The necessity of religion

At some point in an adult's life, one realizes one no longer needs someone to 'look after them'. This is the whole point of the gradual learning process, is it not, so a person can be self-sufficient?

Regarding your view that we can always derive comfort from our family, friends, relatives, well, I am not sure if they are willing to share my burden of sins(not sorrows). I believe that only God has the power (and authority) to wipe them out. That is why God is my only true friend.

Mame wrote:

At some point in an adult's life, one realizes one no longer needs someone to 'look after them'. This is the whole point of the gradual learning process, is it not, so a person can be self-sufficient?

I respect your views Mame, but I still want to ask you this: what maks you think that a person can ever be self-sufficient? You get up in the morning to find the newspaper in front of your door. Your car's broken down, so you catch a cab. You dont feel like cooking your food, so you order a pizza.

I am only citing examples from everyday life, from events that occur in the lives of common people like you and me(pardon me for that assumption if I am wrong) I can go on and on. The point that I want to make is that no matter how hard you try you cannot live in self-sufficiently. You have got to utilise the services that others have to offer to you (unless you are marooned on a desert island!!!). Life is filled with 'symbiosis' at every level.

So who is an adult? I can't answer that question right now. I dont even know how being an adult is different from being an orphan.

What I am convinced of is that a higher level of this symbiosis(for want of a better word again) exists between me and God. The word symbiosis seems to be a misnomer for me now because I don't know if I have anything to offer back to God in exchange for the comfort that I derive from Him.

Regarding your view that we can always derive comfort from our family, friends, relatives, well, I am not sure if they are willing to share my burden of sins(not sorrows). I believe that only God has the power (and authority) to wipe them out. That is why God is my only true friend.

This is entirely self-referential. One cannot sin unless one commits an offense against the "laws" of "god." If there were no god, there would be no sin. There would still be crime in that one can offend against society's laws, and one might argue that one indulges in vice when one does that which is harmful to oneself. However, sin can only exist if a god is known to exist. One can be fairly certain of the existence of one's family and one's acquaintance (except, of course, that any one or several of them may have died since one last saw them), but i have as yet seen no one produce "god" for an introduction.

God is your imaginary friend, he or she is not someone to whom you can point with the assurance that others will see what you claim to see.

So, is it reasonable to imply that since we lack 'scientific' proof of God that His existence and working in human history is not possible?

I'm an atheist. There is nothing which suggests to me a god in the form that most religious texts describe. That said, ive come to feel that religion (in any form) is an absolute necessity and that atheism is abnormal.

Nearly every centenarian is religious. There was an article in National Geographic last year that mentioned how a common theme among the worlds oldest people was a strong faith. NatG isn't exactly a scholarly publication, but it's not TIME either. But you dont have to look very hard to find even stronger evidence:

http://ageing.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/27/2/207
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=10680272&query_hl=15&itool=pubmed_docsum

Certainly there are other factors to long-life than faith, but its very telling that faith is such a large part of all of these peoples lives. Religion has been a part of human society since our first steps as modern humans. Even before modern humans... there's evidence that neanderthals practiced ritual burials. Perhaps our reliance on religion has evolved to become a necessity? Perhaps those of us who don't have faith are actually harming ourselves?

This is a point worth repeating, pararover; and I thank you for bringing it up.

If I see something, and I am the only one who saw it, does that make it 'imaginary' ?

True, I have no 'scientific' evidence that I saw it , i.e. it is not repeatable, testable , etc

But all events of history are non-repeatable. We have circumstantial evidence for some of these events and we have the testimony of eyewitnesses to some of these events and if we are really fortunate we have both.

But still these events aren't 'scientifically' provable. That doesn't mean we cannot know they happened with a great amount of certainty, does it?

There are many events in history which are established well beyond a reasonable doubt, and without any 'scientific' proof.

So, is it reasonable to imply that since we lack 'scientific' proof of God that His existence and working in human history is not possible?

Quote:

This is a point worth repeating, pararover; and I thank you for bringing it up.

If I see something, and I am the only one who saw it, does that make it 'imaginary' ?

