Religion made by man

[Death_By_Pod]

Ok, looks like it's time I stept in again. but first...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyway, everyone here, including the religious people, must admit that religion is made by man... maybe not your own; that one's true. All other religions in the world, however, must be false, and so made up by man. One could argue that they're made up by "the devil"/"naughty little sprites"/"various other, outlandish gods"/"women" etc, but... .. yeah, shut up, I don't have all the answers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's quite funny, I like it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quote:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Life spontaneously arose from nonliving minerals.

 

 

 

Wrong. Thats abiogenesis.

 

 

 

Ok, we're going back to the big bang here. There was just atoms. No organic matter possible for the building of life - i.e. no protein. At the moment, there are many different kinds of proteins, the most simple one that we know about has over 600 amino acids in it (they're not all different, it's just a special pattern). I had to study this for my philosophy, so I should remember it. A bloke called Harold Morowitz was commissioned by NASA to work out the minimum amount of amino acids required for a protein to form (and hence, form life). I suppose they wanted to know so they know what they're looking for on Mars.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Before I go further, the generally accepted scientific/mathematic odds for nigh-on impossible are 1/10^15. That's pretty low. A 1/10^50 chance is so low that it wouldn't happen in 15 billion years (similar to the way we work out the odds of a dragon drop, 1/256 from steels, or whatever). Morowitz worked out that the odds of this protein forming from randomly moving, joining, separting (etc) atoms is 1/10^236. I'd say it's fairly unlikely that life formed out of the random atoms involved in the big bang. The big bang can account for the universe, and evolution can account for life since it started, but there is a huge hole in between these.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And don't start going on about the 'God of gaps'. I don't believe the big bang happened, and I don't believe that evolution got us anywhere either (though it does work today, even though it's minute).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyway, a couple of you seemed anxious about how I disproved the big bang. I thought of this one by myself after watching a program with Stephen Hawking on. I've put it to the head of physics and all the physics students in my sixth form, as well as the entire philosophy class. I also tried this out on another forum, on Ferion.com (space-type game) None has yet come up with a a sucessful answer.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My reply depends on the constant of time. Most believe that time is a constant. However, the Big Bang teaches (at least, I was taught it all those years ago) that it was the start of time. That's probably untrue, but I blame it on having a crappy physics teacher in Year 9. Anyway. You know how in movies or books, time supposedly stops, but some can still move (like in X-Men2)? Well, time hasn't stopped. As shown by the fact that some can still move (yet those who were frozen do not remember anything of that tiime, as far as they're concerned, there was no gap in time), our perception of time is based on movement. If everything in the universe (including the microscopic waves and whatnot) were to suddenly stop moving, we would have no idea. They could stop for as long as they want, and we wouldn't realise. When it all restarted, we would carry on as usually, with absolutely no idea. Typing this could have taken 150 years if time kept pausing, but as far as I know it's taken me 10 minutes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So how does this relate to the big bang? If time is a constant, then why did the dense cluster of atoms that started it all choose to expand/explode then? The TV show I mentioned earlier seeked to 'teach' how the dense cluster of matter suddenly started expanding. Apparently, there was another form of matter that, instead of attracting matter through gravity, it repelled other matter, thus forcing the ball of matter apart. Luckily for Stephen Hawking, this matter then decayed incredibly quickly, leaving on background radiation. As far as I'm concerned that part holds even less water than the rest of the argument. But, if it was that matter, then why did it start expanding then? Why didn't it start expanding 100 years previously? Why did it even expand at all?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now, I am NOT placing a 'God of the gaps' here, as you accused me of earlier. I neither know nor care how God created the world, the point is that we are here, and have a job to do on this Earth before we leave it (no, I'm not talking about 'God has a plan', I mean the Great Commission - a job given to every human on this Earth). What concerns me is why this theory (which can be disproved) is taught as solid fact, while all religious theories are 'theory'.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And I'm serious about that. When we did evolution, we were told during the teaching that it was a theory. GCSE exams, no mention of the word 'theory'. It was treated as fact. With the Big Bang, we were told 'This is how the world was made, anything else is bollocks'. Again, no mention of the 'theory' of the big bang. In RE, when we did Hindus they specified several times on the exam paper about it being a 'theory' (e.g. how does the Hindu theory of creation compare with...). Thats what annoys me most about this.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now, going all the way back to the first page, and the actual question. Was religion made by man? To anwer this I shall use the film Dogma, a brilliant;y underestimated film in my opinion. In it, the 13th Disciple (Chris Rock) says something like - "That's the problem with religion. They took a good idea, and built a belief structure around it." Meaning: the basics about Jesus being Christ, Muhammed being the prophet etc are all fine. The problem is when religion is created around it. Though in this instance he was referring to religion as in the Dogma of the Catholic Church (the order of service, how they elect the Pope etc), instead of religion in general. So maybe Dogma wasn't as good an answer as I though it was. Oh well...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Harold Morowitz's book where that quote was taken was about the forces of thermodynamics force the surface of the world to evolve chemical complexity. When was this book written; 1968, I would actually question the books relevance rather concerning the calculation of the probability rather then taking it for fact. The whole quotation on the probability goes against the author's feelings of something from nothing; he just feels that it was not random chance but chemical complexity produced by the star.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If the big bang and evolution did not happen then a god would have to create something similar in order for us to be here; if that were that case there would be almost no difference between them, the major difference would be the ability to describe them without having to resort calling them miracles.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Giving the big bang, evolution and re-incarnation the same definition of theory is a joke. The big bang and evolution are 'A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena' (i.e. Scientific theory) and reincarnation is 'A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment' which does not necessarily have to be a fact; two very different things.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Time is relative to one another (i.e. the theory of relativity states that; things are measured relative to each other and not relative to some universal clock; that's the reason why when you travel around the galaxy near the speed of light you will not age as much as your relative, who in fact would most likely be long dead); time started at the big bang in the sense that there was 'something there' to measure relative to one another, if nothing exists then how could you determine it from one point in time to the next; it's just impossible. I'm not saying the big bang is the start of time; it is just the start of 'our' universe.

