Do we need Religion (Mythologies)?

[boatsnguitars]

One has to admire the Cognitive Dissonance of the Believer. I was thinking about how Christians will vilify and mock other religions; will call them mythology or fairy tales - then offer their own mythology as the alternative - as Truth. It must be exhausting. I know I was exhausted when I was a Christian trying to explain why the Flood in Genesis was True, but not the Greek tales. It took a specific mental gymnastic they taught me in Sunday School: If it's in the Bible, it's True, otherwise, it's a ruse by Satan!

And it always struck me how upset Christians get when I now tell them their religion is no different than all the others. How they get upset when I mock it, ridicule it, or say how worthless it is. Yet, Christians do this in spades when talking about other people's religions.

For example:
https://answersingenesis.org/world-reli ... us-christ/

Have a read through. See how the Christian carefully explains that the Greek religion was all 'just stories' but the Bible is the true word of God - while they are talking about just as fanciful tales as the Greeks told!

The kicker for me is this "Oh-so-close-you-almost-had-a-self-awareness" moment when he ends his piece:

How indeed can we expect people to understand and accept what the Bible teaches about a crucified and risen Lord if we fail to build the foundation for them to accept the Bible’s teachings about the Creator God, the one to whom we are accountable? How can they fully appreciate the suffering Savior who “was wounded for our transgressions,” who was “bruised for our iniquities” and by whose “stripes we are healed” (Isaiah 53:5) if their understanding of the origin of sin and suffering has no more truth in it than the tale of the curious Pandora who unleashed all the suffering that haunts the world?

How can they understand that the Son of God, the man Jesus Christ, was “the last Adam [who] became a life-giving spirit” if they do not believe that “the first Adam became a living being” (1 Corinthians 15:45)? Let us not lose sight of the importance of building a biblical worldview among those who are deceived by the popular lies of molecules-to-man evolution. We need to teach them the truth about our Creator.

It's almost as if he's asking himself: "How can I believe these crazy stories in Genesis if I'm not brainwashed into believing the the Christian mythology is true?"

The point is, I don't know why Christians can't see how their mythology is no different than other mythologies in history. Yes, I believed it at one point when I was young - because it was taught as truth - but just like Santa Claus, I grew to understand how adults make up lies in a misguided effort to either help or control people - or both.

What stuns me is the number of seemingly sober adults who will mock the ancient Greeks for believing Zeus had a hand in some event, then will claim God acts in some other event. They don't realize they are doing exactly the same thing, with the same level of Faith.

It has been said that there are a few things one can do to realize the truth of religion (all religion):
1. Actually read the religious texts with full understanding.
2. Study/Compare religions
3. Read about mythology and how it operates.
4. Understand fallacies, and how the brain often tricks us into thinking certain things.
5. Simply observing

However, I bet many Religionists would say they've done those things and still believe their mythology is the one, true mythology.

What methods have people seen that works to get through to Religious people?
Should we try? (Is it moral?)
Should we let them believe whatever they want, even if it means they could harm people? (That is, we could arrest them for not taking their kids to the doctor, or beating up gay people - but don't we have a responsibility to stop the ideology? And, not just acute acts of violence, but religious people - by far - deny Climate Change, and vote against policies that would help mitigate it).
Should we be subversive (join churches and plant seeds, or lead Bible Study groups)?

What advice would a Christian give to persuade other religious believers to stop beleiving in their religion? (I imagine they think getting them to read the Bible would work, but that's been tried and failed far more than it's worked. Likewise, Muslims believe their text is persuasive).

Imagine you have met a sincere believer in Greek Mythology and he has perfect Apologetics. What could or would you say to convince them they were wrong - or would you? I imagine a Muslim or Christian would use the threat of Hell, or try to persuade them that Jesus really loves them - so "C'mon!".

This is not a strange question among Christians. They actively seek to convert people. They have vast organizations to try to get people to join their religion. They have Missionaries, out-reaches, etc. Some of it works, but overall, Christianity is in decline.

"Nones" are the fastest growing religious group. Perhaps because people are too informed to believe in Bronze Age mythologies - they now have other mythologies to latch on to. Or, they are comfortable knowing mundane truths. Or, comfortable not knowing and not caring about the Meaning of Life, and if there is an Afterlife, etc.

There is, after all, a beauty in minimalism, and enjoying the Simple Life. We don't need heroic tales of supernatural Good vs Evil battles to fulfill our lives. We just need a few friends, family, a good drink and some time to appreciate what we have. All the rest seems overly complicated.

So, debate: Ought society move, willingly, to a Post-Religious(mythological) world, or, like Joseph Campbell suggests, do we needs Myths?

