How can you justify this? In case anyone missed the point, how can you believe in something so new, so fervently?
Because humans don't live too long.
What's the alternative?
>>801605
Why does there have to be an alternative? Is all the war and hatred we have today with the multiple religious institutions worth a simple alternative?
This chart was made by a retard
>Humans are 5 million years old
>Not to scale
>No dates or definitions of "modern religion" and "recorded history." History of whom? What religion?
If this was made by a person with a brain they might note that evidence of religion exists tens of thousands of years before the earliest documented historical records. I'm not even a christfag but this is ridiculous to an upsetting degree
>>801700
>wanting to argue semantics and not the idea behind the words.
Read between the lines, retard.
>10,000 years matters on a scale of multiple millions
Kek.
>>801587
>gravity has been only discovered during the late medieval ages so I suppose it doesn't exist
You can disregard religion because of the lack of direct evidences, or just personal preferences, but denying it based upon when it was discovered is a really retarded thing to do.
>>801717
Again, how is it on a scale of multiple millions when the oldest remains of homo sapiens were dated as having existed approximately 200,000 years ago?
>>801726
>but denying it based upon when it was discovered is a really retarded thing to do.
Not at all. Gravity is observable, it can be proven. That's an idiotic relation.
When talking about something about our existence our purpose of being, the only thing which could be believed without any doubt would be something which has been with us, for as long as we can remember.
How does it make sense to believe in something which tells us where we came from, but is no way even near as old as we are ourselves? Especially when said 'thing' can't be proven, or even tested.
>>801717
He's right about it not being to scale though. That gives a false sense of a loner time without religion.
>>801717
Not that anon, but 99% of the human social and technological development was done in the last 10.000 years.
500 years of modern history weights as much as 100.000s of years of unrecorded history concerning the advancement of the human history (or at least as we know).
>>801746
>homo sapiens are the first 'humans'
kek.
>>801770
Technological advancement has nothing to do with modern day religious faith though.
>>801767
I am pretty sure if it were to scale it would look exactly the same, if not worse. I have CAD and decided to not make it to scale because modern day religion is only a few thousand years old and would be indistinguishable from 'now' on a scale of millions.
>>801748
Yes, gravity is observable, that's why I wrote that you should base your decisions on physical evidences rather than the time of said things discovery, you pretentious fuckwit.
How the fucking hell did you pull out of your arse that religion is a recent thing? Even remote uncontacted tribes have solid religious beliefs, people could've been worshipping rocks and trees 500.000 years ago as much as we know.
>the only thing which could be believed without any doubt would be something which has been with us, for as long as we can remember
As far as I know, during all of the recorded history people were worshipping gods and believing in an afterlife. You are either a really bad troll, or a plain illiterate idiot.
>>801792
>Technological advancement has nothing to do with modern day religious faith though.
When did I said it has?
I was talking about the importance of relatively short time periods in the history of mankind, which may as well be measured by the technological and social advancement. Learn to read, you dumb manchild. And make no mistake, social development has a fucking ton to do with religon.
>>801822
>How the fucking hell did you pull out of your arse that religion is a recent thing?
Religion is extremley recent. What the fuck? our species has been around for millions of years, modern religion has been in existence for barely even 100,000 years. It's entirley relevant, it's what the whole fucking point is, something you refuse to simply answer.
>As far as I know, during all of the recorded history people were worshipping gods and believing in an afterlife. You are either a really bad troll, or a plain illiterate idiot.
So where are they now? You understand it explicitly, EXPLICITLY, states MODERN RELIGION?
>or a plain illiterate idiot.
:^)
>Even remote uncontacted tribes have solid religious beliefs, people could've been worshipping rocks and trees 500.000 years ago as much as we know.
And that is besides the point, since people don't fucking do that anymore, since we gained sense. Holy shit.
>or a plain illiterate idiot.
>or a plain illiterate idiot.
>or a plain illiterate idiot.
>>801836
Technological advancement =/= social development though.
>When did I said it has?
When you bought it up as an attempt to refute something which has nothing to do with the argument at hand.
OP here, it would seem you guys cannot even jusity your new-born beliefs, instead you just want to attack the argument in anyway you can (even though that's a fallacy).
Thanks for a fun thread. I will have to save this image.
>>801587
>modern religion
as opposed to what, primitive religion? would today's religions be more believable to you if they were older? how much older? not really sure what you're driving at here OP.
>>801855
Again, I never said that technological development is the same as social development. Your lack of ability concerning the basic understanding of simple words manifests yet again.
>>801842
Define what do you call modern religion.