 

 

 

Things generally move slower because they have less energy (quite literally the measure of kinetic energy); when energy has spread out too thinly (due to the laws of thermodynamics) we can not live in the same way as we do now; we will have to deal with a much slower rate of information movement where typing a post in a forum would take a million years in our view but to these futuristic being it would be nothing out of the ordinary. (It is theorised at this point quantum weirdness will become common place and that all sorts of things could happen, including formation of new universes etc. due to the fact we will be doing things over a greater time length)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think the show was trying to describe a Higgs field; I won't try to explain it in depth because I'm no expert but to put it shortly it is a field which has negative pressure and this negative pressure causes gravity to repel (the magnitude was huge and thatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s what caused inflation, but has rapidly decayed to a smaller value) rather then attract and it still does repel which is what is meant to be causing the universe to expand. The term exotic matter is just a name, no different to the way negative numbers are exotic (ever seen -2 apples or -100 people in a crowd?) or the way radiation and the way atoms are glued together is different to light and magnetism. The Higgs Boson (The messenger of the field, the same way light [photon] is the messenger for electrical and magnetic fields) has not yet been detected yet as it is quite heavy but the next particle accelerator should be capable of detecting is coming online around 2007, if we find it; it will be a great moment in science as this sneaky particle has been undetectable for almost 40 yearÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s and we may finally have the technology to uncover it.

[Shas_O_Jay]

whoah :shock: very well stated.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I dont exactly trust Morowitz in his claim about amino acids turning into proteins, but it has been proven that they can form protocells (not sure if they are made of proteins).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

assuming the big bang happened, the universe formed and earth did also. with only water and elements present on earth billions of years ago, amino acids can be formed, and they are the building blocks to life. from the amino acids protocells are proven to be able to be formed. while the protocells are not necessarily "alive" per se, they could easily evolve into the archaebacteria that live today in extreme conditions. the evolution 'theory' is almost universally accepted by everyone. it is very logical, and there is prevalent proof. it really is not a very large stretch and it is all very logical.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

on another non scientific note, many civilizations before us were religious such as the greeks, romans, and egyptians. roman society lasted some 600-800 years, far longer than modern society. our society has not existed for very long compared to others, and they believed in many religions that are extinct today. these religions explained the unexplainable, which we can now explain. just because we are not able to prove that the universe did not originate from a "god" does not mean we have to assume it was. i think it is fairly certain that societies in the future will have forgotten our religion, just as we have forgotten others in the past.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

oh and double_edged's arguments are garbage :? the earth has been proven to be billions of years old, they have tested rock so this is a fact... also 'if they take out time'?? what are you talking about thats like saying if you take out light from the world then we couldnt see... pointless because its impossible, time is constant. was the whole thing a joke im not catching on to..

