If you think about it that's all it is, it's just a theory some people believe to make more sense of the world, basically all religions believe this happened and this and take Christianity for example god "created the world in 7 days" it's a theory. There is life after death (Theory) Thoughts ?
In my opinion, religion was born tens of thousands of years ago, when people were still nomadic. Mysticism was an outlet for human curiosity. When religion found definite borders like Judaism and Christianity, that's when it started to be become more than 'faith'. It is my opinion that religion was used as a tool by the powerful. Good and Bad as Heaven and Hell, reward and punishment. Telling the masses that if they act this way for a short time they will benefit for an eternity is quite the offer. I don't think the papacy of old really believed in God. I think they believed in gold and corruption. Most humans are inherently evil. Unleashing something that preaches morality in exchange for bliss makes it much easier for the powerful to rule. Religion was used as the opiate of the masses. Religion today more or less resembles fanaticism to me... I could elaborate more these are just some of my 'theories'
Atheism is the theory that there has been no proof of god because there can't be proof of something that doesn't exist. It might be a theory, and might not be measurable, but it's got a pretty decent foundation right there. Compared to the theory that if you don't finish all your peas, you're gonna go to a lake of fire where a horned dude with a fork is going to punish you, and if you're good you get to go to a fortress made of pearl where the super-old man of the universe will smile on you and angels will sing about how awesome you are. Face it, in any other context, we would recognize this as fiction.
Wrong. Nielsen, Kai (2010). "Atheism". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 2011-04-09. "Atheism, in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings.... Instead of saying that an atheist is someone who believes that it is false or probably false that there is a God, a more adequate characterization of atheism consists in the more complex claim that to be an atheist is to be someone who rejects belief in God for the following reasons (which reason is stressed depends on how God is being conceived)..."
Whoa. You mean it's more complicated than one sentence? Tell us more. ps. The word "foundation" kind of exists there to concede that in advance, but thanks.
Religion helps people make sense of there demise. Our natural instinct is to survive. I believe this is why throughout history people talk about life after death. Spirits, ghosts, demons. This all suggest that there is more to life than death. I think people have a hard time coming to grips with the thought that maybe this is the only chance we get. I truly don't believe in religion because if you have ever had someone you truly love leave you and then see them you know how much it hurts (long time wife or husband, son, daughter). I would like to think eternal rest is just that. No more worries, no more pain, no more heart ache. No more second chances at the same mistakes. I don't want a second life because a life time of mistakes is enough for one person. Maybe some people need the thought that they can right there wrongs. I want an afterlife to forget them.
Religion is the product of a society high on mushrooms and/or ayahuasca.. Natures gift of enlightenment (should the light show you). It was a theory based on experience if this is true, but either way, religion has turned its back on its own roots (with the exception of most eastern religions) condemning anyone that use the sacred entheogens.
every view of religion is a kindergarten view of religion. that's what religion is, kindergarten for morality.
I think science is nothing but theories. we havnt seen any actual evidence done using the scientific method since we broke the sound barrier (the 50's). theories that have been published since have no more evidence then the bible, and yet we all take it in as fact. its a little odd if you think about it.
Science has a lot of theories. Science tests those theories. Is it better to accept what you are told, or to test your theories? I have a hunch someone is going to take a strong hold of some of those claims you just made and really shake them out. I might do it myself, but I'm a bit exhausted at this point in the night.
people just accept what they're told with science all the time. that's kind of the way science is taught in schools. that's really how science works actually...at least with religion, everything is in one book and you can get you're own ideas and interpretations from it so you're not just accepting what you're told... People always have shit backwards when it comes to science and religion....
Something people believe but then i realized a hell of allot of it is a theory, so it's almost like the big bang theory and then there's religion, obviously there are other parts that aren't theory's but mostly it is.
In the strict scientific definition of the concept, religion isn't a theory. Not even a hypothesis. But in more common usage, the word theory fits religion pretty well. As theory in common parlance means something more or less equal to wild ass guess. Or conjecture if you wish. To make a metaphoric comparison, think of religion as alcohol and evidense backed philosophy as weed; Alcohol is quite addictive, and is a poison. In moderate doses it can be relaxing, fun and function as a social lubricant. No significant detrimental effects apart from the occasional hangover. In frequent and radical doses it will however lead to a downwards spiral of self-destruction and severe physiological and psychological problems. If introduced as an intoxicant today, by all standards its positive effects do not measure up to its plethora of negative effects. It would probably be deemed an illegal substance for general consumption. Weed carries no known risks of physical addiction, and is impossible to overdose on. Moderate use is relaxing, fun and function as a social lubricant. Frequent and radical use, may lead to social reclusiveness and in some may trigger predispositions for paranoia. Though these effects are temporary, and any after effects are generally limited to a slight bout of fatigue for a short term after stopping usage. If introduced as an intoxicant today, weed would be considered generally safe with no significant long-term negative effects, bar perhaps some lung-function reduction if smoked. Religion is our first, and worst, attempt at understanding ourselves and the cosmos we reside in. It is only around still due to tradition and indoctrination, and in some cases forced ignorance. Any unbiased and rational approach towards "how stuff works" will gravitate towards an evidense based understanding, aka science.