Religion?

[HappyRock]

More important reasons for a Christian, for example, are the historical record and testimony of Christ's life, and the evidence behind the death/resurrection story. And, of course, just plain ol' faith, for which there is no evidence.

See, where Christianity loses me is precisely that historical record you mention.  I'm a historian and researcher by nature, so naturally I looked into the history for the holy book of my faith growing up.  What I found were church doctrine that changed with the eras (there's justification for anything in a book with 30,000 contradictions), grossly edited manuscripts, power struggles in downplaying the gnostic camp in the 300-400s, stories more easily explained by piggy backing old stories (Horus anyone?), etc. etc.  Basically, the Bible has no credibility to me - hence why I understand the deist position, which I reckon to be similar to Aristotle's First Mover, but not a god or policy based on the words in that compilation of writings.  Did a man named Jesus exist?  Almost certainly.  Did he preach?  Yes, most likely a doomsday preacher similar to others at that time with an added "give up your worldly possessions and be kind (read: inclusive) to others" twist.   Was he crucified?  Yes.  Was he supernatural?  Eh, I don't think so - even by the writings of his own followers he never claimed to be.  Take in mind that as Christianity grew, stories about him became more fantastical and expressly sought to fill gaps in the previous stories or settle doctrinal disputes at the time.  It just all makes so much more sense without the supernatural element.

I agree, and all theistic religions were started before the truth about our planet and life became known. What other explanation did people have before science and inventions like the telescope?
Just 500 years ago the entire world thought the Earth was the center of the universe. 50 years ago we made the first missions into space. Today we have complete mappings of the observable universe. In 50 or 100 years our belief system and knowledge could be very different than it is today.

Also, +1 to what Sol said. It is understandable that people are so quick to follow beliefs and to conclude that there is only one possibility - God. But that brings on an equally challenging and unanswerable question : Who or what created god?

I have been watching Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey, and it continues my idea that no set of theistic beliefs is really the "right" one.

[sol]

all theistic religions were started before the truth about our planet and life became known.

This may be the understatement of the day.  Not only were our modern religions conceive before we properly understood our place in the universe, most of them were conceived before the invention of leavened bread.  Think about that for a minute.  90% of humanity is still following rules written before the world's first real loaf of bread was ever baked.  When we still thought the sun revolved around the earth.  When we still bought and sold slaves with a god's blessing.  When we still wiped our butts with our bare hands.  Yet we're still following those rules when confronted with questions about things like stem cell research.  Astounding.

Pointing out that such religions predate our understanding of planets and life is kind of like saying they predate big screen televisions.  Like no duh, people were pretty ignorant back then.

Relevant, but NSFW for language and needlessly inflammatory degradation of ideas that 90% of humanity hold near and dear:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kr1I3mBojc0

[popsy13]

Humanity is the best religion.

[darkadams00]

To assume that we "know the truth about our planet and life" is  a very presumptuous statement. We know more about our bodies and the natural environment that we inhabit than previous generations knew, but the current collection of human knowledge is quite possibly the intellectual equivalent of a grain of sand on the beach. We have no progress meter to tell us, "Truth Download 70% Complete." Given the expanse and intricacies of the universe and its contents, we've had plenty of micro and macro material to study, but every piece of evidence, every fact, every tangible, i.e. scientific, proof only better defines our surroundings. Initial origin, cause, and purpose are completely undefined.

The question that I posit in these discussions is this--Can anyone rationally disprove the possibility that our universe and all its creatures and contents are no more expansive than an ant farm on a high shelf in an adolescent God-Boy's room? Are our boundaries of space and time just the evidence of our frailty? The intellect of such an external being/family of beings/society of beings could easily surpass our own, much like the complexity of our lives surpasses that of the ants.

I can't prove this is the case, but I can't disprove it either. We might know more about our "6x9" box, but we have no infallible proofs about what could be beyond that box. That question can be found in numerous ancient secular and religious texts, so whether our scientific knowledge was immature then or mature now has not gained an inch of progress towards a defensible answer. Christians and other religious folks have stated the obvious--their position is a position of unproven and untested faith. Non-religious folks have turned to logic and science for guidance, but the assumptions about the existence or non-existence of beings external to that system require a certain faith, i.e. assumptions, as well. Creation/Evolution/Intelligent Design/Theistic Evolution/Big Bang--We can say we think we know "what" happened and "when" it happened, but we can't explain "why." Some folks spend more time thinking about life outside that box (religion/philosophy). Others spend their time learning about life inside the box (science). Some find a reasonable balance and enjoy the wonder of it all.

Bottom line--we have no clue at all about what could exist just beyond the edge of our universe that would make the study of our world seem a fool's errand. When we die, we just might find the answer to the puzzle.

[sol]

To assume that we "know the truth about our planet and life" is  a very presumptuous statement.

I don't think anyone here is claiming that we have arrived at the Truth.  But science has brought us closer to understanding Truth in the past 400 years than religion did in the previous 40,000 generations.  The very notion that the universe is measurable and understandable was by itself a huge step forward, freeing us from the chains of superstition.  Before that, humanity lacked the tools needed to make any progress.  The scientific method, the idea that you can posit an idea and then test it against real evidence to find out if it is true or not, is a frighteningly recent innovation.

Non-religious folks have turned to logic and science for guidance, but the assumptions about the existence or non-existence of beings external to that system require a certain faith

I've heard this argument before and I still disagree with it.  Science doesn't require faith, science requires evidence.  By definition, science adjusts its beliefs based on what is observed, throwing out old ideas when they fail in favor of new ideas that pass.  Faith, by contrast, is defined by the very denial of observable truth in order to preserve old ideas.  The two are polar opposites.  One claims to know the Truth and no amount of evidence will change it.  The other claims to know nothing, is only a method for finding the truth for yourselves.

[domustachesgrowinhouston]

Faith, by contrast, is defined by the very denial of observable truth in order to preserve old ideas.

I think this would be a better definition for dogma.

[MoneyCat]

Religion is important because without it we cannot have morality.  Without religion, for instance, there is absolutely no reason not to do whatever it takes to benefit yourself.  We'd essentially become a world driven entirely by Ayn Rand's philosophy of selfishness.  People would only be as valuable as the goods and services they can provide.  If they cannot be used to enrich yourself, then they have no value.  Atheists who claim morality are actually just culturally religious.  Sorry, but that's just how reality works.

[sol]

Religion is important because without it we cannot have morality...  Sorry, but that's just how reality works.

I can't imagine what 400,000 years of human experience was like before Jesus gave us morality.  I bet everyone was really mean back then.

[pom]

Religion is important because without it we cannot have morality...  Sorry, but that's just how reality works.

Countries in Europe with the highest number of people claiming that they dont believe in god
France (40%)
Czech Republic (37%)
Sweden (34%)

Countries with the lowest
Romania (1%)
Malta (2%)
Cyprus (3%)

Now same countries ranked by murder rate (per 100 000 population)
Malta 2,8
Cyprus 2,0
Romania 1,7
France 1,0
Czech Republic 1,0
Sweden 0,7

I will let you conclude.

[GuitarStv]

Religion is important because without it we cannot have morality.  Without religion, for instance, there is absolutely no reason not to do whatever it takes to benefit yourself.  We'd essentially become a world driven entirely by Ayn Rand's philosophy of selfishness.  People would only be as valuable as the goods and services they can provide.  If they cannot be used to enrich yourself, then they have no value.  Atheists who claim morality are actually just culturally religious.  Sorry, but that's just how reality works.

I have to disagree completely.

I disagree by evidence to contrary:
- There are many atheists and agnostics who live a life sans-religion who are moral people.  - There are many, many, many religious people who live immoral lives (ISIS, the Westborough Baptist church members, pedophile priests, Indian Gurus, etc).

I disagree by reason:
- Acting in a moral way is a more efficient method of living your life - purely for selfish reason.  We are not islands, we live in an interconnected society.  What other people think about us matters.  Morality is (at the bare minimum) a way of ensuring that we are seen in a good light by others.

- If you want to dismiss people who don't believe and act in moral way as 'culturally religious' that's a confusing statement.  To be 'culturally religious' means that you don't believe in God, the church, or any of it's teachings but you follow a similar moral code.  To admit that someone can be moral by being 'culturally religious' is to admit that all the trappings and belief structure of religion are completely unrelated to morality.  Your own words prove this point against your line of reasoning.

[domustachesgrowinhouston]

Religion is important because without it we cannot have morality.  Without religion, for instance, there is absolutely no reason not to do whatever it takes to benefit yourself.  We'd essentially become a world driven entirely by Ayn Rand's philosophy of selfishness.  People would only be as valuable as the goods and services they can provide.  If they cannot be used to enrich yourself, then they have no value.  Atheists who claim morality are actually just culturally religious.  Sorry, but that's just how reality works.

For ethical behavior, you may be better off without religion, or perhaps better stated, without a church.  If history's any sort of reliable example, it would seem it's easier to commit atrocities on behalf of a higher calling.

[MoneyCat]

Religion is important because without it we cannot have morality.  Without religion, for instance, there is absolutely no reason not to do whatever it takes to benefit yourself.  We'd essentially become a world driven entirely by Ayn Rand's philosophy of selfishness.  People would only be as valuable as the goods and services they can provide.  If they cannot be used to enrich yourself, then they have no value.  Atheists who claim morality are actually just culturally religious.  Sorry, but that's just how reality works.

For ethical behavior, you may be better off without religion, or perhaps better stated, without a church.  If history's any sort of reliable example, it would seem it's easier to commit atrocities on behalf of a higher calling.

