Why is believing in something implausible necessary?

[man]

Why must you believe in something absurd to be a religious person? It seems that this is a common characteristic of all religions. Why couldn't there be a religion where you don't have to believe anything eccentric? Why wouldn't a religion where you don't have to believe anything unbelievable work? Is it necessary to have faith in something you know is nuts to secure a bond?

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 1 by man]

From dictionary.com:

religion

a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

By the very definition of religion it involves a set of beliefs. From a skeptic's point of view, it's absurd to believe in anything that cannot be shown to be true. So your question is kind of redundant to a skeptic. A believer will not see it as absurd because they believe in the beliefs for whatever reason.

At the end of the day, you end up with a debate over what 'absurd' means.

Feel free to try and create a religion that does not involve absurd beliefs. Maybe you'll get some converts

[ttruscott]

Why must you believe in something absurd to be a religious person? It seems that this is a common characteristic of all religions. Why couldn't there be a religion where you don't have to believe anything eccentric? Why wouldn't a religion where you don't have to believe anything unbelievable work? Is it necessary to have faith in something you know is nuts to secure a bond?

There is always the choice between existentialism and modern buddhism/taoism...

And, to the Christian mind, our own sinfulness is the cause of our understanding being so distorted that the truth seems to us to be undeniably implausible...as written in Roman 1.

[Divine Insight]

And, to the Christian mind, our own sinfulness is the cause of our understanding being so distorted that the truth seems to us to be undeniably implausible...as written in Roman 1.

The problem with this is that there is no rational reason to believe the writings of Paul.

Paul also claimed that people are 'without excuse' for not believing. So he's not even being consistent. In fact, I would say that he's being extremely self-contradictory in most of his claims.

We have no more reason to believe what Paul has to say than anything else. Paul claims that we have "Turned against God". I know that's a false accusation being made toward me. Therefore I know for certain that Paul has no clue what he's talking about.

The only people who can possibly think that Paul has a clue would be people who believe that they have indeed turned against God and lust after evil. Since that description doesn't fit me I can see that Paul wasn't telling the truth.

[man]

[Replying to post 3 by ttruscott]

I am more interested in the psychology then I am in the excuses in the bible that allow you to deny reality, but I do find your pathology fascinating.

[man]

[Replying to post 2 by benchwarmer]

By the very definition of religion it involves a set of beliefs, but WHY do the beliefs need to be in conflict with reality?

[ttruscott]

[Replying to post 3 by ttruscott]

I am more interested in the psychology then I am in the excuses in the bible that allow you to deny reality, but I do find your pathology fascinating.

It is ordinary Christianity so pathology is way over the line...

[ttruscott]

[Replying to post 2 by benchwarmer]

By the very definition of religion it involves a set of beliefs, but WHY do the beliefs need to be in conflict with reality?

You seem to be fondling only one part of the elephant and believing that it represents the whole - a trunk is not an elephant. Your reality does not define the truth.

[man]

[Replying to post 2 by benchwarmer]

By the very definition of religion it involves a set of beliefs, but WHY do the beliefs need to be in conflict with reality?

You seem to be fondling only one part of the elephant and believing that it represents the whole - a trunk is not an elephant. Your reality does not define the truth.

Yes I am fondling only one part of the elephant, but I do not believe that it represents the whole. The one part of the elephant I am curious about is very very simple, why does religion ask you to believe in implausible things? So far the responses have shed no light on that one very simple question. I have some ideas myself, but I did not want to express what I think until I hear from others.

[ttruscott]

[Replying to post 2 by benchwarmer]

By the very definition of religion it involves a set of beliefs, but WHY do the beliefs need to be in conflict with reality?

You seem to be fondling only one part of the elephant and believing that it represents the whole - a trunk is not an elephant. Your reality does not define the truth.

Yes I am fondling only one part of the elephant, but I do not believe that it represents the whole. The one part of the elephant I am curious about is very very simple, why does religion ask you to believe in implausible things? So far the responses have shed no light on that one very simple question. I have some ideas myself, but I did not want to express what I think until I hear from others.

Cute, but I was suggesting that the implausible is just as real as that which is plausible except for your lack of experience.