My philosophy about Religion

[Abaddon_ire]

[quote='SuicideCommando01' pid='1964691' dateline='1585439108']
Religion was created as a tool for social control

Can you demonstrate that this is true? How are you defining "religion"? 
[/quote]Experience. That is what religion does. As for a definition? Wingnuttery will do for now.

Maybe religion began as emotional ceremonies to feel connected with nature (as in Shinto). Maybe it began because someone dreamed of his dead mother and thought she was speaking to him. Maybe it began in a lot of different ways. 

Sure. Mundane ways. No god required.

How is it that Christianity, is the most followed of all three Abrahamic religions? Judaism came first, so surely the first rendition must be the true one?

Why do you think that the first version must be the true one? 

Because it is temporally closest to the actual words of the suspiciously absent god.

In other fields, the first version is often supplanted by later, better versions. This is how science works, for example. I'm not saying that Christianity is true or that religion is science; I'm only wondering how you can demonstrate that the first rendition is bound to be true.

Every other field responds to evidence. Theology not at all.

Why is God not being clear, instead just making the reader think to themselves

Normally "think for yourself" is considered a good thing. What makes you think that a God wouldn't want people to think for themselves? 

In science textbooks and journalism, clarity is a good thing. Is this true in religion also? Why? 

False. Thought crime is a sin in the abrahamic religions. They want to control what you THINK. It blatantly states so in their magic books.

Religion was created because ancient man saw females giving birth so they thought "Well, we must have came from them, but where is our originator?"

Are you sure about this? 

Pretty much.

The First Cause argument as formulated by Aristotle is an attempt to overcome Zeno's Paradoxes about why motion is impossible. Do you know of someone who came up with the idea by looking at babies? 

Or perhaps what you're saying here is a kind of parable or metaphor -- in which case, why not just type it clearly instead of giving an example? 

You really are obsessed with Aristotle as though all thougt ended there, aren't you? Anything in service to your god.

 Ancient humans of course didn't have big IQ's back then so they couldn't rationally think why we are here.
First, IQ is very questionable as a measure of intelligence. Second, there have no doubt been very intelligent people all along, though early on they didn't have the benefit of the work done by so many previous smart people. If early people weren't intelligent, we would still be grunting.

Oh great. You got something right. Humans 6000 years ago were every bit as intelligent as we are, else we would not be where we are. Good for you. What is interesting is that you totally ignored the body of accumulated knowledge over the millenia.

[quote='Belacqua' pid='1964702' dateline='1585444461']

Primitive man just felt what actions they were doing were......unpleasant, and began to feel empathy.

Maybe so. But it looks as though empathy is about the easiest thing in the world to overcome. We seem to have no problem with the millions of people suffering far away from us. It looks to me as though morality is a set of principles we use when we don't feel empathy. So how would you demonstrate that morality comes from empathy? 

Both of you have no clue as to the origins of empathy. But science does. Stop pretending that both of you have knowledge you do not.

 But the problem with religion and morality in general, is that it forces upon you to think what is "right" or "wrong" instead of thinking for yourself.

Didn't you just say that religion is bad because God doesn't tell us exactly what to think? 

And aren't you aware of the Dark Night of the Soul, and the cloud of unknowing, and the enormous religious literature about how doubt is a part of faith, and thinking people must work out how to deal with it? Have you read Kierkegaard?

Bloody hell. You really want god to be true at all cost.

Why not just battle each other (A massive free-for-all but religions) to the death for supremacy?

Because a good religion might forbid proving one's point with violence.

Sure. But it one examines that then one finds that the religions promoting that are not YOUR religion. How does that make you feel?

its been scientifically proven that spiritual NDE's are a result of the brain. 

The fact that NDEs are caused by the brain doesn't prove there is no life after death. 

Correct. It proves that NDE's are not proof of an afterlife. Well done for adding 2+2 and getting four.

Today, Civilization is the most advanced as it is, but yet, religion still exists. Why? we are so scientifically advanced. We don't need to rely on earlier control methods, i'ts done its part, we need it no more.

Does science do away with the need for religion?

Yes.

Does it determine morality,

Yes.

or tell us what a good life is?

Yes. 

Does religion do anything, good or bad, that science can't?

Well, religion willfully causes harm for no reason.  

Religion is about fear, was created and spread through fear, and is based on fear.

Only fear? 

Yes. It is blatantly using fear of an imaginary reward/punishment.

Have you read Plato? For him, God is reached through love. Lots of Christians say "God is love." Buddhists say they want to defeat fear. Are they all lying? 

Pretty much. And it is amusing that you continue to tout Plato and Aristotle as though no other thought had happened since.

How can you prove the truth of what you say here?

Evidence. That thing that you avoid because you have none.