You obviously haven't read the New Testament or you would understand that the people calling themselves "Christians" who commit atrocities are not actually Christians because they don't do what Jesus says to do.  I could buy a ten gallon hat and call myself a cowboy but that doesn't mean I know how to rope cattle, do branding, or anything else a cowboy does.  In Western society, agnostics and atheists who do good deeds are generally doing it because they are culturally Christian, so they believe that doing good for others is a positive thing.  When you completely remove the religious aspect from people's lives, you end up with Objectivists and that's pretty much going to be the wave of the future, so we'd better get used to that kind of behavior as we descend further into barbarism.

[Philociraptor]

Religion is important because without it we cannot have morality.  Without religion, for instance, there is absolutely no reason not to do whatever it takes to benefit yourself.  We'd essentially become a world driven entirely by Ayn Rand's philosophy of selfishness.  People would only be as valuable as the goods and services they can provide.  If they cannot be used to enrich yourself, then they have no value.  Atheists who claim morality are actually just culturally religious.  Sorry, but that's just how reality works.

For ethical behavior, you may be better off without religion, or perhaps better stated, without a church.  If history's any sort of reliable example, it would seem it's easier to commit atrocities on behalf of a higher calling.

You obviously haven't read the New Testament or you would understand that the people calling themselves "Christians" who commit atrocities are not actually Christians because they don't do what Jesus says to do.  I could buy a ten gallon hat and call myself a cowboy but that doesn't mean I know how to rope cattle, do branding, or anything else a cowboy does.  In Western society, agnostics and atheists who do good deeds are generally doing it because they are culturally Christian, so they believe that doing good for others is a positive thing.  When you completely remove the religious aspect from people's lives, you end up with Objectivists and that's pretty much going to be the wave of the future, so we'd better get used to that kind of behavior as we descend further into barbarism.

Comedy gold right there! Athiest here, please read what GuitarStv said above. Since humans are social creatures, altruism is a net positive for the self and others, due the the fact that altruism gives you social status and thus power. That aside, compassion is not exclusively a human trait, and animals don't have religion (that we know of).

[sol]

I disagree by evidence to contrary:

Arguing with a religious person by showing them evidence is kind of like arguing with an atheist by showing them the Bible.  They very nature of their position means they will not hear what you have to say.

If history's any sort of reliable example, it would seem it's easier to commit atrocities on behalf of a higher calling.

I'm sure there are atheists who act immorally too, but to be immoral on a truly grand scale seems to require that you believe yourself to have the god-given moral high ground.  Consider the crimes religions have perpetrated while claiming to be the only source of morality: most wars, the Crusades, the Inquisition, 9/11, arranged marriages to minors, blowing up girls schools, the oppression of women and homosexuals, fatwas, ethnic cleansing, honor rape, human sacrifice, burning witches, suicide bombings, condoning slavery, and the systematic fucking of children.  In the Name of Our Father, Amen.

[Gin1984]

I disagree by evidence to contrary:

Arguing with a religious person by showing them evidence is kind of like arguing with an atheist by showing them the Bible.  They very nature of their position means they will not hear what you have to say.

If history's any sort of reliable example, it would seem it's easier to commit atrocities on behalf of a higher calling.

I'm sure there are atheists who act immorally too, but to be immoral on a truly grand scale seems to require that you believe yourself to have the god-given moral high ground.  Consider the crimes religions have perpetrated while claiming to be the only source of morality: most wars, the Crusades, the Inquisition, 9/11, arranged marriages to minors, blowing up girls schools, the oppression of women and homosexuals, fatwas, ethnic cleansing, honor rape, human sacrifice, burning witches, suicide bombings, condoning slavery, and the systematic fucking of children.  In the Name of Our Father, Amen.

That is untrue!  You seem to be making sweeping generalization, on all religions based on the behavior of a few, in a few religions. 

[acroy]

And can any religious person answer this

: Pretty much every single religion conflicts with each other in some way (Different gods, prophets, beliefs, customs)
- If that is the case, would that mean that only one religion is correct, and that other religions are wrong?

Great topic!!

Disclosure: I am Catholic, I think the Catholic religion is correct (the doctrine, not the actions of the members, including me!), and that any contradictory doctrine is by definition incorrect.

Why? Because I'm a truth-seeker and I think it is true!

If there is one, knowable reality, then contradictory religions cannot be correct. One religion is correct, or none; this is the only logical possibility.

The only way around this is the multiverse concept or subjective reality.

If reality is subjective, none of it matters anyway. The senses tell us reality is real and there is only one… So I don’t go down that dark alley, no answers there.

No discussion of religion, right/wrong etc can have meaning unless the participants agree on the ground rules of logic, the knowable universe (as opposed to multiverse) etc.

A great intro to this, and to logical thinking, is this book. One of the best I’ve ever read.
http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Philosophy-Perennial-Principles-Classical/dp/0895554690/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1411746742&sr=8-6&keywords=the+perennial+philosophy

Best of luck in your search! If you are truly looking for truth, you’ll find it :)

[HappyRock]

Religion is important because without it we cannot have morality.  Without religion, for instance, there is absolutely no reason not to do whatever it takes to benefit yourself.  We'd essentially become a world driven entirely by Ayn Rand's philosophy of selfishness.  People would only be as valuable as the goods and services they can provide.  If they cannot be used to enrich yourself, then they have no value.  Atheists who claim morality are actually just culturally religious.  Sorry, but that's just how reality works.

To be frank, I also disagree completely. It is just utterly illogical for me to think that people must have religion to have morality. This is DEFINITELY not how reality works, at least for me.

I would explain but I think Guitar, pom, and sol already did a perfect job. Definitely loved this one "I can't imagine what human experience was like before Jesus gave us morality.  I bet everyone was really mean back then."

I disagree by evidence to contrary:

Arguing with a religious person by showing them evidence is kind of like arguing with an atheist by showing them the Bible.  They very nature of their position means they will not hear what you have to say.

If history's any sort of reliable example, it would seem it's easier to commit atrocities on behalf of a higher calling.

I'm sure there are atheists who act immorally too, but to be immoral on a truly grand scale seems to require that you believe yourself to have the god-given moral high ground.  Consider the crimes religions have perpetrated while claiming to be the only source of morality: most wars, the Crusades, the Inquisition, 9/11, arranged marriages to minors, blowing up girls schools, the oppression of women and homosexuals, fatwas, ethnic cleansing, honor rape, human sacrifice, burning witches, suicide bombings, condoning slavery, and the systematic fucking of children.  In the Name of Our Father, Amen.

Lol, you couldn't have said it any better. Regardless, I have still enjoyed this conversation so far.

PS : Will you run for president? :)

[darkadams00]

I don't think anyone here is claiming that we have arrived at the Truth.  But science has brought us closer to understanding Truth in the past 400 years than religion did in the previous 40,000 generations.  The very notion that the universe is measurable and understandable was by itself a huge step forward, freeing us from the chains of superstition.  Before that, humanity lacked the tools needed to make any progress.  The scientific method, the idea that you can posit an idea and then test it against real evidence to find out if it is true or not, is a frighteningly recent innovation.

I've heard this argument before and I still disagree with it.  Science doesn't require faith, science requires evidence.  By definition, science adjusts its beliefs based on what is observed, throwing out old ideas when they fail in favor of new ideas that pass.  Faith, by contrast, is defined by the very denial of observable truth in order to preserve old ideas.  The two are polar opposites.  One claims to know the Truth and no amount of evidence will change it.  The other claims to know nothing, is only a method for finding the truth for yourselves.

For sake of discussion, let's all agree that both religion and science have their fair share of ideologues and extremists. I personally know Christians who can't follow a line of rational thought and science teachers who can hardly keep their temper in check if a student challenges a single point about evolution. Neither group will yield an inch, and they're both very vocal. I'm more interested in the group in the middle that is truly curious about the now we know and the future we don't know. I'm also no more interested in religious/organized church behavior that has suppressed science over the years ("chains of superstition") than I am about secular governments/organizations who have suppressed religion over the years (not allowing discussion of possible Intelligent Design but requiring reports/tests on the hypothetical Big Bang). Both religion and science have been and continue to be subjected to the impacts of societal consensus. I'm speaking of faith and science in the individual sense, how they theoretically would exist without negative societal impacts from either side.

Faith as defined in a religious context is the belief in elements, such as an afterlife, and/or beings that have attributes that are external to the physical universe that defines our lives as we know it. I'll omit the question of whether such external beings would/could have any interests or interactions that fall within our observable world. Just the fact that these elements and/or beings could exist can neither be proven nor disproved by science or logic. Faith is simply an unproven and untested belief. If such proofs could be given, I'm sure many religious folks would welcome them.

To originate the concept of religion earlier in history than science, thus leading to more recent discoveries, is also logical--humans could question our existence around campfires after killing the day's meat much sooner than we could devote the time to develop the methodology and tools to observe and study it. Early advancement was closely intertwined with religion because population centers were often both religious and intellectual centers, and cities were few. The purpose of faith is not contrary to the purpose of science, and science is not at all a suitable replacement for religion. The one extends our thoughts in untestable directions while the other is more accessible to peer review. Neither has a logical reason to obstruct the other since they address completely different questions.

Regarding "faith in science"--To step over the semantics, let's change the word "faith" to "assumption." I agree that science, when adequately applied, does a good job of defining this world and what we know about it. When a branch of mathematics begins with a set of assumptions, those assumptions define the starting point for that branch, e.g. Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometries being popular examples. Likewise, the science of atomic theory, relativity, cell theory, etc begin with assumptions. When assumptions change, our entire thought process and inherent findings change. Those assumptions are not tested. They are stated. How far can we get with math and science without any assumptions? Are there unknown truths beyond our current state of rationale/observation that would show some of our assumptions to be invalid or at least less valuable than others in finding out the real truths of the universe? We don't know, so we make those assumptions for now and move on. And to be sure, paleontology and anthropology--two primary sciences that contribute heavily to evolutionary thought, study, and curriculum--are heavily dependent on assumptions, thus leading to the constant shift in opinions that come into favor in one decade and fade away the next.