[TRANSPONDER]

...but in a few generayions the problems of inbreeding would start....

Why do you believe so?

Not only is there no time for such divergence but genetically it doesn't work and the DNA shows no sign of origin from 1 pair.

Does DNA show origin from 2, 3...or 200000 pairs?

Does inbreeding change DNA?
Inbreeding increases homozygosity in the offspring generation, leading to a reduction in the genetic variation in the population and an increase in the expression of recessive deleterious alleles [62,66]. This often results in offspring that are weaker than the parents, which can reduce the plant's chances of survival.

The same with animals of course. The deleterious effect of inbreeding (which would result from a breeding pair of only two) is a known medical phenomenon. Easy to read up. The effects would be clear in Animal DNA if it had happened.

What effects does inbreeding have on DNA?
Inbred mating within a closed, small population tends to accelerate the loss of gene diversity and reduce the heterozygosity of genes in a population, ultimately leads to complete homozygosity observed from molecular markers [14].

This for small gene pools, never mind just two of the species. Interestingly a Bible answers site recognised this but tried to answer it with a claim that DNA was 'perfect' and has declined through the inbreeding to what we think of as the norm today. This 'imperfection' is not what we see in DNA. DNA (since it is not imperfect in that way) indicates that the origin was not from a pair or even a small group, but from a large gene pool and the evolution was within large groups where inbreeding would not be a factor.

[TRANSPONDER]

This is clear. Daylight, alternating with darkness of night, was made before the sun and moon. The excuse that it was some cosmic brilliance NOT to do with day and night is ignorance of the Bible or denial. Which is it?

Yes, it is clear what the Bible tells. I think it is possible to have other sources of light than sun and moon. Why do you think it is impossible?

Because the Bible says it was dark and light, morning and evening. I suggest that you read your Bible sometime.

Now, can you still deny that the sun was made before the earth?

I believe things were created as told in the Bible. To me Bible is more credible than you, or "scientists" who claim they know better.

Your belief counts for nothing; what the Bible says, and what it says does not accord with the accepted sotuation that the sun was made before the earth means that God told Moses what was wrong - according to your apologetic.

...Genesis is a myth, that fits with the Babylonian snowdome cosmos, and reflects the ideas of men, not the knowledge of gods. ·

Sorry, I disagree with that. Babylonian idea seems to be misunderstanding of what is told in the Bible.

It explains a lot of what makes no sense in the Bible. And more. It explains the similarity to Babylonian stories, like Marduk and Tiamat, the Mesopotamian Flood and Sargon in the Bulrushes.

[1213]

...from a large gene pool and the evolution was within large groups where inbreeding would not be a factor.

So, current life would be possible only if at some time a large group of animals appeared suddenly? For example when bears came to exist, there was large group of them. It would be funny to hear the "scientific" explanation of how they came to exist.

[TRANSPONDER]

...from a large gene pool and the evolution was within large groups where inbreeding would not be a factor.

So, current life would be possible only if at some time a large group of animals appeared suddenly? For example when bears came to exist, there was large group of them. It would be funny to hear the "scientific" explanation of how they came to exist.

The theoty of evolution explains the genetic and evolutionary shift of large groups of organisms in response to environmental challenges - natural selection and small changes ('micro' evolution.

E.g, early early sea animals evolved to predators and defences, fish through amphibians and to reptiles, Mammals to a wide range of animal species to different kinds, e'g dinotherium, mammoth and elephant. All from previous forms that were not yet elephants. The species do not pop out of nowhere but evolve from earlier species, for example, the land pace Pakicetus through the semi aquatic Ambulocetus to early whales. This is gradual micto steps that become 'Macro'. This is proven by the cetan sequence and proves speciation by cumulative micro -steps.

It would help if critics and deniers of evolution actually undertood the mechanics of the theory.

For that matter, it would help if they understood the theory they are trying to defend. Like recently I had to point out what was in the Bible - in Genesis the 'light' was daylight, alternating with night, not some cosmic light that no longer exists.

And there it is, friends the big 3-0h likes. And months before the end of the year. I cannot thank you enough for your support, even if you cannot subscribe or send me money but my cup runneth over already.

[1213]

It would help if critics and deniers of evolution actually undertood the mechanics of the theory.

Surely, so, please tell, what was the first animal? How many of them there were in the beginning, when they first appeared?

...in Genesis the 'light' was daylight, alternating with night, not some cosmic light that no longer exists.

How do you know what light it was?

[TRANSPONDER]

It would help if critics and deniers of evolution actually undertood the mechanics of the theory.

Surely, so, please tell, what was the first animal? How many of them there were in the beginning, when they first appeared?

