This is my first venture into GD in about three years... I'm not disappointed.
I believe in God, His religion (believe it or not, all religions have common themes), and Adam and Eve as a symbolic concept. I don't believe in the literal Garden of Eden, etc.
I tried being a scientist for three years and decided that it wasn't - as Dolph has pointed out so very many times - after truth, but predictable results. At no point did my faith in the Big Guy upstairs contravene my scientific rationale or methodology.
Would the world be a better place without religion? Ask those people who live(d) under Stalin/Lenin/Khmer Rouge/Mugabe/the junta in Burma what they think of 'secular' governments...
As pointed out to the OP much further back in this thread: just because there are some people of dubious rationale (relative to what the religious text actually says) appear on a TV programme doesn't make the rest of those who believe in God and their chosen religion/faith complete idiots with no ability to think for themselves.
As to faith, it's pretty much down to the accepted criteria which form a foundation for a person's belief structure.
For example: faith in God/higher entity of non-descript form, origin or purpose requires acceptance - at some level - that what is going on must have a purpose and what has been has come from something. This can be fully formed in terms of Somebody setting natural laws, having a very grand design for creation (no, not intelligent design) and so on. Such ideas are normally shot down due to the lack of documentary/tested evidence.
Non-adherence to such a belief structure requires acceptance that there is no purpose to creation, that what has been is due to the natural interaction of events at an atomic/molecular level, that it happens at random, etc. This is equally vulnerable to the postulation of (as previously posted) Somebody/Somthing setting those laws, defining those interactions, existing before anything.
The problem with the 'God' concept is that religion tells humanity that God is infinite, pre-existant, etc. and we, as humans in physical form (we don't need religion to tell us this) are finite: we don't have the mental capcity to grasp something as big as 'infinite'. Philosophy has been struggling with such concepts in complete isolation from religion for goodness knows how long; scientists have been equally valiant in determining a theory for what existed before, etc.
So how are we as humans supposed to work? Both theories require acceptance of a circular argument or justification, both are based on faith of some description. It's just a matter of choosing to which we will adhere.
To address the OP's issues (which have already been addressed on a logical level, but hey... fuel for the fire and all that): I think you'll find that religion on the TV/in the newspapers is actually quite different to the teachings in the Quran, Torah, Bible, etc. Try putting 'The Golden Rule' into Google and see what comes up.
Once you have established that the 'ethic of reciprocity' underpins pretty much every religion, evaluate them with it in mind.
I believe in God, His religion (believe it or not, all religions have common themes), and Adam and Eve as a symbolic concept. I don't believe in the literal Garden of Eden, etc.
I tried being a scientist for three years and decided that it wasn't - as Dolph has pointed out so very many times - after truth, but predictable results. At no point did my faith in the Big Guy upstairs contravene my scientific rationale or methodology.
Would the world be a better place without religion? Ask those people who live(d) under Stalin/Lenin/Khmer Rouge/Mugabe/the junta in Burma what they think of 'secular' governments...
As pointed out to the OP much further back in this thread: just because there are some people of dubious rationale (relative to what the religious text actually says) appear on a TV programme doesn't make the rest of those who believe in God and their chosen religion/faith complete idiots with no ability to think for themselves.
As to faith, it's pretty much down to the accepted criteria which form a foundation for a person's belief structure.
For example: faith in God/higher entity of non-descript form, origin or purpose requires acceptance - at some level - that what is going on must have a purpose and what has been has come from something. This can be fully formed in terms of Somebody setting natural laws, having a very grand design for creation (no, not intelligent design) and so on. Such ideas are normally shot down due to the lack of documentary/tested evidence.
Non-adherence to such a belief structure requires acceptance that there is no purpose to creation, that what has been is due to the natural interaction of events at an atomic/molecular level, that it happens at random, etc. This is equally vulnerable to the postulation of (as previously posted) Somebody/Somthing setting those laws, defining those interactions, existing before anything.
The problem with the 'God' concept is that religion tells humanity that God is infinite, pre-existant, etc. and we, as humans in physical form (we don't need religion to tell us this) are finite: we don't have the mental capcity to grasp something as big as 'infinite'. Philosophy has been struggling with such concepts in complete isolation from religion for goodness knows how long; scientists have been equally valiant in determining a theory for what existed before, etc.
So how are we as humans supposed to work? Both theories require acceptance of a circular argument or justification, both are based on faith of some description. It's just a matter of choosing to which we will adhere.
To address the OP's issues (which have already been addressed on a logical level, but hey... fuel for the fire and all that): I think you'll find that religion on the TV/in the newspapers is actually quite different to the teachings in the Quran, Torah, Bible, etc. Try putting 'The Golden Rule' into Google and see what comes up.
Once you have established that the 'ethic of reciprocity' underpins pretty much every religion, evaluate them with it in mind.