Getting religion-centric and science-centric folks to say "We just don't know" is equally hard. The religionists are scared of being too secular, and the scientists are scared of being too religious. Both sides are all too willing to criticize the other. I still haven't had anyone from either side explain the incompatibility between the two.

[FIPurpose]

Religion is important because without it we cannot have morality.  Without religion, for instance, there is absolutely no reason not to do whatever it takes to benefit yourself.  We'd essentially become a world driven entirely by Ayn Rand's philosophy of selfishness.  People would only be as valuable as the goods and services they can provide.  If they cannot be used to enrich yourself, then they have no value.  Atheists who claim morality are actually just culturally religious.  Sorry, but that's just how reality works.

Can I say I'm a Christian and even I disagree with this? I understand where you're coming from, but it would be much better to have a understanding that follows more towards how CS Lewis argues the connection between morality and a higher being. As summarized by this blogger:

http://www.paul-gould.com/2012/12/19/c-s-lewis-the-moral-argument-for-god-and-the-gospel/

1. There is a universal Moral Law.
2. If there is a universal Moral Law, there is a Moral Law-giver.
3. If there is a Moral Law-giver, it must be something beyond the universe.
4. Therefore, there is something beyond the universe.

We are all searching for the same thing. "Why do I have an internal desire to be moral?" Where did that sense of morality come from? Now we have come down to the primary divison:
Morality came from something beyond our universe (Theism)
Morality came from inside the universe (Naturalism)

But either way you still have both sets of people being guided by that same sense of morality.

[jka468]

This discussion seems to come up on every message board I've ever visited. Seems to me that it's pointless, but I suppose people enjoy the banter.

[domustachesgrowinhouston]

Oooh, this conversation spiced up nicely!

Religion is important because without it we cannot have morality.  Without religion, for instance, there is absolutely no reason not to do whatever it takes to benefit yourself.  We'd essentially become a world driven entirely by Ayn Rand's philosophy of selfishness.  People would only be as valuable as the goods and services they can provide.  If they cannot be used to enrich yourself, then they have no value.  Atheists who claim morality are actually just culturally religious.  Sorry, but that's just how reality works.

For ethical behavior, you may be better off without religion, or perhaps better stated, without a church.  If history's any sort of reliable example, it would seem it's easier to commit atrocities on behalf of a higher calling.

You obviously haven't read the New Testament or you would understand that the people calling themselves "Christians" who commit atrocities are not actually Christians because they don't do what Jesus says to do.  I could buy a ten gallon hat and call myself a cowboy but that doesn't mean I know how to rope cattle, do branding, or anything else a cowboy does.  In Western society, agnostics and atheists who do good deeds are generally doing it because they are culturally Christian, so they believe that doing good for others is a positive thing.  When you completely remove the religious aspect from people's lives, you end up with Objectivists and that's pretty much going to be the wave of the future, so we'd better get used to that kind of behavior as we descend further into barbarism.

Actually my favorite books of the bible are Mark, Luke, and Matthew, in that order.  I read them fairly regularly, though I wouldn't call myself a Christian for the same reason you state above, I don't follow all the teachings attributed to Jesus in the Gospels, though I do try to follow some of them (some really smart stuff in there).  Basically I was disagreeing with you that a person needs religion to act ethically, and that the church and those that follow it have perpetrated some pretty nasty stuff in the name of their religion.  A repeated message in the Gospels is that God is accessible to all, access is not restricted through the church.

[Gin1984]

I don't think anyone here is claiming that we have arrived at the Truth.  But science has brought us closer to understanding Truth in the past 400 years than religion did in the previous 40,000 generations.  The very notion that the universe is measurable and understandable was by itself a huge step forward, freeing us from the chains of superstition.  Before that, humanity lacked the tools needed to make any progress.  The scientific method, the idea that you can posit an idea and then test it against real evidence to find out if it is true or not, is a frighteningly recent innovation.

I've heard this argument before and I still disagree with it.  Science doesn't require faith, science requires evidence.  By definition, science adjusts its beliefs based on what is observed, throwing out old ideas when they fail in favor of new ideas that pass.  Faith, by contrast, is defined by the very denial of observable truth in order to preserve old ideas.  The two are polar opposites.  One claims to know the Truth and no amount of evidence will change it.  The other claims to know nothing, is only a method for finding the truth for yourselves.

For sake of discussion, let's all agree that both religion and science have their fair share of ideologues and extremists. I personally know Christians who can't follow a line of rational thought and science teachers who can hardly keep their temper in check if a student challenges a single point about evolution. Neither group will yield an inch, and they're both very vocal. I'm more interested in the group in the middle that is truly curious about the now we know and the future we don't know. I'm also no more interested in religious/organized church behavior that has suppressed science over the years ("chains of superstition") than I am about secular governments/organizations who have suppressed religion over the years (not allowing discussion of possible Intelligent Design but requiring reports/tests on the hypothetical Big Bang). Both religion and science have been and continue to be subjected to the impacts of societal consensus. I'm speaking of faith and science in the individual sense, how they theoretically would exist without negative societal impacts from either side.

Faith as defined in a religious context is the belief in elements, such as an afterlife, and/or beings that have attributes that are external to the physical universe that defines our lives as we know it. I'll omit the question of whether such external beings would/could have any interests or interactions that fall within our observable world. Just the fact that these elements and/or beings could exist can neither be proven nor disproved by science or logic. Faith is simply an unproven and untested belief. If such proofs could be given, I'm sure many religious folks would welcome them.

To originate the concept of religion earlier in history than science, thus leading to more recent discoveries, is also logical--humans could question our existence around campfires after killing the day's meat much sooner than we could devote the time to develop the methodology and tools to observe and study it. Early advancement was closely intertwined with religion because population centers were often both religious and intellectual centers, and cities were few. The purpose of faith is not contrary to the purpose of science, and science is not at all a suitable replacement for religion. The one extends our thoughts in untestable directions while the other is more accessible to peer review. Neither has a logical reason to obstruct the other since they address completely different questions.

Regarding "faith in science"--To step over the semantics, let's change the word "faith" to "assumption." I agree that science, when adequately applied, does a good job of defining this world and what we know about it. When a branch of mathematics begins with a set of assumptions, those assumptions define the starting point for that branch, e.g. Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometries being popular examples. Likewise, the science of atomic theory, relativity, cell theory, etc begin with assumptions. When assumptions change, our entire thought process and inherent findings change. Those assumptions are not tested. They are stated. How far can we get with math and science without any assumptions? Are there unknown truths beyond our current state of rationale/observation that would show some of our assumptions to be invalid or at least less valuable than others in finding out the real truths of the universe? We don't know, so we make those assumptions for now and move on. And to be sure, paleontology and anthropology--two primary sciences that contribute heavily to evolutionary thought, study, and curriculum--are heavily dependent on assumptions, thus leading to the constant shift in opinions that come into favor in one decade and fade away the next.

Getting religion-centric and science-centric folks to say "We just don't know" is equally hard. The religionists are scared of being too secular, and the scientists are scared of being too religious. Both sides are all too willing to criticize the other. I still haven't had anyone from either side explain the incompatibility between the two.

The fact that you think the religious theory of intelligent design should be discussed in a SCIENCE classroom as an equal to a scientific hypothesis makes me realize that you have no idea about science.  Secondly, scientists often say they don't know, that is why they have things called hypotheses.  Again, with the showing that you don't understand science.

[FreeWheel]

I really enjoy these discussions.

I have a serious question for those who believe they will go to heaven when they die.

What if someone you love doesn’t make it there? Will you know about it, and miss them?

“Oh, poor so and so, (s)he’s down there burning in hell.”

Since heaven is supposed to be pure joy, that wouldn’t work very well, I’d think.

Maybe god erases all knowledge of them in our minds. (well, we’ll no longer have working minds, which makes it all sound ridiculous, but you know what I mean. lol)

Or maybe he makes up a clone of those fallen souls. “Oh look! It’s so and so! (S)He made it after all! Now we can all be happy for eternity. Yay!”

[domustachesgrowinhouston]

I really enjoy these discussions.

I have a serious question for those who believe they will go to heaven when they die.

What if someone you love doesn’t make it there? Will you know about it, and miss them?

“Oh, poor so and so, (s)he’s down there burning in hell.”

Since heaven is supposed to be pure joy, that wouldn’t work very well, I’d think.

Maybe god erases all knowledge of them in our minds. (well, we’ll no longer have working minds, which makes it all sound ridiculous, but you know what I mean. lol)

Or maybe he makes up a clone of those fallen souls. “Oh look! It’s so and so! (S)He made it after all! Now we can all be happy for eternity. Yay!”

Are you sure you have a serious question?  It kind of sounds like you already have a pretty definite idea of what heaven is supposed to be, when it's available, to whom it's available, and that it wouldn't actually work in real life.

[sol]

A question doesn't have to be undecided to be serious. 

I seriously ask religious people if they believe in ghosts or werewolves too, even though I think they are equivalently ridiculous superstitious beliefs.  Just because I'm decided on the issue doesn't mean the question has no merit.  I'm genuinely interested in the thought process that leads people to snort derisively at the thought of ghosts yet devote their lives to worshiping God.  Either the supernatural is real or it isn't (hint: the "super" in supernatural gives it away) so I've always been a little fuzzy on how people compartmentalize some supernatural beliefs away from others, allowing them to believe with all their hearts while simultaneously knowing it's all hogwash.

[Russ]

I really enjoy these discussions.

I have a serious question for those who believe they will go to heaven when they die.

What if someone you love doesn’t make it there? Will you know about it, and miss them?

“Oh, poor so and so, (s)he’s down there burning in hell.”

Since heaven is supposed to be pure joy, that wouldn’t work very well, I’d think.

