why is religion still around

[Jonathan Jenkins]

historically speaking religion was made to explain stuff inexplicable at the time if we are on the coarse to explain almost everything in our natural world why is religion still around

[Yasmin]

I think that religion is a way to feel better about yourself. When you do religious things like going to church or praying, it makes you feel as if you are doing the right thing. Religion makes you feel like you're a better person because this is what God intended for you to do. In bad times or in times of depression people turn to God to help them. They will pray for things to get better or to feel better and will truly believe that God will help them. And this belief helps them to get through a tough time. And then they believe that it is all thanks to God. When it's really their belief that thing are going to change. People will turn to God mostly in desperate times because it gives them hope, and makes them believe that they're doing the right thing with their lives. That there is something to live for. That all bad things happen for a reason. Also, because of the promise of heaven or hell. People like to believe that if they listen to God they will go to heaven. And that all bad people will go to hell. People are scarred of the possibility that there is no after life. So I think that religion is another way to gain hope.And it's not going to go away soon.

And I know that this isn't why all religious people are religious. But I find that it's a very common reason why.

[Alix Laya]

Some people still find something to believe in.  It's as simple as that.  It's not about chemistry or biology.  It's about something you feel.  Besides, you said yourself that not everything is explained.  There is no way that everything will ever be explained.  There's just too much to know.

[Adam]

lol, well considering the big thing religion has always been a way to answer the question "what happens after we die" could you please tell me the answer? because until we answer that question definitively we will have religion, for better or for worst.

[Thomas Coldrick]

Surely there is a simple answer to this - people still believe that their religion is correct. There are then further factors which cause people to believe in this religion such as: they were brought up into that religion, comfort (believing in a benevolent god is likely to reduce stress and worry), and that they genuinely think that said religion is the best explanation for our world. If a person believes in a religion, they will want somewhere to practice their faith, hence organised religion is still around. There is also a factor for organised religion in that most world leaders follow a religion, so they can still exist due to Monarchs and Politicians wanting a higher power than themselves.

[Adam]

@Vertigo One

so, considering you weren't there when Jesus was alive, and since there is no way of telling that "everything else Jesus said was true" unless you are actually able to bring Jesus in on this conversation. using the words of a man/god from a couple thousand years ago... yah... not a good argument to prove his continued existence here on earth, especially considering his spirit hasn't given much proof that it is here

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

considering you weren't there when Jesus was alive, and since there is no way of telling that "everything else Jesus said was true" unless you are actually able to bring Jesus in on this conversation. using the words of a man/god from a couple thousand years ago... yah... not a good argument to prove his continued existence here on earth

I would argue that it's no more/less difficult to prove Jesus's actions virtuous or not than many other historical figures, given the evidence of their lives we have. In fact, we have a great deal more evidence for Jesus than almost any other person from that time period, with over 1000 contemporary copies of the gospels. Basically, if the holy spirit isn't still here, Jesus would be a massive liar, which isn't consistent with everything we know about him.

 especially considering his spirit hasn't given much proof that it is here

 

I would say that Christian history is littered with examples of people experiencing his spirit. It's reinforced, not just by their experiances, but by what the experiances themselves lead onto. Paul's conversion, for example, was a really big deal.

[Hutch Hogan]

 In fact, we have a great deal more evidence for Jesus than almost any other person from that time period, with over 1000 contemporary copies of the gospels.

The problem with that is that they are 1000 copies of largely the same text.   All written after his death and by his followers.  

Josepheus is usually brought into mention, though his writings take place about 60 years after the death of Jesus, with Tacitus even further away on the timescale. 

The Talmud is another source, though it's also decades after the death of Jesus and is written in such a way that it cannot be confirmed to be talking about Jesus. 

While it is likely that Jesus is a historical figure, the accounts of him are decades divorced. 

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

While it is likely that Jesus is a historical figure, the accounts of him are decades divorced.

No, they arn't. As I've discussed at length in the past, they are very likly very contemporary, for the simple reasoning of the spread of the gospels. Remember, we know Paul was writing in 50AD, and yet he was refering to the gospels as "tradition" by that stage. Thus implying very strongly that the gospels were around at the time of Paul's writing, and were already very old (IE most likely more than 10 years). Therefore, the most important accounts of him are not decades divorced.

[Hutch Hogan]

I'm not referring to the Gospels there.  I'm referring to Josephus and Tacitus. 

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

You said "the accounts of him". Why are the gospels not considered accounts of him?

[Adam]

I would argue that it's no more/less difficult to prove Jesus's actions virtuous or not than many other historical figures, given the evidence of their lives we have. 

Aeschylus, he was a poet that lived a few hundred years before Jesus and his many, many works show him to be the first poet to use things like dialogue and tragedy into his works. 

Alexander the Great, King of Macedon, probably the greatest military leader of all time, first person to build a truly great empire. He lived just before the Greek age started in the 300's B.C, there are many paintings, sculptures, busts, and I believe over 50 surviving titles written about him and his accomplishments.

Agrippa, he was a Roman General who died a bit before Jesus was born, we know of him and his feats from the many writings about both him and his accomplishment, paintings and busts of him also give us a good idea about who he was, where he was, and what he did during his lifetime.

In comparison Jesus only has 2 writing about him during his lifetime, and a few more shortly after he died, and then most of them written way way after he died... these being the ones that mostly talk about his god powers like healing people through touch; along with 2 or 3 paintings and 0 busts made during his lifetime.

All in all it begs the question why we have more proof of poets then we do of a god walking in mortal form and basically crushes the statement that "it's no more/less difficult to prove Jesus's actions virtuous or not than many other historical figures, given the evidence of their lives we have." especially consider I decided to only give 3 really old historical people with allot of evidence about their lives... there are allllllot more

 

 

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

Aeschylus, he was a poet that lived a few hundred years before Jesus and his many, many works show him to be the first poet to use things like dialogue and tragedy into his works.

You would kind of expect that someone who spent their time writing would leave a lot of, well...writing...behind...

 

Alexander the Great, King of Macedon, probably the greatest military leader of all time, first person to build a truly great empire. He lived just before the Greek age started in the 300's B.C, there are many paintings, sculptures, busts, and I believe over 50 surviving titles written about him and his accomplishments.

Fifty is a lot less than 1000. Also, very few of the busts etc were contemporary. Furthermore, the paintings were generally speaking, idealised, and Alexander had the power to influence how history recorded him. Jesus, by comparison, was not in the same kind of powerful position.

Agrippa, he was a Roman General who died a bit before Jesus was born, we know of him and his feats from the many writings about both him and his accomplishment, paintings and busts of him also give us a good idea about who he was, where he was, and what he did during his lifetime.

Generally speaking, people who conquer places have a lot more reason to be written about by their immediate contemporaries. By contrast, Jesus did not threaten anyone. He did do miraculous things, which were written about, but it's not the same as conquering places.

In comparison Jesus only has 2 writing about him during his lifetime, and a few more shortly after he died, and then most of them written way way after he died... these being the ones that mostly talk about his god powers like healing people through touch; along with 2 or 3 paintings and 0 busts made during his lifetime.

 

No, wrong. Jesus had several writings about him in his lifetime. Although we do not have them, we have copies of other writings that reference them. Also, we know (contrary to popular belief) that the gospels were written by, at the very latest, 50AD. This is because we know that Paul was writing in 50AD and he refered to the gospels (including the crucifixion and resurrection) using the word for "tradition" thereby implying that they had been around for a very long time prior to his writings. We also have, as I said, 1000+ copies of the manuscripts of the gospels from the contemporary period (thus eliminating the possibility of translation depredation)