[frogact]

Religion is man made. All God ever wanted was for His creation to love him back.

[Mayjest]

Religion is man made. All God ever wanted was for His creation to love him back.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

wow. In all the arguing over how the universe came into being, we kind of lost sight of the question. That just brought it back into focus. So I'm just going to say a couple of things and then move back the question.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My Big Band criticism: time being relative is kind of in my critic (it's based on movement). I'm sure if I thought about it hard enough I could add in a couple of sentances. If everything stops, time doesn't stop, but our knowedge of it does. Just the same, if time speeds up, our perception speeds up with it. So, if only one person speeds up, then they wouldn't realise that they are going any faster, so my argument should still work.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There's probably a flaw in that logic somewhere, but you know what? I couldn't care less. I've just done two hours of research into Napoleon's Rise to Power, and my head hurts enough as it is, thank you very much.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Harold Morowitz thing: It was on a revision sheet I was given for my AS exams, I did a little bit more research, most of the information was on creationist websites, so I ignored it (I know, that was odd, coming from a Christian). I was presented with the choice of buying his books myself (and as it wasn't necessary for my exam - I was just curious - I couldn't be bothered) or reading a transcript of a court case he was involved in (the state vs some teachers who wanted to teach creationism or evolutionism, I can't remember which though). Where this transcript is I have no idea, and I read it over a year ago. In it, he said that the odds that are often quoted he still stands by, though he still believes that, despite those odds, human life evolved. I don't think I've used the correct terms, but essentially - despite the fact that his work was being used to disprove evolution and stuff, he still didn't believe in a God.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In philosophy, there is an idea called the falsification principle. Essentially, an argument has meaning (i.e. it is worth arguing over) when both sides are willing to accept that there is the possibility of evidence against thier argument. Neither side (both the religious and the scientific sides) are willing to accept any flaw in their argument. The scientists simply refuse to believe in a God, or indeed, anything outside what their textbooks tell them. The religious side, now matter how many times their logic is shown as flawed, or their laughed at, they will keep standing up and coming back for more. Both sides are refusing to accept that the evidence presented against them is in any way true. Using the falsification principle, this argument is worthless, and I propose we all shut up.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's when happens when you do A-Level Philosophy and Ethics - you realise that everything you talk about it worth bollocks, so why bother talking?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyway, back to religion is made by man. I'm a Christian, yet I hate religion. Sounds odd, doesn't it? I think I refered to Dogma earlier in this topic (you take a good idea, and then build a belief structure around it). There are people on this earth who consider themselves religious because they turn up to Church and say the lines in bold while the Vicar says the ones not in bold. Other's believe they are saved because it's their birthright. Still others believe that being a generally nice person will help. Being a member of a religion will no help in anyway whatsoever. If you're a Christian, the Bible makes it clear that only those with faith in Jesus Christ will be saved. A Jew, even though you're born into the 'chosen people', even if you make the sacrafices etc, you still have to turn away from sin and obey God's call. A Muslin still has to make a personal commitment to Allah, and has to demonstrate it daily by praying 5 times a day. Just calling yourself Muslim will not get you anyway. Even then, you actually have to believe in what you are doing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As such, religion was made by man. Inspired by God (or the Devil, if you swing that way), but the liturgy, and the annoying laws (e.g., in my Youth Group, I can't give one of my Youth Leaders a lift anywhere in my car. I'm over 18, so it's legal Child Protection Act wise, but the rules of the Church don't allow it) and the conflicts, little nitty-gritty bits that no-one understands, clashes in theology - down to human error.

[atlantis]

two words for you....FAITH, and BELIEF

[Shas_O_Jay]

two words for you....FAITH, and BELIEF

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i have total faith in my belief that a monster lives under my bed :D im a believer

[doorbell]

Let's look at the real question for this thread: Where/who did religions come from?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Every religion seeks to answer the basic questions that man yearns to know--

 

 

 

Where did we come from?

 

 

 

Where are we going?

 

 

 

How shall we get there?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I would have to say that man is the source of religion. Religion is a collection of beliefs, observations, and inferences that man has made about the world that they live in. Religion is a system of beliefs and principles that a group of people agree upon.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That pretty much sums up where religion came from. Of course if we want to determine which religion is true, that would be a different story...

[BlueLancer]

That pretty much sums up where religion came from. Of course if we want to determine which religion is true, that would be a different story...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is what pisses me off. There is no such thing as a "right" religion which makes you superior all of a sudden when you belong to it. It's about understanding the core philosophy of it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In this way, I prefer "The Way" which was invented by japanese samurai soldiers over 1500 years ago. It's not a religion. It's a set of moral codes and qualities; Love, compassion, understanding, forgiving, being generous, mentally strong, righteous.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's pretty much everything any religion on Earth teaches including christianity, except it's not a religion. Enlightened warriors wrote them down because they knew the world would be better off if everybody submitted to those basic moral codes. This doesn't mean everybody has to be a clone/robot: It simply means you hold those qualities.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Let's think about "enlightment": In christianity, this means you try to become as close to Jesus as possible. It means you hold all the qualities he did during his life, which means you are living a morally perfect life. There are very few people who could live such a life, to name a few, Jesus and Gandhi. I don't claim to be able to do it but I try to develop myself all the time. I advise everybody to do so as well. It's not a question of religion, agnosticism or atheism. It's all about how you act and think.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not saying you should be like Gandhi or Jesus and necessarily make your own clothes, live on food donations, etc. to be a good person. What I mean is that the more of the above qualities listed above you hold, the stronger you are morally.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Moral is just 1 area of life, and religion was originally meant to teach it to people (but sadly the words in the Bible, Qur'an etc. are so twisted nowadays that much of the good stuff is gone). But moral alone is not enough to be "enlightened". You need moral, intelligence and emotions. Those 3 things in my opinion make a real enlightened person and Jesus was one of the people able to hold all 3 of them. God=Absolute moral. Holy Spirit: Absolute intelligence. Jesus=Absolute emotion (love). That's how I'd view christianity if I was to study it.

[iamthefox]

two words for you....FAITH, and BELIEF

wow, thanks for that comment, you just settled this entire debate with that one phrase... idiot. the entire debate is really a question of faith and belief(s), but thanks for adding that in there, it definitely made this whole arguement simple.

[bs_johannes]

 

two words for you....FAITH, and BELIEF

wow, thanks for that comment, you just settled this entire debate with that one phrase... idiot. the entire debate is really a question of faith and belief(s), but thanks for adding that in there, it definitely made this whole arguement simple.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The thing is, that as soon as someone tries to prove his faith with physical evidence he/she is on very dangerous ground. Thats how this discussion have evolved.. The only time someone tries to prove his/her faith and beliefs is when

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A: Someone is attacking it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

B: They want to push someone else into believing what they believe.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Check back in the thread to see which it is :wink:

 

 

 

As soon as someone tries to prove it scientifically they have to accept the scientific method. Saying that the earth is >6000 years old for example is disproven by the scientific method. Thats why people should keep their beliefs to themselfes. Pushing faith on others tend to have a bad result..

[BlueLancer]

Well, church and religion are actually 2 different things. Just because the church told people to kill "witches" in history it doesn't mean God wanted them to do so. They were free to choose.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The church uses too many scare tactics, like "man is a born sinner". No he's not. "Good", "evil", and "sin" are products of the society and it decides what is good and what is not.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When you're a child and steal another child's toy, the child doesn't know he's doing wrong. You need to teach the child which means you are installing your moral values on him or her. If you told the child "it's ok to steal toys", it would be totally natural to him/her.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If stealing was widely accepted in the society, it wouldn't be considered "evil" or a "sin". It's simply what the majority of the society has decided (but then again, not even a thief would enjoy being robbed himself so it's pretty much common sense).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Back when there were no "real" religions, since the first cavemen, everybody was free to excercise their own views on moral and ethics, so the world back then was full of stealing, poverty, rape etc. and later on people formed governments and kingdoms and decided which is accepted and which isn't.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This has nothing to do with man "born as sinful". When you're born you don't have moral values. Everything every person on this planet has learned about values is the product of the society. It has nothing to do with the church.

[bs_johannes]

If the church is the teacher the church is to blame. Read any article about homoosexuals in any african newspaper. They constantly refer to it as "the problem", then they refer to the bible. I doubt these people where born following the bible blindly. Who is to blame?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If christianity and the christian churches ain't the same thing..

 

 

 

Is Nazism and NSDAP also different things?