Maybe god erases all knowledge of them in our minds. (well, we’ll no longer have working minds, which makes it all sound ridiculous, but you know what I mean. lol)

Or maybe he makes up a clone of those fallen souls. “Oh look! It’s so and so! (S)He made it after all! Now we can all be happy for eternity. Yay!”

Are you sure you have a serious question?  It kind of sounds like you already have a pretty definite idea of what heaven is supposed to be, when it's available, to whom it's available, and that it wouldn't actually work in real life.

I'm sure OP would welcome an explanation of a heaven that accounts for this, whatever that may be. I certainly would. Sounds interesting independent of whether we agree.

[domustachesgrowinhouston]

I really enjoy these discussions.

I have a serious question for those who believe they will go to heaven when they die.

What if someone you love doesn’t make it there? Will you know about it, and miss them?

“Oh, poor so and so, (s)he’s down there burning in hell.”

Since heaven is supposed to be pure joy, that wouldn’t work very well, I’d think.

Maybe god erases all knowledge of them in our minds. (well, we’ll no longer have working minds, which makes it all sound ridiculous, but you know what I mean. lol)

Or maybe he makes up a clone of those fallen souls. “Oh look! It’s so and so! (S)He made it after all! Now we can all be happy for eternity. Yay!”

Are you sure you have a serious question?  It kind of sounds like you already have a pretty definite idea of what heaven is supposed to be, when it's available, to whom it's available, and that it wouldn't actually work in real life.

I'm sure OP would welcome an explanation of a heaven that accounts for this, whatever that may be. I certainly would. Sounds interesting independent of whether we agree.

I think probably the best answer is one that was given to a similar question:

Mark 12:18 - 27
18 Then the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question. 19 “Teacher,” they said, “Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies and leaves a wife but no children, the man must marry the widow and raise up offspring for his brother. 20 Now there were seven brothers. The first one married and died without leaving any children. 21 The second one married the widow, but he also died, leaving no child. It was the same with the third. 22 In fact, none of the seven left any children. Last of all, the woman died too. 23 At the resurrection[a] whose wife will she be, since the seven were married to her?”

24 Jesus replied, “Are you not in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God? 25 When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. 26 Now about the dead rising—have you not read in the Book of Moses, in the account of the burning bush, how God said to him, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? 27 He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are badly mistaken!”

In the question above, there seems to be several assumptions.  Allow me to try to fill them in as best I can without truly knowing what they are:

Heaven is a magical place, similar to earth but without the evils that plague us; everyone lives forever in the place, much as they do now, but without any "evil" whatsoever.
People go to heaven when they die.  They're born here on earth but at death they go start the really long life in eternal happiness.
Only people that are deemed "good" by an ultimate judge are allowed to enter into heaven.  Everyone else must go live their long life in the opposite place where they live, much as they do now, but forever and in a place without any "good" whatsoever.

If I've got that anywhere near correct, it sounds a lot like the fairly tales I remember growing up with.  As FreeWheel has already seemed to indicate, it doesn't seem like it would work real well.  My best suggestion would be to relegate those notions to the same place as the boogey man.

[raised_mormon]

I created a throwaway account for this, because my main account has posted enough details that someone who knows me could probably identify me through it, and I'm not comfortable with having the following linked back to me at this time. I wanted to post it anyway because after reading through the thread I haven't seen anyone describe a similar situation yet.

I was raised Mormon. I did all the things good Mormons are supposed to do - attend church every week, seminary classes in high school, avoid coffee/alcohol/sex-before-marriage, go on a 2-year proselytizing mission, pay tithing, etc.

I believed in Mormonism (or at least its unique claims, such as the Book of Mormon being true and Joseph Smith being a prophet) up until quite recently. In retrospect, I believed because 1. I had been taught as a child to assume it is true, 2. the Mormon church teaches that one can know it is true by praying about the Book of Mormon and having a good feeling ("feeling the Spirit"), 3. I had occasionally had good feelings from praying about it. It didn't enter my head that this was circular reasoning (ie that "good feelings mean the church is true" was dependent on "the church is true"). I'm generally a skeptical and critical thinker, but my belief in the Mormon church received a free pass.

A few months ago, while reflecting over life experiences it finally occurred to me that the feelings I'd had have physical explanations and may not have come from God. (Wikipedia describes some of them  here and here, and I've since found that the triggers described work much more reliably than prayer or church.) Once I set aside that assumption and started reexamining and researching things, my belief evaporated almost entirely. There is a boatload of evidence against Mormonism's specific claims, and nothing substantial for them. I learned loads of pseudo-intellectual "proofs" from years of Sunday school, seminary, and required religion classes at one of the church's universities, but not one of them held water when examined without assuming the church was true.

It's been a very difficult process, emotionally (some have compared it to grief after losing a loved one), and I'm not out of the woods yet. I'm very fortunate that my wife is understanding - there are loads of stories on exmormon forums about spouses who asked for divorce almost immediately. She has her own issues with the church (she never took it as seriously as I did), but she was also raised as a Mormon and is afraid of "the world" as a result. I haven't told anyone else - most of my extended family is Mormon as well, and there would almost certainly be relationships damaged if they found out. If that is incredible to you, think of how most people react to Mustachianism/frugality - they take it as an attack on their identity. I still attend most of the meetings but I tune it out.

One thing that I've noticed is that it's difficult for me to separate the feelings of betrayal and even hate that I now feel toward the Mormon church from religion in general. I think I'm now an atheist, but I sometimes wonder if that's letting my feelings carry me too far in the other direction.

With my background out of the way, here's how I answer OP's questions:

Pretty much every single religion conflicts with each other in some way (Different gods, prophets, beliefs, customs)
- If that is the case, would that mean that only one religion is correct, and that other religions are wrong? How can multiple all-powerful gods and individual prophets exist for EACH religion?

If the Mormon conception of God exists, then either no others do, or the Mormon God is a liar. I expect the same is true of the other religions that teach exclusionary beliefs. There may be one true religion out there and all the others are false; there may be some true ones but with dishonest deities; or they may all be false. I'm leaning strongly toward the last one.

Is religion a set of ideas started by people long ago to explain things that science couldn't? Also, are all the creation stories, (for example Adam and Eve/Noah's Arc) metaphors for something else or literal? And if it is literal that would simply make no sense what so ever imo.

I think most of the world religions are some combination of explaining the unexplainable, giving purpose to life and helping cope with suffering, and allowing the priests/rulers to gain power over others. From what I know, Buddhism is the only one that may be an exception to the last point.
Some religions, like Mormonism and Scientology, are from not so long ago, and seem pretty clearly to be invented to enrich and empower their respective founders. (IIRC L. Ron Hubbard even quoted admitted it.)

[domustachesgrowinhouston]

I think most of the world religions are some combination of explaining the unexplainable, giving purpose to life and helping cope with suffering, and allowing the priests/rulers to gain power over others. From what I know, Buddhism is the only one that may be an exception to the last point.

Therevada Buddhism perhaps.  Big Wheel Buddhism seems to me to follow customs similar to other churches.  For example, Korean Buddhism seems very much like Christianity to me. (sorry to pick on a nation).

[sol]

If the Mormon conception of God exists, then either no others do, or the Mormon God is a liar. I expect the same is true of the other religions that teach exclusionary beliefs. There may be one true religion out there and all the others are false; there may be some true ones but with dishonest deities; or they may all be false. I'm leaning strongly toward the last one.

You just figured out that your parents lied to you about Santa Clause, but your'e still holding out hope for the Tooth Fairy and Easter Bunny?  Wouldn't it be simpler to just accept that adults lied to you and magic isn't real?  Welcome to adulthood.

But I feel your pain.  The Mormons have a particularly nasty history of mistreating church members who publicly leave the faith.

If it's any consolation, at least SOME of those people didn't lie to you on purpose.  They honestly believed their particular version of witchcraft, and wanted to share its joy with you.  Don't be mad at them.  Feel sorry for them maybe, but don't be mad at them.

If you like the people you go to church with, I suggest you continue to go.  Try to swallow your displeasure and take it for what it is, just obvious silliness.  You can still recite the prayers if they make you feel better.  You can still love and support the rest of the people in your church, and you can still benefit from the community of support it provides.  You can say grace before every meal without really meaning it, and nobody but you will have to know the difference.  Since there is no god who can see into your heart, it can be your little secret.

[domustachesgrowinhouston]

You just figured out that your parents lied to you about Santa Clause, but your'e still holding out hope for the Tooth Fairy and Easter Bunny?  Wouldn't it be simpler to just accept that adults lied to you and magic isn't real?  Welcome to adulthood.

I thought that was funny too.  As a kid, you're taught about Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, and God.  Then one by one they drop off.  Sorry, there's no Tooth Fairy.  Oh yeah, Easter Bunny, that one's not real either.  Santa Claus, he's a merry, old fantasy.  Oh, but wait, God's real, go ahead and believe in God.

My wife and I decided early on not to propagate these.  Funny thing is, it's so ingrained in our culture, our kid ended up with these beliefs anyway.  We actually caved to having presents from Santa Claus for a couple years because we didn't want to disappoint her.

[Simple Abundant Living]

I created a throwaway account for this, because my main account has posted enough details that someone who knows me could probably identify me through it, and I'm not comfortable with having the following linked back to me at this time. I wanted to post it anyway because after reading through the thread I haven't seen anyone describe a similar situation yet.

I was raised Mormon. I did all the things good Mormons are supposed to do - attend church every week, seminary classes in high school, avoid coffee/alcohol/sex-before-marriage, go on a 2-year proselytizing mission, pay tithing, etc.

I believed in Mormonism (or at least its unique claims, such as the Book of Mormon being true and Joseph Smith being a prophet) up until quite recently. In retrospect, I believed because 1. I had been taught as a child to assume it is true, 2. the Mormon church teaches that one can know it is true by praying about the Book of Mormon and having a good feeling ("feeling the Spirit"), 3. I had occasionally had good feelings from praying about it. It didn't enter my head that this was circular reasoning (ie that "good feelings mean the church is true" was dependent on "the church is true"). I'm generally a skeptical and critical thinker, but my belief in the Mormon church received a free pass.

