Hacker News Reader

- True, all religions anthropomorphize, and i find that very arrogant on humans' part. Why would a god have will, intention, our time arrow etc? My favorite is that ancient egyptian story where some god created the universe by ejaculating. There's even a metaphysical theory that tries to find its way in Physics called "anthropic principle". How do you back up your claim that beliefs like that will never go away?

- True, Rites and practices may indeed help general wellbeing. So does yoga. (relevant talk: http://www.ted.com/talks/alain_de_botton_atheism_2_0.html).

- True, Almost all religions are moralizing and define what is right and wrong. So do atheists (by themselves or through rational thinking)

- Again, Godel's incompleteness does not mean we hold that "math is true" without proof. We have proofs for when it is and when it is not. Maths is a tool, not a religion.

In general, it's impossible to enter a religious argument without specifying your personal position. I personally never felt the need to see an external force guiding things around or setting things in motion and watching from afar. It just doesn't sound intuitive or interest me, and i feel it would violate my freedom, so sorry if i come off as aggressively anti-religious.

All religions have as a core belief the particulars of the creation of existence.

Buddhism is a counter-example. There are many strands of Buddhism, but in general they do not take a position on the creation of the universe, the existence of deities, or many other things that most Westerners would think are central to a religion.

If all that you're really familiar with are variants on one religion (Judaism, Christianity and Islam share holy books), it is easy to believe that all religions look the same with different texts. But in fact there is a much wider variety of religions in the world than that.

Um.... its not just Judiasm. It's also every animist branch that makes up the traditional religions of Africa. It's also the religions of the Mayans, Aztecs, Norse, and Greco-Romans.

It's also the Shintoist religion of Japan and the Hinduists of the Indian Subcontinent.

If Buddhism lacks something that all other religions independently developed then is Buddhism really a religion?

That is a very sweeping claim. I'm certainly not qualified to talk about every one of those religions. I doubt that you are either.

Also the existence of a creation myth does not mean that it is particularly important to that religion. For instance the Catholic faith has a detailed creation myth in the Bible. However the official statements from leaders of that faith (see, for instance, Pope John Paul's October 22, 1996 address where he says that "evolution is more than a hypothesis") accepts the truth of the scientific consensus on how the world came to be, even though it is in direct and obvious conflict with their creation myth.

Yes, I know all of the logical arguments you can make for the creation myths being central to the faith. They have been made before, including by a variety of Catholics. However the current belief of many millions of Catholics, and the official statements of the church, demonstrate that their creation myth is NOT, in fact, central to the religion.

Don't narrow this down to a discussion about creation myths when you said it was about creation myths, the existence of dieties, and many other things that westerns consider part of a religion.

If you lack the mystical faith-based aspects of religion then are you a religion? If so, then why isn't Confusianism a religion? Why isn't Neitzchism a religion?

Secondly, I don't know what kind of qualifications one needs to talk about religion, but if ordinary people can no longer do it then what you are encouraging is a priesthood, and not a science.

Excuse me, I said?

Where? Provide me a link.

Here is a hint. The point about creation myths was brought up at http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3901527 by someone named ars. I registered an objection. You then told me that virtually every religion in the world is an example and gave an extensive list. I demonstrated that the Catholic faith stands as an example of a religion with a creation myth that is not really core to the religion.

As for qualifications, anyone can talk about religion, it is up to you whether you discuss it intelligently. I would suggest that you start with developing the skill of being able to correctly note who said what, then work up to the skill of being able to give references backing up claims that you choose to make. (It helps when you don't make sweeping claims.)

BTW you misunderstood what I said about creation. I wasn't talking about how creation happened (for example Genesis). I was talking about that there was an active creation by something (God).

I'm not talking about creation of the Earth and animals - I'm talking about creation of existence.

> All religions have as a core belief the particulars of the creation of existence. Most require that the creation happened as a act of will by a sentience. Not all though, some hold that it was created as reflex of sort. But all claim to know how it happened...

Well, not all - Buddhism, for example doesn't posit a specific creation story, with or without a creator sentience.

> Well, not all - Buddhism, for example doesn't posit a specific creation story, with or without a creator sentience.

Yes, that is true. After reading a lot about it I would have to consider Buddhism the epitome of a non-logical religions (which, if you recall was the reason I brought up creation). All its teachings appear to have nothing backing them except someone thought of it.

It claims to require evidence for things, yet there is no evidence at all for any of its core teachings. Basically it says that due to meditation someone figured out these things - but that someone provides no evidence of this except his say so.

It has lots of interesting elements that are praised as being compatible with science, but those are basically philosophy/psychology and have no religious elements to them. Lots of interesting thought about the nature of people - which I guess made it attractive to people. But the religious parts (other worlds/planes of existence, enlightenment, karma, etc) have nothing backing them except one man said so.

If you are going to start a religion you're going to have to do some pretty heavy duty miracles (and in front of thousands, not just your close friends) in order to convince me that you didn't just make it up. (By me I mean a person who was alive at the start of the religion.)

Obviously a huge different between science and religion is that science can be proved now, and religion can only be proved when it started.

Once you do those miracles you have proven yourself and I can believe the rest of what you say without evidence (another large different from science).

To be a logical religion it must have made sense to the people who were alive when it started. Those people must have been able to verify every claim. Obviously we can not verify that what the religion says is what actually happened, but if you assume it to be true it must at least it must be self consistent and verifiable to those people who were there. And Buddhism is not, but religion can be, and that is my argument.