And tell me how do you know that this 'modern religion' has only existed in the last 100.000 years?
I see now that what you want to talk about is faith. And faith has nothing to do with churches or official religions, faith is a personal approach to the very behaviour of our world, and to the world that lies behind the curtain which we call death.
This pursuit of greater answers has been part of the human psyché since as long as humanity remembers, and has been greatly influenced by the technological and social environment of the individual.
>>801916
Don't even bother, OP proved to be a colossal faggot who has been a target to many jests concerning his mental capacity in this thread, which casted great sadness upon him and caused him to retreat from this plain.
>>801916
Again, why can't you simply answer the question?
It would make a lot more sense if we were still beliving in say pagan gods, or trees and rocks like our primitive ancestors did. But we are not doing that anymore, that's literally the point. Faith changes over years, how can you believe in something so new when for millions of years (potentially) humans have believed with the same degree as you have, maybe even more, in other things?
How can you justify your faith? You have pretty much said every other religion or belief over the millions of years of our existence (along with the multiple iterations of the modern religions over the years) is wrong, but you are right.
I will name a religion now for the sake of argument, it has nothing to do with my actual belief or this argument at hand, it's for arguments sake only.
Go back a thousand years and Christians and their faith is very different to what it is today, were they wrong and you guys are right? (even if you don't believe in the christian god it's a question worth thinking about, remeber that they thought they were right in their faith, like you do).
Sorry if there are spelling errors, I have no spell check and I haven't had enough coffee.
Your drawing is nonsense, religion has existed for as long as humans have.
>>801587
It's literally insane. Start with one breeding human pair just 50,000 years ago, and at any population rate....any population rate....there will be an infinite number of people on the planet.
Plug in 3 breeding pairs 4600 years ago, at known population growth rates, and you get 7 million people on earth right now.
>>801974
>that was my first post in the thread man, simmer down.
I like how that's the point you decided to tackle.
>>801948
A thousand years ago, Christians believed that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, Who paid the sin debt of humanity, and rose from the dead.
Same today. Exactly the same.
>>801981
>Exactly the same.
Sure, the most basic point stayed the same. Almost everything else changed around it though.
>inb4 it doesn't matter
It really does. If you can change other things inside the book, how is it relevant at all?
> Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar.
> You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God that I command you.
> “Everything that I command you, you shall be careful to do. You shall not add to it or take from it.
>>801977
honestly I didn't read the rest of it because it sounded like a continuation of the screeching match OP was having with the other poster. I was just trying to find out what the fuck OP was talking about in his original post.
>>802013
Why even post in a thread if you are willing to remain ignorant?
Just fuck off.
>>802018
well I guess because I was under the mistaken impression that there were people discussing things in a way that would make it possible to learn something. failing that, I thought maybe I could figure out what OP was talking about.
then >>801948 happened, the first line of which made it clear that the poster thought I was someone else. the posts between the two posters did not leave me with the impression of "gosh I could relieve my ignorance and learn something by reading these posts." instead I had more an impression of "these people are just talking past each other and they're both upset." I thought I could at least relieve the confusion by making it known that I was not the person they seemed to think they were replying to.
sorry for the misunderstanding.
>>802057
>thought I was someone else.
Kek, I made that post. Stop projecitng, you are simply doing what everyone else has done in this thread, shy'd away from the point and attacked the way the point was presented.
It's not like OP literally post his point in his second sentence leading to the fact that you didn't even fucking read OP. Fuck off. You still haven't even approched the point. Stop posting.
>>802006
Nothing in the bible changed either. It just got translated into English.
You should have picked Mithraism, or some other pagan religion that changes every time the wind blows.
>>801587
You present a lie, and then ask us how we can believe such a small part of your lie so fervently.
You are, in all sense of the word, a fool. And your worldview is that of a fool.
Jesus
Adam & Eve
Day Six
>>802165
>we still stone women for pre-marital sex
>>802181
Oh, I'm sorry, are we Hebrews living under God's rule in the Promised Land 3500 years ago?
No?
Then wtf are you babbling about?
>>802199
>missing the part where god says that his word is law and you must do as he says and not take or detract from it
>this is why I didn't want to name any religion, yet used a term "modern"
Fuck you retards are easy to read.
>>802205
That you cannot tell the difference between the Old and New Covenant is why you should not have started any religious thread, or posted in one, ever.
>>802239
The fact that this is entirely besides the point is why you shouldn't be breathing.
>dodging the point about changing the bible
>>801587
Do you not know what faith means?
>>802242
First off, your idiotic example isn't even in the bible.
Second off, the parts that were in the bible a thousand years ago, are still there.