A few months ago, while reflecting over life experiences it finally occurred to me that the feelings I'd had have physical explanations and may not have come from God. (Wikipedia describes some of them  here and here, and I've since found that the triggers described work much more reliably than prayer or church.) Once I set aside that assumption and started reexamining and researching things, my belief evaporated almost entirely. There is a boatload of evidence against Mormonism's specific claims, and nothing substantial for them. I learned loads of pseudo-intellectual "proofs" from years of Sunday school, seminary, and required religion classes at one of the church's universities, but not one of them held water when examined without assuming the church was true.

It's been a very difficult process, emotionally (some have compared it to grief after losing a loved one), and I'm not out of the woods yet. I'm very fortunate that my wife is understanding - there are loads of stories on exmormon forums about spouses who asked for divorce almost immediately. She has her own issues with the church (she never took it as seriously as I did), but she was also raised as a Mormon and is afraid of "the world" as a result. I haven't told anyone else - most of my extended family is Mormon as well, and there would almost certainly be relationships damaged if they found out. If that is incredible to you, think of how most people react to Mustachianism/frugality - they take it as an attack on their identity. I still attend most of the meetings but I tune it out.

One thing that I've noticed is that it's difficult for me to separate the feelings of betrayal and even hate that I now feel toward the Mormon church from religion in general. I think I'm now an atheist, but I sometimes wonder if that's letting my feelings carry me too far in the other direction.

With my background out of the way, here's how I answer OP's questions:

Pretty much every single religion conflicts with each other in some way (Different gods, prophets, beliefs, customs)
- If that is the case, would that mean that only one religion is correct, and that other religions are wrong? How can multiple all-powerful gods and individual prophets exist for EACH religion?

If the Mormon conception of God exists, then either no others do, or the Mormon God is a liar. I expect the same is true of the other religions that teach exclusionary beliefs. There may be one true religion out there and all the others are false; there may be some true ones but with dishonest deities; or they may all be false. I'm leaning strongly toward the last one.

Is religion a set of ideas started by people long ago to explain things that science couldn't? Also, are all the creation stories, (for example Adam and Eve/Noah's Arc) metaphors for something else or literal? And if it is literal that would simply make no sense what so ever imo.

I think most of the world religions are some combination of explaining the unexplainable, giving purpose to life and helping cope with suffering, and allowing the priests/rulers to gain power over others. From what I know, Buddhism is the only one that may be an exception to the last point.
Some religions, like Mormonism and Scientology, are from not so long ago, and seem pretty clearly to be invented to enrich and empower their respective founders. (IIRC L. Ron Hubbard even quoted admitted it.)

It is sad and interesting for me to read your post.  I have a brother who has lost his faith and left the church like you.  At first he tried to hide it and went through the motions, so to speak.  Now he is more open about it.  He is also bitter toward church leadership and toward Mormon culture.  He is not bitter to our parents that I know of.  He knows that they taught him as they truly believed.  He recently wrote a very nice letter to my son who is currently serving a mission.  He gave him some practical advice and acknowledged that he wouldn't be where he is today without his mission. 

I have often wondered at those who leave the church and become so bitter.  I can truly say that if tomorrow I lost all my faith and didn't want anything more to do with the church, I would happily go on my way and live as I believed.  The basic ethics of our faith are very similar to MMM.  Hard work, self denial, serve others, be honest, live humbly- find happiness.  Maybe the reason you can't is because you are not being open with it. 

One of the other Mormon tenets I believe that is universal is "by their fruits, ye shall know them".  I have observed my brother and his family leaving the church.  They are seriously unhappy.  My brother has battled and continues to battle leukemia without any faith.  His wife has gained 50 lbs and is seriously depressed.  Their 18dd is an anorexic/bulimic, the 16ds was turned away by the best child psychologist in the state because he could not get anywhere with him.  My family has also faced serious illness and cancer as well, but we are strong, adjusted, and united because of it.  Maybe you say my faith is a delusion, then I would say it's a delusion that gives me a great life.

[darkadams00]

The fact that you think the religious theory of intelligent design should be discussed in a SCIENCE classroom as an equal to a scientific hypothesis makes me realize that you have no idea about science.  Secondly, scientists often say they don't know, that is why they have things called hypotheses.  Again, with the showing that you don't understand science.

My point is this--When a middle/high school science teacher requires a student to write a paper to defend the Big Bang as the origin of the universe--not discuss, to defend--or take a 0, then I have a problem. No observers were there, many assumptions have to be true for it to be remotely possible, tests of the theory are not repeatable (only a peer review of the math/logic under the same assumptions), and the list goes on. I have no problem with a science teacher laying out a lesson plan about the beginning of time, but that teacher should be willing to admit "This is our latest and most likely scientific hypothesis. What do you think?" And then send the students off to write a paper about the merits/demerits of all scientific inquiries about the subject. But as soon as the teacher asks about the student's opinion about what happened, the floor should be open without penalty since those opinions may or may not be scientifically based...and what we don't know shouldn't cause us to quit searching scientifically. We should just know and admir that in spite of our searches, the truth might be beyond our grasp.

...and I'm a statistican/analyst with the commensurate education and experience, so I think if I can understand the assumptions and the math of scientific study, i.e. data/measurement/sampling/error/variance/testing, etc, then I can follow the logic. And I'm willing to say when I can't.

[sol]

But as soon as the teacher asks about the student's opinion about what happened, the floor should be open without penalty since those opinions may or may not be scientifically based.

In science class, we do not write "opinion" papers.

Asking a student to write a paper explaining the big bang is not asking for an opinion any more than asking asking a student to write a paper explaining algebra.  And like algebra, the requirements for passing the class have nothing to do with your beliefs.  You are free to believe that algebra is complete bullshit, but you are still required to learn and understand it, and be able to explain it, in order to pass.  No opinions required.

[darkadams00]

Not explain or discuss---defend, as in why this theory is correct, i.e. the truth that can never change or be proven wrong now or in the future. Again, I have no issue with asking a student to explain what he has read/studied about the theory or even being required to know the body of facts that support the theory. I just would like for the teacher (any of the ones in our local schools) to admit that this is all we know to date but subject to change. To allow this semblance of doubt--even the idea that we might never know the truth--is not unscientific. It's what causes us to ask "What if?"

All in all, I favor scientific methods, etc. I just don't understand the rigidity attached to a theory by a teacher with a BA who never studied said theory in more than a cursory undergrad reading. It's taking someone's study, calling it true, and teaching others to repeat without question. This approaches the same level of rigidity I see in some Christians who have never examined their faith critically. This is the unwillingness to say "We don't know" that some folks refuse to admit.

[Lyssa]

I have often wondered at those who leave the church and become so bitter.

I think I can help explain such "bitterness" (though I don't like the term).

While I have never been religious myself, me being an out and vocal atheist has led to quite a few former religious people share their stories with me. Whether they are "bitter", or lets say confrontational or not is in my experience determined mostly by one factor: How much feelings of guilt, shame and fear were used in their religious upbringing.

Ex-Muslims and Ex-Catholics (the commited kind, not the now common middle European "going to church on Christmas" kind) frequently feel they have been harmed and to a certain extent irreversibly harmed by being guilt-tripped, shamed and made afraid. One has summarized it by "Being Catholic never really goes away...".

   Maybe you say my faith is a delusion, then I would say it's a delusion that gives me a great life.

This is a point I here again and again from educated religous people. To this I can only reply:

If you start arguing for the usefulness of a belief you have essentially ceased to argue for its truthfulness. And I care about truth. Even if I don't like it. Especially if I don't like it. I try, to the best of my knowledge and abilities, to base my life decisions on an accurate assessment of reality. In the long run, I have never suffered any harm from it and gained a lot.

For example, both seeing dementia take its course in three cases and reading "Into the silent Land" (about the experiences of a neuro-surgeon) has settled for me that not only there is no "soul" in the religious sense but also no "ghost-in-the-machine" in the secular sense. I'm not depressed by this. Quite the contrary. To borrow from MMM, this has improved my practise of Stoicism. Greatly. Enough to make a difference in my daily life.

I can of course not say how things would have gone for me if I would "lost" any faith and presumably a big part of friends and family along with it. It does however strike me as really unfair count the misfortune of a former member as "points" for that particular faith. In fact I would argue the opposite way: If former Jehovas witnesses have it more difficult and need more therapy than former Buddhists, than my conclusion would be that the former have been subjected to more psychological harm and equipped with less resilience.

One interesting anecdote to finish this:

Ayaan Hirsi Ali tells the story of her sister in her book "Infidel": Being brought up Muslim in Somalia both of them were always considered rebellious. But it was Ayaans sister who always pushed boundaries to the max, disrespected any authority, took vicious beatings for it. etc. Despite severe repercussions she never once weakened in her resolve to live life her way and only her way. Only when finally having arrived in the west and free to live however she wanted did she lose it, break down and was institutionalized. I'm quite sure the sisters' family sees this story as proof that their way to live is right and the infidels made one of their girls literally crazy and turned the other into an atheist crusader.

[domustachesgrowinhouston]

Do you suppose if Jesus had been lynched, people would hang nooses on their wall?  Or if he was beheaded, perhaps an axe?

[sol]

Do you suppose if Jesus had been lynched, people would hang nooses on their wall?  Or if he was beheaded, perhaps an axe?

Be nice. 

People accept the cross as a symbol of redemption and sacrifice, because that's the narrative built around its role in the Bible's version of an execution.  The fact that it was a common torture device thousands of years ago isn't relevant to the modern symbolism.  That's the thing about symbols, they mean whatever people want them to mean.

