IIIIITHE1IIIII said: Bong Lover said: IIIIITHE1IIIII said: Firstly, thanks for the respectful response. Secondly, I think that what you define as the purpose of religious practice actually goes in line with what I said in the OP: "It gives you nothing but self-pleasure; an illusion that God is extra close to you since you are reaching out to Him." Your 'homemade' connection with God is in your head, in other words. It makes sense in the sense that it makes you happy, but more religious practicing does not increase your chances of entering heaven, just like you said. Yes, the entire idea behind religion is to create a 'homemade connection with God in your head'. I realize you use this wording to imply that the connection is imaginary and just an illusion, but that is another debate for the ages. f you operate with the axiom that a mental connection with God is all make belief and just a way to mental trick yourself, then obviously religious practice to establish this connection makes little sense. But as with all of these discussions approaching this core question from the relm of logic and physics will forever be fruitless. As for your last point; the thinking is that a well mentained connection with God makes it easier to live the kind of life that qualifies for entering heaven. So, from that perspective, religious practice makes a lot of sense. Yes, but that makes religious practicing a third party. The kind of life that you that you live is what actually matters, meaning that you may as well stop your practicing altogether. You just confirmed my point (which confirmed yours in the first place).

I am glad you feel I confirmed your point, but if this is the point you were making I feel you expressed yourself a little peculiar.

Let's say you want to build a house. Would you say that using a hammer doesn't make any sense since you can drive the nails with a rock? After all, the hammer is just a third party. Making a house is what really matters, not the concept of using a hammer right?

Religious practice is like a hammer, just a tool that makes it easier to create what you called a homemade connection with God in your head.

I am Christian but I do not go to Church at all. When I die I want my spirit to end up somewhere instead of nothing like a blank portion of the universe.

Bong Lover said: IIIIITHE1IIIII said: Yes, but that makes religious practicing a third party. The kind of life that you that you live is what actually matters, meaning that you may as well stop your practicing altogether. You just confirmed my point (which confirmed yours in the first place). I am glad you feel I confirmed your point, but if this is the point you were making I feel you expressed yourself a little peculiar. Let's say you want to build a house. Would you say that using a hammer doesn't make any sense since you can drive the nails with a rock? After all, the hammer is just a third party. Making a house is what really matters, not the concept of using a hammer right? Religious practice is like a hammer, just a tool that makes it easier to create what you called a homemade connection with God in your head.

Well, my point was to show that the hammer was not necessary at all (meaning that people don't actually need to circumcise their children (which possibly may be against their will) or oppose gay marriage).

You seem to say the religious practice is not necessary to get into heaven. While that may be true, that does not mean religious practice makes no sense. Many people practice their religion simply because they enjoy doing what the Lord wants them to do. The Lord may not require them to do all these things, but he would be pleased if we did. And so, many people partake in practices simply because they want to. It makes them happy knowing they are making the Lord happy. If doing things that gives you joy doesn't make sense to you, then so be it.

Jay520 said: You seem to say the religious practice is not necessary to get into heaven. While that may be true, that does not mean religious practice makes no sense. Many people practice their religion simply because they enjoy doing what the Lord wants them to do. The Lord may not require them to do all these things, but he would be pleased if we did. And so, many people partake in practices simply because they want to. It makes them happy knowing they are making the Lord happy. If doing things that gives you joy doesn't make sense to you, then so be it.

It seems like you assume that religious practicing increases your chances of entering heaven. That is what doesn't make sense to me, not wheather practicing brings joy or not.

I respect all beliefs or lack thereof, but the religion bashing in the name of "my opinion" is getting out of hand.

hatmoza said: I respect all beliefs or lack thereof, but the religion bashing in the name of "my opinion" is getting out of hand.

Bashing? Where?

All I did was pointing out was seems to be a logical flaw. If people don't agree then good for them.

IIIIITHE1IIIII said: Jay520 said: You seem to say the religious practice is not necessary to get into heaven. While that may be true, that does not mean religious practice makes no sense. Many people practice their religion simply because they enjoy doing what the Lord wants them to do. The Lord may not require them to do all these things, but he would be pleased if we did. And so, many people partake in practices simply because they want to. It makes them happy knowing they are making the Lord happy. If doing things that gives you joy doesn't make sense to you, then so be it. It seems like you assume that religious practicing increases your chances of entering heaven. That is what doesn't make sense to me, not wheather practicing brings joy or not.

No, I don't assume that. In fact, in my second sentence, I assume that the opposite is true for argument's sake. I said that assuming religious practicing doesn't increase your chances of getting to heaven, it still makes sense because people enjoy doing it. And since you're not challenging whether that makes sense, I'll assume you don't believe it doesn't make sense. In such case, you're problem is with (some) people's perception of religious practice, not religious practice in and of itself.

Jay520 said: IIIIITHE1IIIII said: It seems like you assume that religious practicing increases your chances of entering heaven. That is what doesn't make sense to me, not wheather practicing brings joy or not. No, I don't assume that. In fact, in my second sentence, I assume that the opposite is true for argument's sake. I said that assuming religious practicing doesn't increase your chances of getting to heaven, it still makes sense because people enjoy doing it. And since you're not challenging whether that makes sense, I'll assume you don't believe it doesn't make sense. In such case, you're problem is with (some) people's perception of religious practice, not religious practice in and of itself.

Well, religious practice in itself demands people in order to occur. My "problem" is that they think that following exactly what the Bible says would be necessary to enter heaven when it in actuality only may be good or evil actions that matters.

In other words: Burning the Bible would be a good thing. People don't need it to commit good actions, but they can use it to justify certain harmful activities. And the Bible is the foundation of all Abrahamic religious practicing (well, and the Koran for the Muslims).

quigontcb said: So you invented atheism/agnosticism? Or did you, by chance, happen to hear about it from someone else?

I'm not speaking for the OP, but I remember when I was a kid, I wasn't exposed to religion that much. My parents did, however buy me lots of science books, and I always read about how the conclusions about how the world works were made, any religious teaching was just that I was told that some people believe in 'god' and 'heaven' and 'soul' but that noone truly knows what happens when you die. I remember that most of my classmates in elementary school believed in 'god' and 'heaven' and such, but I remember during a 'class gathering' (or whatever it is called in english) when the kids would talk about what their religion was and if it wasn't christianity, maybe tell the other kids a little about it. When I was asked, I didn't know what to say, so what I said was "I believe in science".

   Fast forward to the middle years in elementary school sometime before easter, and our class was at a church where a priest (a female one) explained about the death and ressurection myth. I, being curious, did what kids usually do during a class (and especially me during science classes) and asked her what proof of all this happening was and she was totally stunned, she really wasn't prepared for that and, after pausing for a moment she said that the Dead Sea Scrolls were proof for some people. That answer really left an impression on me, because I realized the difference between proven 'facts' and faith (IE belief without evidence).

What is the point of me writing all of these childhood memories? Well, it isn't until much later that I learned of the term atheism, yet, I had been an atheist during most of my childhood. And i wasn't taught it by my parents either, because when they talked with me about religion they would always avoid taking a stance, and say "noone really knows".

It seams to me (maybe I'm misunderstanding you) that you try to equate atheism with religious belief, as if they are all doctrines about the world that are taught from person to person. But Atheism is simply the null hypothesis, IE you make an unproven statement, therefore the most likely scenario is one where your unproven statement is not taken into account. I hope my memories illustrate why I'm so surprised every time people try to do this. The null hypothesis is not a doctrine that is taught from person to person, it is used every time someone refutes an unproven statement.