...in Genesis the 'light' was daylight, alternating with night, not some cosmic light that no longer exists.

How do you know what light it was?

And they say that atheists are the ones that are dickissh To make it clear, the hypothesis is that the biochemicals around the Amino acid /RNA area self replicated and that was the first Life. This became more complex and developed a protective membrane (protection leads to survival) and when one began to eat the other we effectively had a divide into plant and animal, prey and predator and the evolutionary arms race. The first animals seem to be sand dollar like floor dwellers,found in pre cambrian fossils. How many? hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, like any other species. The original cells groups had diversified and multiplied for millions of years already. About 2.5 billion years I think.

For anyone interested in this rather recent and interesting area, this is a good explanatory video.



Now, deny and misunderstand as you like, but that's the explanation, and asking what you think are 'atheist -stumpers' will get you nowhere but yet more fossil evidence to deny.

And you deny the Light in Genesis, even after I've told you what the Bible says. It was dark and light, day and night, morning and evening, not some kind of cosmic light that was on all the time, but is now not seen. Deny as you like, but others can see clearly and wonder why you and other Bible apologists can't (1) so don't imagine that such wasting my time is winning you or your case anything.

To recap the point, and Bible apologist seem to blunder on and forget what the argument was. The daylight (and night) appeared before the sun was made, according to Genesis. Now the usual YE explanation is that the sun was (of course) made first but it couldn't be seen because of cloud cover. But that only works for someone on earth looking up and man hadn't been made yet. So, as you said, God has to have told Moses what happened. But why tell him what was wrong?

But now it appears (though I doubt you have it thought it out that far) that you suppose that the sun really was made later than the earth and this on - off light was made by something else. I say 'Cosmic light' as it was not made by the sun but something in space. You leap on that and act like it's some Fact - claim I'm supposed to justify.

Just go on like that; as I say, it's your case you are harming, not mine.

(1) folks, this is me being a *ick, as South Park's only real slap down said, but isn't the denial of the Bible apologist far worse? I reckon I'm being incredibly polite and patient, and yet it's 'atheists' who aresupposedly the one with a bad attitude, so we constantly get told.

[1213]

...The first animals seem to be sand dollar like floor dwellers,found in pre cambrian fossils. How many? hundreds of thousands, maybe millions,...

Do I understand correctly, now I am supposed to believe that suddenly millions of organisms appeared from nothing? It is not enough anymore that by coincidence one organism appeared, but at the same time vast number of them appeared from non organic material? If there was just a few, then by the inbreeding theory, they would have died long time ago for the problems of inbreeding. Or is this the time when we don't need to be logical?

And you deny the Light in Genesis, even after I've told you what the Bible says.

Sorry, if I have been unclear. I don't deny there was light, I just think it was from some other source than sun. I don't know what was the source, but, as this shows, sun is not necessary the only source of light in Biblical point of view:

And night will not be there; and they have no need of a lamp or a light of the sun, because the Lord God will shed light on them. And they shall reign forever and ever.
Rev 22:5

[TRANSPONDER]

...The first animals seem to be sand dollar like floor dwellers,found in pre cambrian fossils. How many? hundreds of thousands, maybe millions,...

Do I understand correctly, now I am supposed to believe that suddenly millions of organisms appeared from nothing? It is not enough anymore that by coincidence one organism appeared, but at the same time vast number of them appeared from non organic material? If there was just a few, then by the inbreeding theory, they would have died long time ago for the problems of inbreeding. Or is this the time when we don't need to be logical?

They do not appear from nowhere. We know what the process is because evolution happens and is accepted even by creationists as 'Micro -evolution' - a change within species. They just deny that the changes could accumulate so much that a new species name is needed.

The inbreeding theory is irelvant because the mutated species still can interbreed with the others. What you call not needing to be logical, is understanding the theory, not making up objections to what we observe happening in life - 'breeding'.

Of course random genetic drift is not limited to species that have few offspring, such as humans. In the case of flowering plants, for example, the stochastic element is the probabilty of a given seed falling on fertile ground while in the case of some fish and frogs it is the result of chance events which determine whether a newly hatched individual will survive. Drift is also not confined to diploid genetics; it can explain why we all have mitochondria that are descended from those of a single women who lived hundreds of thousands of years ago.
"This does not mean that there was a single female from whom we are all descended, but rather that out of a population numbering perhaps several thousand, by chance, only one set of mitochondrial genes was passed on. (This finding, perhaps the most surprising to us, is the least disputed by population geneticists and others familiar with genetic drift and other manifestations of the laws of probability.)" (Curtis, H. and Barnes, N.S. in Biology 5th ed. Worth Publishers 1989 p. 1050.)