True, I have no 'scientific' evidence that I saw it , i.e. it is not repeatable, testable , etc

But all events of history are non-repeatable. We have circumstantial evidence for some of these events and we have the testimony of eyewitnesses to some of these events and if we are really fortunate we have both.

But still these events aren't 'scientifically' provable. That doesn't mean we cannot know they happened with a great amount of certainty, does it?

There are many events in history which are established well beyond a reasonable doubt, and without any 'scientific' proof.

So, is it reasonable to imply that since we lack 'scientific' proof of God that His existence and working in human history is not possible?

Not at all.
It is, however, reasonable to assume it so implausible as to be unlikely to the point of being negligible.

Eorl, do you agree that historical events are not 'scientifically proven', but are accepted as factual based on a different standard of evidence?

real life wrote:

Eorl, do you agree that historical events are not 'scientifically proven', but are accepted as factual based on a different standard of evidence?

No, not really...and what do you mean by a "different standard of evidence"?

Historical events vary between those I witnessed myself that I can be 99.9% of ...to Jesus walking on water which I can be 0.0000001% sure of.

Even modern events with plenty of evidence and witnesses isn't automatically accepted by everyone.....take the idea of a plane hitting the pentagon for instance.

On what basis, besides your bias, do you conclude your assumption to be reasonable?

Eorl wrote:

real life wrote:

Eorl, do you agree that historical events are not 'scientifically proven', but are accepted as factual based on a different standard of evidence?

No, not really...and what do you mean by a "different standard of evidence"?

'A different standard of evidence' means one that is not scientific. I thought that much was clear.

Eorl wrote:

Historical events vary between those I witnessed myself that I can be 99.9% of ...to Jesus walking on water which I can be 0.0000001% sure of.

Can you 'scientifically' prove an event that you alone witnessed?

Eorl wrote:

Even modern events with plenty of evidence and witnesses isn't automatically accepted by everyone.....take the idea of a plane hitting the pentagon for instance.

Please assure us that you're not claiming that it didn't happen.

Quote:

On what basis, besides your bias, do you conclude your assumption to be reasonable?

Well, besides my 'bias', (You say this as if your opinion is somehow more objective, psshhhaw) I have the fact that there is no measurable evidence to support the existence of a god in the first place, and further that there is nothing that 'divine interference' explains that can not be more easily explained by naturalistic means, in accord with occams razor.
There simply is no sound reason to assume your imaginary friend is real.

Doktor S wrote:

Quote:

On what basis, besides your bias, do you conclude your assumption to be reasonable?

Well, besides my 'bias', (You say this as if your opinion is somehow more objective, psshhhaw) I have the fact that there is no measurable evidence to support the existence of a god in the first place, and further that there is nothing that 'divine interference' explains that can not be more easily explained by naturalistic means, in accord with occams razor.
There simply is no sound reason to assume your imaginary friend is real.

So there is no 'natural' evidence of the 'supernatural'.

And this is supposed to strike us as a profound insight on your part?

Are you also going to inform us that our tongues cannot taste bright light; and our noses cannot smell a sound?

real life wrote:

Doktor S wrote:

Quote:

On what basis, besides your bias, do you conclude your assumption to be reasonable?

Well, besides my 'bias', (You say this as if your opinion is somehow more objective, psshhhaw) I have the fact that there is no measurable evidence to support the existence of a god in the first place, and further that there is nothing that 'divine interference' explains that can not be more easily explained by naturalistic means, in accord with occams razor.
There simply is no sound reason to assume your imaginary friend is real.

So there is no 'natural' evidence of the 'supernatural'.

And this is supposed to strike us as a profound insight on your part?

Are you also going to inform us that our tongues cannot taste bright light; and our noses cannot smell a sound?

Weak sauce real. You have not established 'supernatural' as a meaningful term.

su·per·nat·u·ral
Pronunciation: "sü-p&r-'na-ch&-r&l, -'nach-r&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Medieval Latin supernaturalis, from Latin super- + natura nature
1 : of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe

You attempt to create a bifurcation where none can be shown to exist.