Finally, because you have zero clue what the bible says, keep your filthy mitts off of it. Go fap to furry porn or whatever you people do.
>>802264
When it comes down to it, there is a leap of faith to believe that must be made, without any evidence at all.
>>802268
God is not human, that he should lie,
not a human being, that he should change his mind.
Does he speak and then not act?
Does he promise and not fulfill?
So Samuel said to him, "The LORD has torn the kingdom of Israel from you today and has given it to your neighbor, who is better than you. 29"Also the Glory of Israel will not lie or change His mind; for He is not a man that He should change His mind." 30Then he said, "I have sinned; but please honor me now before the elders of my people and before Israel, and go back with me, that I may worship the LORD your God."…
They will perish, but you remain;
they will all wear out like a garment.
Like clothing you will change them
and they will be discarded.
But you remain the same,
and your years will never end.
Christianity is not the point of this argument, but I understand it better than you do.
>>801608
>Is all the war and hatred we have today with the multiple religious institutions worth a simple alternative?
if you actually knew Jack or shit about military history, you'd know that all war is caused by a desire for more resources, be they land, slaves, or what have you.
saying that religion is responsible for war is like saying that propaganda is responsible for war -- sure, it can be used to help aid a narrative and sell propaganda, but the causus Belli is ultimately materialistic.
>>802303
Shinto was used to mobilize the masses, hence why it is banned today.
Kony is fighitng on gods side, LRA literally stands for Lord's Resistance Army.
Where did I say all war was caused by religion, like you stated I did? I simply didn't. But there are many, many wars fought today with the sole purpose being religious.
>>801776
you get into retard land when you go that far back.
you might as well extend "human" history back 4.5 billion years to extend to our retarded fish frog ancestors, and to their monocellular forebears as well.
the degrees of physiological and behavioural difference would be just the same...
>>802175
>Day Six
Right but if you know this much then you should know better than to cast pearls before swine.
>>802315
>all war
never said that
>Shinto was used to mobilize the masses
Shinto is not illegal.
also, by this logic, posters of buck toothed animalistic gooks caused WWII.
>mobilize
you started with "cause" you filthy and intellectually dishonest nigger.
I agree that religion can mobilize...it's naught but another grand form of propaganda...but to imply that it actually is the cause of any war at all, when all biases and illusions are stripped away, is idiocy with an obvious ideological bend to it.
>>802315
>hence why it is banned today
It is not banned today. State Shinto was dismantled following the Japanese defeat but the belief that constitutes what we perceive as Shinto exists today, and existed for at least the last 1500 years. In fact, Shinto only became a "Religion" when it was divorced from Buddhist belief to oppose Tokugawa state Buddhism, and then later expanded to create a nationalized , mobilizing force. It never existed as a distinct religion until that moment, and yet it still exists today as a religious institution. I am sorry but you are wrong in saying that.
>>802334
Next you will be telling me the crusades were not done in the lords name.
Are you really telling me the masses who mobilzed under the belief of Shinto, a fuck tonne of them, did so knowing full well they were being manipulated? It's propoganda at the high level, the people who it affects though do not see it as propoganda, that's the fucking point, they buy it, they believed Shinto would unite all nations under one rule, the people that is.
Are you actually that retarded?
>>801587
1. Mankind is not several million years old. Of course, everything depends on the definition of "human", but optimistic estimations only pick ~400 000 years.
2. Truth is eternal. The fact that our retarded ancestors didn't know the truth doesn't mean that we're wrong. If modern religion has the truth, then the fact that it is so recent doesn't matter at all. In the same way, the fact that Einstein's relativity was known for no more than a century doesn't disprove it. Einstein's relativity was true even 400 000 years ago when human beings didn't even know anything about basic mathematics.
>>802347
not him, but religion was not the cause of the pacific war, friend. Even in the Crusades, religion is only one lens through which you can view them.
>>802347
>Are you really telling me the masses who mobilzed under the belief of Shinto, a fuck tonne of them, did so knowing full well they were being manipulated?
nah, bro. I'm saying that it doesn't matter what the plebian low masses actually think about the war.
sure, the filthy yellow gook hordes did their war for amaterasu and their god-emperor, and the Frank killed filthy Saracens for the glory of Christ's vicar, but without these religious narratives, the wars themselves still had materialistic causi bellii, and had the religious propaganda not existed, some other form of propaganda would have stepped in to fill the void.
humans are limited by the real material world around them...their memes are simply things they make up to rationalise the material world. that is, if my neighbour has $100 and I want to rob him, it's arbitrary whether God tells me to, or whether I justify it with secular morality -- I'm still gonna make him break his shit and gimme his goddamn money.
