ideas - such as a Supreme Commander of the Universe.
Last edited: