Ipse dixit argument (aka bare assertion)
Correlation implies causation fallacy (cum hoc ergo propter hoc)
Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy
Confirmation bias
Mind projection fallacy
Equivocation fallacy
Fallacy of appeal to tradition
Argumentum ad populum fallacy
Historian's fallacy
Red herrings (JAQing off)
Ad hominem (appeal to motive)
Poisoning the well
Cherry picking
Hasty generalization
Texas sharpshooter fallacy
Genetic fallacy
Anchoring (cognitive bias)
Availability bias
Base rate neglect
Congruence bias
Stereotypical bias
Perseverance of belief effect
Expectation bias
Selection bias
Semmelweis effect
General ignorance

(June 1, 2013 at 7:32 pm)smax Wrote: I already stated my intent to create a progressive discussion.

But you didn't state that in the OP, which is why I was quick to ask you for evidence to back up your claims.

(June 1, 2013 at 4:02 pm)smax Wrote: Kind of seemed obvious to me, being that I was creating a thread on a discussion forum, but I'll keep your objection in mind in the future.

Many a thread get created here to simply state the poster's opinions about something without any intent to actually have a discussion about it. The bare nature of the OP made it appear to be one of them.

(June 1, 2013 at 7:32 pm)smax Wrote: I'm not sure when it happened, but I suspect I rubbed you, and maybe some other staff members, the wrong way somewhere along the line. I loosely base that on the fact that I've read numerous thread topics that were ridiculously pointless and baseless, and yet not accompanied by the same objections some of mind have met with.

Hmmm...my objections have nothing to do with me being on the staff. Unless I am enforcing the rules, I am just another member. I can't speak for the others on the staff, but nothing whatsoever would give me any indication that anyone harbors any animosity towards you.

Those "ridiculously pointless and baseless" thread topics don't get the level of serious objections towards them for the simple reason that they are, in fact, ridiculously pointless.

(June 1, 2013 at 7:32 pm)smax Wrote: Anyway, just a theory.

More of a hypothesis.

(Sorry, couldn't help myself.)

Gods were probably invented to explain what could not be explained otherwise. He has remained a placeholder explanation for everything until better explanations supersede him.

Religion, as a purposeful establishment with rules and rituals, probably was invented for the reasons you laid out, but the beliefs at the core of those religions were probably just ignorant people trying to understand things beyond everybody's observational and experimental capacities. These kinds of beliefs were probably pretty sincere and not created with ulterior motives in most instances. Believers today have little excuse for such infantile thinking, of course, but virtually all believers today gain their belief early through indoctrination or cultural osmosis and (in the monotheisms at least) cannot reject them without risking what they are told is eternal punishment.

(June 1, 2013 at 11:13 pm)Faith No More Wrote: But you didn't state that in the OP, which is why I was quick to ask you for evidence to back up your claims.

I'll be more clear in the future.

Quote:Many a thread get created here to simply state the poster's opinions about something without any intent to actually have a discussion about it. The bare nature of the OP made it appear to be one of them.

That will never be me. I'd blog something if I didn't want feedback.

Quote:Hmmm...my objections have nothing to do with me being on the staff. Unless I am enforcing the rules, I am just another member. I can't speak for the others on the staff, but nothing whatsoever would give me any indication that anyone harbors any animosity towards you.

Those "ridiculously pointless and baseless" thread topics don't get the level of serious objections towards them for the simple reason that they are, in fact, ridiculously pointless.

Fair enough.

---

(June 1, 2013 at 11:38 pm)Ryantology Wrote: Gods were probably invented to explain what could not be explained otherwise. He has remained a placeholder explanation for everything until better explanations supersede him.

I'd say about 80-85 percent of the world's population are overdue for a trade up, wouldn't you?

Quote:Religion, as a purposeful establishment with rules and rituals, probably was invented for the reasons you laid out, but the beliefs at the core of those religions were probably just ignorant people trying to understand things beyond everybody's observational and experimental capacities. These kinds of beliefs were probably pretty sincere and not created with ulterior motives in most instances. Believers today have little excuse for such infantile thinking, of course, but virtually all believers today gain their belief early through indoctrination or cultural osmosis and (in the monotheisms at least) cannot reject them without risking what they are told is eternal punishment.