>>802383
This, a thousand times this
>>802373
>truth
>>802967
OP asked this: "how can you believe in X?"
"To believe in X" very precisely means "to think that X is the truth".
So yes, if someone believes in X, this person thinks that X is the truth. Therefore, OP's question is about the nature of truth.
If X is a metaphysical truth as some people think it is, then it means that X was always true, independently from the fact that in the past noone knew about it. So this fact is perfectly tolerable for people who think that X is truth. For them, this fact doesn't mean that X is false; it only means that in the past people didn't know the truth. And this opinion is perfectly coherent with itself, even though it is impossible to prove that X is the truth.
Therefore, OP's argument against X is moot.
And what I just said works for any X, whether it is modern day religion or Einstein's relativity.
>>802373
You are using theories which can be tested as examples for your idea which cannot be tested. It means literally nothing.
>The fact that our retarded ancestors didn't know the truth doesn't mean that we're wrong.
So yes, you are literally saying possible millions of years worth of theology is wrong and your few thousand year old religion is correct, see how that doesn't logically compute? Why are you right and their practices wrong, I guess is the next choice. Hard mode, answer the question without referencing the bible.
>>803206
>choice
Question*
>>803206
I really don't understand your counterargument. I'm not saying that X is true, I'm only saying that it cannot be decided. If X is true (and we don't know yet if that's the case or not, since OP is trying to prove that it's not), THEN the fact that our ancestors didn't know that and were wrong is not at all a contradiction, so OP's argument is not enough to prove that X is false. Of course, it doesn't mean either that X isn't false. But if X is false, then the reason why X is false is another reason than what OP said.
Also, notice that I never referenced the Bible.
>>803403
>Also, notice that I never referenced the Bible.
You didn't even approach the question though. Especially not the original question in the context of theology.
>>803419
What is your question exactly? I'll gladly try to answer it.
>>803427
You can read the thread. It's pretty straightforward.
>>803419
To extend my answer a bit: I'm not saying that christians (for example) are right, I'm just saying that the age of a theory has no incidence on its truth value (true or false). A very young theory can very well be true, and a very old one (a hundred times older than christianism, for example) can very well be false. Of course, it is also possible that an old theory is true and that a young one is false.
>>803445
Why should I read the whole thread when you can write your whole question in a single sentence?
>>801587
Indoctrination from childhood.
>>801973
Are you literally retarded.
>>803474
I answered the exact OP's question in the following posts:
>>802373
>>803042
>>803403
Again, I don't say christians are right, but they do have reasons to think they are, even though you certainly too have reasons to think they're not, and in the end only sensation of evidence chooses which argument is the best.
Now, why do they believe they're right? Well, there are many answers to that question, since each individual has a different one. Let's try a very quick list of possible reasons to be christian:
- It is possible to have felt a very strong connexion to the divine through christianism. That is a mystic experience, which doesn't have anything to do with rationality, but is nonetheless very undiscutable and sufficiently justifies being christian. Many possible rational explanations are possible for such an experience; some tell that it is just an illusion, but others admit that it could really mean something, and it is impossible to decide about it by reason alone, so feeling wins in the end.
- It is possible for a christian to have lived some more concrete experiences that convinced him that christianism must be true. For example, it happened when some people saw saints and were astonished by their humanity. The actions of a saint man can very well create awe in such a way that some observators will convert themselves.
- It is possible to entirely adhere by reason alone to a philosophical demonstration from a christian thinker, such as Thomas Aquinas. Of course, there are many more, not all of them say the same thing, and some of them entirely agree with modern day science.
- It is possible to be convinced by arguments directed towards skeptics, such as Pascal's wager. The fact that you are not convinced by this argument or other similar arguments doesn't mean that other people can't find them rationally sound and effective. Maybe you think these arguments are wrong, but these people still think they work.
- Other reasons that I didn't think about.
>>803555
I don't care what you think 'they' thinks, if you aren't religious these questions simply are not for you. I want YOU to justify YOUR beliefs and tell me why YOU think YOU are right. Something no one ITT has done.
Hell I would fucking take;
>I saw a ghost and it looked like baby Jesus so now I believe.
>>803602
Well, that looks a bit like an ad hominem. I mean, you cannot not whether what I believe unless I say it clearly. What if I believed in what I described? According to what you just said, it would make my answer valid. It's sad since its actual content wouldn't have change. Why do you change your opinion depending on the person who spoke, rather than on what was told?
>>803630
sorry, I meant "you cannot know what I believe"... not "cannot not whether what I believe"