(Talk origins - random genetic drift)

And you deny the Light in Genesis, even after I've told you what the Bible says.

Sorry, if I have been unclear. I don't deny there was light, I just think it was from some other source than sun. I don't know what was the source, but, as this shows, sun is not necessary the only source of light in Biblical point of view:

And night will not be there; and they have no need of a lamp or a light of the sun, because the Lord God will shed light on them. And they shall reign forever and ever.
Rev 22:5

I do not apologise for being unclear - I have been very clear. The light was dark and light, night and day, morning and evening - but before (it says) the sun was made.

Gen. 1 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

The sun, moon and lights nin the sky are not (is says) made until the fourth day. You are ignoring what the Bible says ('context' is hardly the issue, and instead you rush off to some other passage from the other end of the Bible. Sure, God could make a sourceless light to switch on and off if he wanted, but not only does it seemm that what the light was was daylight but the writers thought the source of it appeared later. I don't know - are you not using the (usual) cloud cover apologetic and are you rteally saying that the sun was actually made after the earth, just as the Bible says?

[1213]

...The inbreeding theory is irelvant because the mutated species still can interbreed with the others. ...

Ok, thank you, then it would not be any problem, if things went as told in the Bible.

...
You are ignoring what the Bible says ('context' is hardly the issue, and instead you rush off to some other passage from the other end of the Bible. Sure, God could make a sourceless light to switch on and off if he wanted, but not only does it seemm that what the light was was daylight but the writers thought the source of it appeared later. I don't know - are you not using the (usual) cloud cover apologetic and are you rteally saying that the sun was actually made after the earth, just as the Bible says?

No, I am no ignoring anything from the Bible. I believe things went exactly as told in the Bible. And it means, before sun, there was some other light, which caused day and night.

[TRANSPONDER]

...The inbreeding theory is irelvant because the mutated species still can interbreed with the others. ...

Ok, thank you, then it would not be any problem, if things went as told in the Bible.

Ok, thank you. You are showing Faithbased denial of both what the evidence says and what the Bible says. You are doing a great job for the atheists side, and you are far from the first Bible apologists to do so.

...
You are ignoring what the Bible says ('context' is hardly the issue, and instead you rush off to some other passage from the other end of the Bible. Sure, God could make a sourceless light to switch on and off if he wanted, but not only does it seemm that what the light was was daylight but the writers thought the source of it appeared later. I don't know - are you not using the (usual) cloud cover apologetic and are you rteally saying that the sun was actually made after the earth, just as the Bible says?

No, I am no ignoring anything from the Bible. I believe things went exactly as told in the Bible. And it means, before sun, there was some other light, which caused day and night.

Ok. That will do. You are using the apologetic that God faked an on - off light to simulate the sun which hadn't ben made yet. Also, if you accept a round earth going around the sun, the on - off light has to be where the sun is with the earth (and planets) circulating a sun that wasn't there yet. Can you not see how absurdly denialist this is just to keep the obviously wring and mythical creation -tale alive? If you can't, it's fine, and any other reader must see it. The problem is valid and your denial won't save it.

I know, I sympathise, I really do. Personal self -worth is linked to this Belief in the literal truth of the Bible, even where it cannot be true unless one denied reality. Or science at least.

I was going to get onto the whole science skeptic American Ethos but I won't. I'll just say that the sun made after the earth is just one pretty big problem, like the Flood, sun standing still, Tyre. slavery, the nativity, and the resurrection, or so it should be, and a lot of smaller problems, like the one about Daniel being written about 160 BC, not 500 BC, and provably so, and the problem of Mary running into Jesus but Luke says she didn't. Three choices one accepts there are real, serious contradiction in the Bible one denies everything or one does not get to hear of the problems, which is what Christianity has managed to do for 2000 years, so the tomb guard is accepted as true without any question, by anyone including Bible skeptic experts it seems. Christian apologetics seems to have hypnotised everyone.

This has to change and people have to learn how Christian experts have Bamboozled and lied to them for decades, and I think people do not like being lied to any more than I do. And you are helping us, by a clear display of Bible -based denial of evidence, logic and what the Bible says, while claiming evidence, reason and what the Bible says. Pot kettle accusation and everything that atheists say Bible apologists do, so so thanks for it and to all the Bible - denialists like the one who said Mary did not hear the angelic message or the one who wants to shoehorn into Luke-Acts a ridiculous trip to Galilee after Jesus had sat down to talk to the disciples that evening. Because contradictory stories have to be explained, like Bible claims that are false, unless science is totally denied.