These are basically my same views, only it's been my experience that potential social consequences are quite a compelling factor to stay affiliated with religion as well.

(June 2, 2013 at 12:08 am)smax Wrote:

(June 1, 2013 at 11:38 pm)Ryantology Wrote: Gods were probably invented to explain what could not be explained otherwise. He has remained a placeholder explanation for everything until better explanations supersede him.

I'd say about 80-85 percent of the world's population are overdue for a trade up, wouldn't you?

I don't know. I know that I value explanations based on empirical evidence, as it appears you do as well. But... not everyone does, and while I may not value their spirituality-based explanations, I do value their right to cling to them, regardless of how I might feel about it.

I certainly don't feel like I've got a monopoly on truth. Maybe the world would be a better place without religion, maybe it wouldn't. Some people aren't ready (or perhaps even capable) of letting go of it, and that's their prerogative.

(June 2, 2013 at 1:28 am)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(June 2, 2013 at 12:08 am)smax Wrote: I'd say about 80-85 percent of the world's population are overdue for a trade up, wouldn't you?

I don't know. I know that I value explanations based on empirical evidence, as it appears you do as well. But... not everyone does, and while I may not value their spirituality-based explanations, I do value their right to cling to them, regardless of how I might feel about it.

I certainly don't feel like I've got a monopoly on truth. Maybe the world would be a better place without religion, maybe it wouldn't. Some people aren't ready (or perhaps even capable) of letting go of it, and that's their prerogative.

The freedom to choose certainly is important, and I value that as much as you appear to. And, I'm okay with people having different beliefs and values so long as they don't harm others or prevent the same freedom.

However, it's been my experience and observation that religion simply cannot accept the same conditions.

Do you disagree?

(June 8, 2013 at 5:02 pm)smax Wrote: The freedom to choose certainly is important, and I value that as much as you appear to. And, I'm okay with people having different beliefs and values so long as they don't harm others or prevent the same freedom.

However, it's been my experience and observation that religion simply cannot accept the same conditions.

Do you disagree?

There's no problem if theists keep their beliefs privately. It's when they try to bring these beliefs into public policies that we can't remain silent.

(June 9, 2013 at 11:43 am)little_monkey Wrote:

(June 8, 2013 at 5:02 pm)smax Wrote: The freedom to choose certainly is important, and I value that as much as you appear to. And, I'm okay with people having different beliefs and values so long as they don't harm others or prevent the same freedom.

However, it's been my experience and observation that religion simply cannot accept the same conditions.

Do you disagree?

There's no problem if theists keep their beliefs privately. It's when they try to bring these beliefs into public policies that we can't remain silent.

This is exactly how I feel. To use a fictional example of a type of religion that is non-intrusive, I would point to the Jedi in the movie Star Wars. The Jedi believe in a supernatural power, but they don't force (or even care) if anyone else believes in that same power, and they don't expect the government to create and enforce policies around their religious beliefs.

Buddhists, in general, seem to take a similar approach. They don't appear to have some hidden agenda of ridding the world of all other religions and non-believers. They appear to be comfortable and secure within their own beliefs.

The bottom line is, if religion does represent some sort of personal relationship with a higher power, then religious people need to stop trying to force it on others.

Simple as that.

"At some point (who really knows when), man decided to invent god. Here are the top 5 reasons I can come up with that probably motivated him to do so.

#1. Regulation - Controlling the masses
#2. Reward - Immortality
#3. Reunion - Spending eternity with deceased friends, family, and loved ones
#4. Reason - Purpose
#5. Retribution - Enemies and the immoral must suffer

I listed them in the order that I think most compelled man to invent god and religion, but I could easily see them in a different order."

My instinct says that these all came later (no proof whatsoever) but it would seem to me, as others have largely said there was a desire to explain things around, a fear of the unknown and an urge for early men to place themselves in the cosmos. The last of those is probably similar to purpose but may have been only at the level of establishing their relationship with everything around them.

smax,

The Jewish faith is not a bad match for what you are looking for. It is not a proselytizing religion. Outside of Israel I don't think its big on special demands from government although I couldn't swear to that. There may be many exceptions.

Is it any different than any other institution. "religion" is different than the answer to if there is a "god" or not. Unless of course we think religion owns the rights to it. But that would be like stating china owns the rights of oppression and human injustice.