The greatest trick that religions ever pulled was to pretend that the central religious question is "does God exist"?
Actually, from a societal point of view, that question doesn't have much to do with anything. The real question is: "Did God interact with the physical world to found a religion?"
Christians and atheists shouldn't be arguing about God, they should be arguing about whether Jesus had supernatural powers.
>>389146
This is actually a good point.
>>389146
But every religion I'm aware of answers the second question in the affirmative, that the God or Gods they worship affect the world with explicit supernatural actions.
That's viewed as secondary to the "Does God exist" because the usual evidence advanced for God's existence rests on these miracles, which, if believed, demonstrate an affirmative answer to both questions.
Satan pls
Joseph Campbell would be really sad about this thread.
>>390821
Joseph Campbell is overrated
manifestations of God in everyday living. If God is defined as something greater than you or humanity as a whole. Then the existence of God is plausible.
>>391757
>If God is defined as something greater than you or humanity as a whole. Then the existence of God is plausible.
Are bacteria God?
>>389146
What is there to argue about though?
There is no evidence that Jesus had supernatural powers. Not much to discuss.
>>390840
How so?
Surely the central question is "Does religion have beneficial social effects?"
Why should religion involve supernatural phenomenom anyway?
Marxism and progressivism are clearly religious by nature, and yet the only concession they make to divine intervention is how they always believe that History is on their side.
>>392421
I think civilization is a beneficial social effect.
Some people may disagree.
>>391757
you can define God any way that you want to make a point, but it will never prove the existence of God.
Every religion starts with a charismatic leader who assumes that he has been given authority by God to rule. No one questions the existence of God, just the authority of the man at the top.
>jesus
pic related
>jesus
picture related
>jesus
photo related
>jesus
image related
Yes, religious people have always been notorious skeptics. I see what you mean.
>>392540
Gotta love atheists arguing over their own narratives and memes
>>389146
>Christians and atheists shouldn't be arguing about God, they should be arguing about whether Jesus had supernatural powers.
And the only source of "evidence" for Jesus' supernatural powers is the Bible, which is a book and a myth you have to believe in the first place, so it's not really any different than debating the question of god's existence.
What if God is the biggest troll in the entire existence of the universe. who only displays himself when founding religions and then makes Himself scarce to start flame wars?
>Actually, from a societal point of view, that question doesn't have much to do with anything. The real question is: "Did God interact with the physical world to found a religion?"
Well, deists don't really consider themselves "religious" and tend to ally with agnostics and atheists on issues like secularism. So yeah.
>>392792
Even Richard Dawkins isn't into Christ myth theory. They're a minority among atheists.
Rejecting the supernatural? No! Atheists should exclusively talk about the existence of the Christian God, that's what smart people do.
>>392240
He can't give you an answer. That's all I ever hear about people that deal with comparative mythology is that they're "overrated". I think it disturbs people to think about the underlying similarities among people that only want to stress our differences.
OP would not have even started this thread if he had read a single book on comparative religion. Take your pick. It doesn't have to be Joseph Campbell, even though he's one of the biggest authorities on the subject. Try Mircea Eliade on for size.
>>392461
Depends on how you define "religion".
Communism, like fascism, has a grand historical narrative of triumph over malicious forces due to its Hegelian ancestry. It has dogmatic elements common with some religions. Objectivism can be held as a third vertex of the secular religious triangle. However, these aspects familiar with Westerners aren't really common to many Asian or American Indian religious traditions. Political ideologies may have replaced many function of religion in the 20th century, but this doesn't make them religious themselves, and I feel cutting out the supernatural element demeans what the word "religion" signifies.
>progressivism
>the only concession they make to divine intervention is how they always believe that History is on their side.
The idea of progress is inherent to virtually all modern political beliefs. Even conservatives and liberals tacitly endorse it through technological and economic progress, and their glorification of events like the American revolution. While liberalism certainly has the "grand narrative" in common with the aforementioned ideologies, I think confirmation bias and epistemic closure is making you a little short sighted in that you focus purely on the similarities leftist politics have in common with religious movements. Historical determinism is not necessarily divine or supernatural in any way, religious predestination was just the oldest form of belief in it.
>>393061
>Even conservatives and liberals tacitly endorse it
I meant to say "conservatives and libertarians"
>>392792
This is simply a typical comment from idiotic religious people who can't quite grasp not being religious isn't in itself some kind of religion.
Atheism has no doctrine and certainly no agreed on set of "narratives and memes".