[GuitarStv]

Not explain or discuss---defend, as in why this theory is correct, i.e. the truth that can never change or be proven wrong now or in the future. Again, I have no issue with asking a student to explain what he has read/studied about the theory or even being required to know the body of facts that support the theory. I just would like for the teacher (any of the ones in our local schools) to admit that this is all we know to date but subject to change. To allow this semblance of doubt--even the idea that we might never know the truth--is not unscientific. It's what causes us to ask "What if?"

All in all, I favor scientific methods, etc. I just don't understand the rigidity attached to a theory by a teacher with a BA who never studied said theory in more than a cursory undergrad reading. It's taking someone's study, calling it true, and teaching others to repeat without question. This approaches the same level of rigidity I see in some Christians who have never examined their faith critically. This is the unwillingness to say "We don't know" that some folks refuse to admit.

You should have complained to the school board.  Asking a student to do this is actually anti-science.  The fundamental tenant of science is that if new evidence is brought forth that renders an old theory obsolete, it is replaced with one that better fits the facts.  That's the mechanism that forces continual improvement.  Without it, you're practising some form of faith based study.

[Simple Abundant Living]

I have often wondered at those who leave the church and become so bitter.

I think I can help explain such "bitterness" (though I don't like the term).

While I have never been religious myself, me being an out and vocal atheist has led to quite a few former religious people share their stories with me. Whether they are "bitter", or lets say confrontational or not is in my experience determined mostly by one factor: How much feelings of guilt, shame and fear were used in their religious upbringing.

Ex-Muslims and Ex-Catholics (the commited kind, not the now common middle European "going to church on Christmas" kind) frequently feel they have been harmed and to a certain extent irreversibly harmed by being guilt-tripped, shamed and made afraid. One has summarized it by "Being Catholic never really goes away...".

   Maybe you say my faith is a delusion, then I would say it's a delusion that gives me a great life.

This is a point I here again and again from educated religous people. To this I can only reply:

If you start arguing for the usefulness of a belief you have essentially ceased to argue for its truthfulness. And I care about truth. Even if I don't like it. Especially if I don't like it. I try, to the best of my knowledge and abilities, to base my life decisions on an accurate assessment of reality. In the long run, I have never suffered any harm from it and gained a lot.

For example, both seeing dementia take its course in three cases and reading "Into the silent Land" (about the experiences of a neuro-surgeon) has settled for me that not only there is no "soul" in the religious sense but also no "ghost-in-the-machine" in the secular sense. I'm not depressed by this. Quite the contrary. To borrow from MMM, this has improved my practise of Stoicism. Greatly. Enough to make a difference in my daily life.

I can of course not say how things would have gone for me if I would "lost" any faith and presumably a big part of friends and family along with it. It does however strike me as really unfair count the misfortune of a former member as "points" for that particular faith. In fact I would argue the opposite way: If former Jehovas witnesses have it more difficult and need more therapy than former Buddhists, than my conclusion would be that the former have been subjected to more psychological harm and equipped with less resilience.

One interesting anecdote to finish this:

Ayaan Hirsi Ali tells the story of her sister in her book "Infidel": Being brought up Muslim in Somalia both of them were always considered rebellious. But it was Ayaans sister who always pushed boundaries to the max, disrespected any authority, took vicious beatings for it. etc. Despite severe repercussions she never once weakened in her resolve to live life her way and only her way. Only when finally having arrived in the west and free to live however she wanted did she lose it, break down and was institutionalized. I'm quite sure the sisters' family sees this story as proof that their way to live is right and the infidels made one of their girls literally crazy and turned the other into an atheist crusader.

@Bitterness.  Like other negative emotions, it is pointless and harmful for the person who feels it.  For example, why should you forgive a drunk driver who killed your loved one?  For your sake more than his.  Carrying around bitterness about past wrongs, real or imagined is only hurting yourself.

@Happiness vs. misfortune.  We all have misfortune in life.  I'm not using my happiness and my brother's unhappiness as a reason I'm right and he's wrong.  (And for the record, he was never beaten or abused by our family or religious teachers.   He has a great relationship with my faithful parents and is devoted to his extended family as well.  I think the example of abusing and subduing girls in Islam is not relevant.)  I'm just observing he is choosing to live his life away from his faith, and he and his family are not happy.  It is anecdotal, but I don't see that his life has gotten better, more fun, more freeing by leaving our religion and its' teachings.  At the end of the day, faith or no faith, you should feel happy with your choices.  I just don't see it with the one example I am using, and that is in my brother's life.

[domustachesgrowinhouston]

Do you suppose if Jesus had been lynched, people would hang nooses on their wall?  Or if he was beheaded, perhaps an axe?

Be nice. 

People accept the cross as a symbol of redemption and sacrifice, because that's the narrative built around its role in the Bible's version of an execution.  The fact that it was a common torture device thousands of years ago isn't relevant to the modern symbolism.  That's the thing about symbols, they mean whatever people want them to mean.

Well put, that was a rather flippant way for me to ask.

2000 years after Jesus died, we still study him, talk about him, and worship him.  No doubt because of who he was and what he did.  But also I wonder if circumstances had been different, would we still know of him.  For example, if circumstances had been different in Germany, perhaps Hitler would have had a very different life and we'd have no knowledge of him, or Ghandi if circumstances had been different in India.

Jesus was crucified.  An absolutely wretched way to spend the last of your time on earth and a method of execution that was typically reserved for "enemy of the state" status people whom the empire wanted to make an example; not usually just for religious fanatics (fanatics from the perspective of Imperial Rome) - John the Baptist was incarcerated and beheaded.  Paul the Apostle was incarcerated and likely not crucified.  Had Jesus not been crucified, would that have made a difference?  Also, the first of the Gospels is thought to be written 30 years after his death - enough time for a major uprising and the return of Roman soldiers,,the sacking of the city, and the destruction of the Jewish temple.  How much did these events add to the notoriety of Jesus?

[domustachesgrowinhouston]

Not explain or discuss---defend, as in why this theory is correct, i.e. the truth that can never change or be proven wrong now or in the future. Again, I have no issue with asking a student to explain what he has read/studied about the theory or even being required to know the body of facts that support the theory. I just would like for the teacher (any of the ones in our local schools) to admit that this is all we know to date but subject to change. To allow this semblance of doubt--even the idea that we might never know the truth--is not unscientific. It's what causes us to ask "What if?"

All in all, I favor scientific methods, etc. I just don't understand the rigidity attached to a theory by a teacher with a BA who never studied said theory in more than a cursory undergrad reading. It's taking someone's study, calling it true, and teaching others to repeat without question. This approaches the same level of rigidity I see in some Christians who have never examined their faith critically. This is the unwillingness to say "We don't know" that some folks refuse to admit.

You should have complained to the school board.  Asking a student to do this is actually anti-science.  The fundamental tenant of science is that if new evidence is brought forth that renders an old theory obsolete, it is replaced with one that better fits the facts.  That's the mechanism that forces continual improvement.  Without it, you're practising some form of faith based study.

Dogma has a way of showing up in both camps.  I try to recognize it for what it is and realize I'm not going to teach something to someone who already knows the truth.  However it may still be possible to learn from them if you can stay open.

[HappyRock]

You just figured out that your parents lied to you about Santa Clause, but your'e still holding out hope for the Tooth Fairy and Easter Bunny?  Wouldn't it be simpler to just accept that adults lied to you and magic isn't real?  Welcome to adulthood.

I thought that was funny too.  As a kid, you're taught about Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, and God.  Then one by one they drop off.  Sorry, there's no Tooth Fairy.  Oh yeah, Easter Bunny, that one's not real either.  Santa Claus, he's a merry, old fantasy.  Oh, but wait, God's real, go ahead and believe in God.

My wife and I decided early on not to propagate these.  Funny thing is, it's so ingrained in our culture, our kid ended up with these beliefs anyway.  We actually caved to having presents from Santa Claus for a couple years because we didn't want to disappoint her.

This is a good point. I think it is natural for everyone to want to believe in God or a beautiful place that we all go when we die. While this may be a possibility, the fact is I can't logically believe that 99% of theistic religions can be wrong, while one is correct. What about all of the other prophets who claimed to have seen god? Why are their gods and beliefs false?

I strongly believe that if the world had modern technology in Joseph Smith's time, his visions of "god" would have been challenged and likely discredited. Maybe Mormonism wouldn't even exist today. This is why I think that new religions will no longer create huge amounts of followers like they have in the past. In our society today, we simply wouldn't accept what all famous prophets claimed with out solid evidence.

For me, I do not follow a specific religion for these reasons :

1. I was not raised in a very religious family.

2. I think differently. It is impossible for me to believe that ONE specific religion is correct with all of the existing questions and conflicts each has.

3. It does not seem logically conceivable that you must believe in "X" religion to go to heaven or reach salvation as many religions claim. If there is an agnostic believer who is a moral, ethical, and a good person, why would they be excluded from heaven if it existed? What if they just didn't want to dedicate their life and faith in something that they didn't know for sure?

4. I personally feel that if you are a happy and successful person you do not need religion in your life. For some people religion means very little to their happiness, plain and simple. A few perfect examples are Warren Buffett and Bill Gates.

[HappyRock]

Since everyone is giving great responses, I also have to ask this question. Since I am very fascinated by the idea of extra-terrestrial life existing : I have always enjoyed the idea that we will find E.T life in the near future.

Do you believe extra-terrestrial life exists in our galaxy? And do you think in the future we could develop star-travel capabilities?

One NASA scientist claims alien life has been found. Other more reliable sources claim we will find E.T life in 20 years.

But this brings on an interesting idea : If intelligent E.T life exists, it is very possible they could be more advanced than us. Isn't it possible that intelligent E.T life could also be using similar technology to find us first?
There are millions of stars that formed and could have developed incredible life long before our Earth did.

Another question is this :

Isn't it as equally logical to think that alien conspiracies are as likely to be true as visions of God and angels? The very basis of E.T life visiting our planet is conceivably possible from what we now know through science. But the visions of gods and angels are not at all. Ironic how the belief in God is 1000 times more socially and culturally acceptable

(No, I do not believe or care for conspiracy theories for the same reasons as religion. There is no solid or concrete evidence that can lead me to make a real conclusion.)

[GuitarStv]

OK, if we're going to go all sci-fi here . . .

First of all, look at the number and mobility of species on Earth.  The most prolific and those most capable of survival in space aren't any kind of higher life form.  We're talking specialized bacteria.  And frankly, the discovery of specialized bacteria that could be extra-terrestrial isn't that exciting.  We already know that some bugs are capable of surviving in the strangest, harshest conditions in every corner of the Earth.  It's not shocking to hear about some surviving a couple hundred miles up.

To recognize life we need to first define and understand what life is.  So far, we suck at doing that.  A virus is not medically defined as being alive.  Fire is not defined as being alive, even though it consumes food, reproduces, and dies.  What if the life form is similar to us, but takes ten thousand years for a heart beat?  What if the life form is pure energy?  Clearly contact with alien life is not going to be like on Star Trek . . . where every species looks like us, communicates the same way, and has decided planet-wide to go with a single jumpsuit outfit.  With something truly alien you're going to be confronted with life wildly different than has ever been seen on Earth.  Odds are high on us simply not recognizing that it's alive . . . but even if we do determine that something's alive . . . how are we planning on communicating with it?  An organism that followed a completely different evolutionary path wouldn't communicate in any way that we recognize.  It wouldn't think similarly to the way we do.  We would have no common ground.  We don't even do a good job at recognizing human intelligence.  How likely is it that we would recognize intelligence in something truly alien.

As far as the question:

"But this brings on an interesting idea : If intelligent E.T life exists, it is very possible they could be more advanced than us. Isn't it possible that intelligent E.T life could also be using similar technology to find us first?"

This is the height of human arrogance really.  It assumes that we can recognize life.  It assumes we can determine intelligence.  It assumes alien life has evolved towards complexity in a similar way to life on Earth.  It assumes that alien life would advance in any way recognizable to us.  It assumes that alien life would have some drive to look for us.

[Lyssa]

@Bitterness.  Like other negative emotions, it is pointless and harmful for the person who feels it.  For example, why should you forgive a drunk driver who killed your loved one?  For your sake more than his.  Carrying around bitterness about past wrongs, real or imagined is only hurting yourself.

Depends on what you mean by "bitterness". Spending each and every day hating, feeling hurt and thinking what could have been if only... Yes, that's hurting yourself.

Being outspoken about what has hurt you (and here: real or imagined does matter) and confronting people who try to convince you to not rock the boat and be nice again is not hurting yourself. Often it's an important part of healing.

That's in fact one of my major issues with Christianity: Turning the other cheek is not healthy. Neither is forgiving no matter what. It's enabling abuse.

I'm not very familiar with Mormonism or and do not know ex-Mormons. But check out what ex-evangelical Christians have to say about accusations of being bitter and unforgiving. And about requesting the abused to forgive their abuser.

And for the record, he was never beaten or abused by our family or religious teachers.   He has a great relationship with my faithful parents and is devoted to his extended family as well.  I think the example of abusing and subduing girls in Islam is not relevant.

I did not mean to imply your brother was abused. It's just a very extreme example of a breakdown occuring just when the cause of problems has disappeared. If you want a gentler example think of having a near miss while driving and starting to shake once you arrive home. The shaking starting at your front door does not mean it is caused by something inside.

I'm just observing he is choosing to live his life away from his faith, and he and his family are not happy. 

It's not his faith any more. That's kind of the point of leaving a religion.

Moving away from the example of your brother as it is not my intention to make assumptions or personally offend you:

That's why having more than one religion or any religion and atheism (each taken seriously and not as a "pretend to believe in god(s) on special days of the year" or "well, I don't really believe, but don't really dis-belief either" kind of version) in a family or marriage is hard on everybody.

The believers see the apostate or the convert a bit as lost sheep in the woods while he or she is equally certain that the others have it all wrong. And no this can not, at least not completely, be resolved by tolerance. In the end most faith based systems deny the apostate access to heaven and his family in the hereafter while atheists are convinced that the hereafter is a cheap trick used to make you obey and pay in the here and now. And that this is the only life you have. Those positions are not reconcilable. The most that can be achieved is peacefully and lovingly ignoring each others belief or lack thereof and possibly have some humor about it. To be alone on one side of the divide is hard.

[HappyRock]

OK, if we're going to go all sci-fi here . . .

First of all, look at the number and mobility of species on Earth.  The most prolific and those most capable of survival in space aren't any kind of higher life form.  We're talking specialized bacteria.  And frankly, the discovery of specialized bacteria that could be extra-terrestrial isn't that exciting.  We already know that some bugs are capable of surviving in the strangest, harshest conditions in every corner of the Earth.  It's not shocking to hear about some surviving a couple hundred miles up.

To recognize life we need to first define and understand what life is.  So far, we suck at doing that.  A virus is not medically defined as being alive.  Fire is not defined as being alive, even though it consumes food, reproduces, and dies.  What if the life form is similar to us, but takes ten thousand years for a heart beat?  What if the life form is pure energy?  Clearly contact with alien life is not going to be like on Star Trek . . . where every species looks like us, communicates the same way, and has decided planet-wide to go with a single jumpsuit outfit.  With something truly alien you're going to be confronted with life wildly different than has ever been seen on Earth.  Odds are high on us simply not recognizing that it's alive . . . but even if we do determine that something's alive . . . how are we planning on communicating with it?  An organism that followed a completely different evolutionary path wouldn't communicate in any way that we recognize.  It wouldn't think similarly to the way we do.  We would have no common ground.  We don't even do a good job at recognizing human intelligence.  How likely is it that we would recognize intelligence in something truly alien.

As far as the question:

"But this brings on an interesting idea : If intelligent E.T life exists, it is very possible they could be more advanced than us. Isn't it possible that intelligent E.T life could also be using similar technology to find us first?"

This is the height of human arrogance really.  It assumes that we can recognize life.  It assumes we can determine intelligence.  It assumes alien life has evolved towards complexity in a similar way to life on Earth.  It assumes that alien life would advance in any way recognizable to us.  It assumes that alien life would have some drive to look for us.

Thanks for the response, I actually agree with most of what you are saying and have thought exactly the same thing. Evolutionary traits will be VERY different in alien life forms, but it is foolish to think that no alien life could evolve to a level of intelligence beyond ours. I think it is VERY logical to think that life exists that EXCEEDS our own species intelligence level. If this is the case, there is a good chance that intelligent E.Ts would have some drive to look for us and question and explore space like we have. I do not have to assume anything to think that far.

Although, my main point was that the possibility of alien interaction is equally as possible as possible as the belief of interaction with some "God" or "Angel". The basis of most religions are from ancient prophet's claims of seeing "God" or "Angels". The basis and theories of alien life contacting us is based on claims made by modern high-ranking scientists and government officials.

The latter is likely the more reliable and believable source, no? A perfect example is this : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tKWElDHhY4

You don't need to watch the entire thing, just simply read the description info. The sixth person on the moon personally admits that there is some type of truth to this.

It almost sounds like you are implying that I assume we could recognize and determine the intelligence of alien life, obviously we can't. I was implying that to think we are the most intelligent and advanced life form ever to be created in our universe isn't rational.

So, Guitar.. let me instead ask : Do you think that other life exists that could have traveled in space even beyond the point at which we have?

To me, assuming the Earth has the most intelligent life in our galaxy is a huge speculation. We simply can not know for sure.

[GuitarStv]

So, Guitar.. let me instead ask : Do you think that other life exists that could have traveled in space even beyond the point at which we have?

The odds seem to point to yes.

We already know that tardigrades can survive temperatures just above absolute zero, tremendous pressures, ionizing radiation, long times without food/water and vacuum.  I'd say that it's a likely bet that some kind of tiny bug has randomly traveled billions of kilometers through space.

As far as contact with some kind of complex life . . . there has been no credible sign of it.  But what I was trying to get across in my previous post is that evolved alien life is likely to be so, well, alien that I'm not sure we would even recognize it as life . . . let alone intelligent life.

[Simple Abundant Living]

Depends on what you mean by "bitterness". Spending each and every day hating, feeling hurt and thinking what could have been if only... Yes, that's hurting yourself.

Being outspoken about what has hurt you (and here: real or imagined does matter) and confronting people who try to convince you to not rock the boat and be nice again is not hurting yourself. Often it's an important part of healing.

That's in fact one of my major issues with Christianity: Turning the other cheek is not healthy. Neither is forgiving no matter what. It's enabling abuse.

Turning the other cheek doesn’t mean allowing someone to hurt you over and over again.  I think you are looking at it like telling someone to forgive an abusive spouse by staying with him.  If someone is abusing you or hurting you, you need to leave.  Now you have a choice.  You can spend the rest of your life unhappy, bitter, and continue to make bad choices.  Or you can reinvent your life and not let past wrongs determine your destiny and decide your future. 

It's not his faith any more. That's kind of the point of leaving a religion.

It is still his faith.  He was asked by church leaders, if he would like to have his records removed and he declined.  He said it is the church of his ancestry and he still wants to be a member of record.

Moving away from the example of your brother as it is not my intention to make assumptions or personally offend you:

I’m not offended. ;)

That's why having more than one religion or any religion and atheism (each taken seriously and not as a "pretend to believe in god(s) on special days of the year" or "well, I don't really believe, but don't really dis-belief either" kind of version) in a family or marriage is hard on everybody.

The believers see the apostate or the convert a bit as lost sheep in the woods while he or she is equally certain that the others have it all wrong. And no this can not, at least not completely, be resolved by tolerance. In the end most faith based systems deny the apostate access to heaven and his family in the hereafter while atheists are convinced that the hereafter is a cheap trick used to make you obey and pay in the here and now. And that this is the only life you have.

Those positions are not reconcilable. The most that can be achieved is peacefully and lovingly ignoring each others belief or lack thereof and possibly have some humor about it. To be alone on one side of the divide is hard.

My church does not have paid clergy.  We all volunteer our time/energy to church positions.  My religion does not make any church leader rich.  My religion also doesn’t believe in the Heaven/Hell distinction common in other religions.  I don’t believe that my brother is going to burn or anything like that in the next life.  It is my belief that the teachings I follow give me peace in this life and eternal life with God in the next. 

If you would like to know more, I encourage you to read about us at Mormon.org.  One of our apostles is a native German, President Dieter F. Uchtdorf.  https://www.lds.org/church/leader/dieter-f-uchtdorf?lang=eng His talks are some of my very favorite.

[Daley]

I'm not going to quote specific posts, but I am going to follow-up to my initial post and respond to a few points from the non-believing crowd.

Yes, I do believe that there is one true religion, it's Judaeo-Christianity, and HaShem has laid out the ground rules for redemption through the blood of lamb, Yeshua (Jesus). I started out with my first post in this thread critically questioning and effectively dismissing much of the modern Christian movement. I also established that there should be no difficulty in reconciling intellect, rational thinking, scientific knowledge and religious belief. Now, for all its flaws, I'm going to defend Judaeo-Christianity as hitting the nail on the one true religion head. These are my brothers and sisters in the faith, after all.

Let's chase down this rational theist hole a bit further. Using the mathematical approach to the statistical probability of a greater architect, and then framing and utilizing the idea that if there is one, the belief system left in place by that architect with its creation will most rationally and predictably reflect what is observable and has been recorded. We must leave as little room as possible for conflict and errancy, as well, as it must also be consistent. Cleaving to the whole Occam's Razor approach to the religions, that leads us to Judaism as being the most scientifically, historically and philosophically consistent of all the known faiths presented. It also opens up the Yeshua question.

This brings us back to Judaism. There needs to be an established case for Yeshua's existence, purpose, and evidence within Judaism to demonstrate the accuracy of the claims made. First, we begin with why the need for a Messiah within Judaism. We must understand that the Jews, desiring to emulate the others in the world cried out for a king, and they were given many... and all of them fell short because they were human. David was the most noble, but even he had feet made of clay, but he established a lineage. A messiah and king was promised and predicted to meet specific requirements, but Judaism has historically had difficulty with the possibility of divinity thrown in, yet to fulfill and complete what is necessary, some level of divinity is a necessity, and doesn't preclude or contradict the preservation of monotheism any more than the Ruach HaKodesh (Holy Spirit) may if approached rationally and with discipline. After all, HaShem is not defined so simply as "just another god", He is the G-d of Words, His existence is supposed to be the foundation of our entire existence. It is said that Torah is the teachings, the Law... the Word of G-d, present from the beginning. Yeshua was the fulfillment of Torah, the Word made flesh.

Within Judaism, we have an established need for a blood sacrifice as an atonement and covering of sin to cleanse us sufficiently of our own blood guilt to be worthy of His presence. We also have an established precedent through Issac for human sacrifice as a potentially suitable blood atonement, though it is established and made clear by HaShem that it is wholly undesirable and a thing that should not be practiced by His people. The innocence is key, but youth does not have the wisdom and authority to take on the burden. Yeshua's blood sacrifice was a necessity to perfect the Yom Kippur atonement to redeem us in our repentance, and to open the faith to all nations. Yeshua did not create a new religion, however, he only espoused the truth and reminded all of the true purpose of Torah: All of the law and the prophets hang upon two commands, to love HaShem with all your heart, soul and mind, and to love your neighbor as yourself. The faith has always been about love, grace and forgiveness since its foundation...

...which brings us to the points made by non-believers dismissing the value of any faith as superstitious and irrelevant simply based on what man has done over the millennia in the name of religion, dogma, faith, and worst of all, the name of G-d and Jesus both. There's two points that need to be addressed here.

1) All of the problems harped upon by those in this thread as being problematic with religion, especially Judaeo-Christianity, are problems with man's teachings. These things are extra-biblical, man-made. You are quite correct in that various religions have been used as a form of social control. No denying of that. However, it's quite obvious that even a faith founded upon love has had a majority of its followers completely miss the point of the faith itself, and instead utilize it to fuel and justify hate, wickedness and lord superiority over others to condemn those who are not like them and cast them away. This is not the teachings of that faith, and Yeshua said as much when He made it clear that not everyone who professes His name will be known in the Kingdom.

2) Anyone who dismisses another's faith and beliefs as superstitious garbage based solely on the actions and deeds of wicked men within that faith do not hold the higher moral ground in the argument. Anyone in their self-styled pronouncements of personal judgment and prejudice against a faith are just as guilty of the exact same wickedness that is dismissed as being an abomination deserving of abandonment by a more enlightened mankind. I wholly agree with the idea of not feeding that sort of behavior, so I point this hypocrisy out in your own beliefs from a place of love and concern, not rancor. Your condemnation is not an action performed out of love, but out of hatred and a fear of the unknown, and it is necessary to denounce that and simply allow truth to lead us if we are to try and truly make the world a better place.

It's not that I don't appreciate science, I quite appreciate it, its methods, and the truths it can help us to see. That said, scientific theory requires just as much faith in the unknown as it does in the known and repeatable, just like a religion. However, most people steeped in the religion of science fail to see and understand the value and purpose of faith due to their perspective in the bigger picture, just as badly as science frequently gets swept under the carpet and abused within the faith. You are so focused on the past and present in its analysis, you fail to see that faith is a thing that looks forward to the future, not the past. It is supposed to be a thing of hope and love, and to criticize what you do not understand or comprehend is a fool's errand. Just as science addresses the physical, it struggles with the philosophical just as much as religion can fail at addressing the physical while demonstrating an understanding of the philosophical.

Much like free will, emotions are things that science has a hard time defining and articulating... to say nothing of the heated debate within the community on these topics and the interpretation of the data that can be gathered in efforts to define them. There's valid criticisms to the "no free will because MRIs and science told us so" camp, and I think the interpretation of the data kind of misses the point that we are ultimately what we practice the most, and that we choose what we practice.

As to Sol's, "Do you believe in ghosts and werewolves?" line, I could counter with an equally snide retort of, "Well, as a man of science, does that mean you believe in time travel and parallel universes?" Unfortunately, this sort of combative dismissal of beliefs doesn't advance the discussion or broaden understanding any, and is designed only to deliberately insult the intelligence of those you disagree with. However, I respect and have a fondness for Sol all the same, so I will answer the question from my place of humble understanding as it ties into an interesting line of thought that has unfolded with the whole, "Are we smart enough to recognize extra-terrestrial life?" question.

I cannot discount the possibility of what you and society would label "ghosts". There's currently estimated at least seven higher dimensions of existence and creation that we simply cannot interact with due to the restrictions of our temporal universe and our lives. The math seems to dictate their rational presence, and the Relativity buffs have faith that these higher planes exist even without physical evidence that can be directly observed. If we're having such a lively debate about how we could even be capable of recognizing alien life within our own observable universe, what about the possibility of life and intelligence that may exist outside our own three-dimensional universe? Odds are, if they exist, they may have the capacity to bridge dimensions as well and poke into our reality. It seems reasonable that a divine architect that is described as "I Am" would exist as such. Does that mean I go around buying into the whole Scooby Doo level of ghost reports and beliefs? Of course not! It's pretty safe to assume that most all that stuff is bunk. However, it is the absolute peak of mankind's hubris to deny the possibility of life in places we cannot observe or dismiss anything that cannot be easily explained.

As for werewolves? Depends on how you define a werewolf. Are we just talking a genetic chimera of man and wolf, or are we talking the full-on full moon howling transformation and silver bullet killable werewolf? The latter is fairytale fodder, but the last time I checked, man's ability to spindle and mutilate the building blocks of life is more than capable of creating some sort of human-wolf genetic hybrid. Do I think it's been done? Most likely not, but we cannot discount the possibility of such a creature ever existing in a world that now has spider goats.

My belief and understanding of these things are not blind, they are built upon and limited to the full scope of scientific understanding... just as they should be.

Understand, non-believers, that I am not necessarily telling you that you're wrong about a majority of your conclusions about man's religions, you're quite spot on... especially in a world where Christianity on a whole is at its peak of hypocrisy. However, it is not the faith or the G-d... it is what people are doing and more importantly not doing with the faith that is the problem. This doesn't surprise me, as it's taken on a lot of baggage over the years with several denominational schisms and out-there religions that have borrowed the terminology. After all, a majority of what passes as G-d and Jesus believing Christianity in the modern world is little more in genuine practice than anti-semitic supersessionism, tarted up polytheistic Babylonian sun worship, and tales of ascension to godhood through secret handshakes and practices so that you too can have sex with another god/goddess from your church to create an entire civilization to worship you after your first death. This isn't to say that there cannot or will not be those genuinely saved within these ranks as only HaShem knows what is in the hearts of men, but going by the criteria laid out for salvation in contrast to the doctrine preached, a grave concern rooted in love for these people does present itself.

I would encourage anyone here who doesn't understand the need and purpose of faith or the value of Christianity to consider giving Leo Tolstoy's The Kingdom of God Is Within You: Christianity Not as a Mystic Religion but as a New Theory of Life a read. It's in the public domain and free to access. If you're confident enough in your conclusions and beliefs, then there's no harm in challenging and refining them. It's a good read that goes quickly, and might give you a bit more depth of understanding to the faith than what you currently hold.