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

[Hutch Hogan]

Fifty is a lot less than 1000.

He said 50 titles, not 50 manuscripts.  Counting each rescribing of a manuscript isn't valid for historical accuracy of the text.  It instead conveys the popularity of the text, though confirmation through different sources is far more valuable. 

There are 4 canonical gospels, something on the order 8(?) non-canonical gospels (Peter, Thomas, Mary Magdalene, Judas, James, Sofia of Jesus, etc) 

Though these texts have been dropped from the canon for specific reasons as well. 

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

Though these texts have been dropped from the canon for specific reasons as well.

 

The texts dropped from the cannon are largely much much older (200 years+ older) which is why they were ignored. The cannon was an evolutionary, rather than institutional process.

 

Counting each rescribing of a manuscript isn't valid for historical accuracy of the text.  It instead conveys the popularity of the text, though confirmation through different sources is far more valuable.

 

No, but it is very helpful when it comes to dating. IE if there are a large number of manuscripts in a given period, it is likly the document was very popular, but that kind of popularity takes a very long time in the ancient world, and so the document can be considered older.

[Hutch Hogan]

The texts dropped from the cannon are largely much much older (200 years+ older) which is why they were ignored. The cannon was an evolutionary, rather than institutional process.

 As well as stories like Jesus fighting a dragon, Jesus bringing a clay doll to life, Jesus striking down someone, etc. 

Regardless of the reason for why the stories were discounted, they were discounted for being unauthentic by the followers of Jesus. 

No, but it is very helpful when it comes to dating.

Agreed, but still less desirable to the authenticity of the actual events that take place in the records than verification through different records. 

 

IE if there are a large number of manuscripts in a given period, it is likly the document was very popular, but that kind of popularity takes a very long time in the ancient world, and so the document can be considered older.

 Though its age is not the greatest means of historical accuracy.  Especially in regards to "Exceptional" events. 

[Riki]

You said: "...we are on the coarse to explain almost everything", and that's the thing, almost. Anyway, religion is not about shouting God!#%$6 to every unexplained thing there is on the planet. It's actually mostly about morality, about how to be a good person, and only then about God.
Like, in one of the books of the Tohra it's written that man should poop far away from where he eat, becouse apperantly he didn't know that kind of stuff. X_X And great Rabbis always say that first of all you must be a moral person and only then worship God, life and kindness are always the highest priority! 
Religion is about the people, and it tried to make of those oblivious men and women some decent human beings... The thing is, we are not oblivious anymore. We know where to poop. So religion should evolve with us, yet it refuses, and that's the big problem about it all. :\

[Ryan Davison]

John Green once said that "Religion is a response to revelation." And I think, as if I were an authority on this sort of thing, that as long as people are learning about themselves and having revelations religion isn't, and doesn't need, to go anywhere. 
Religion is still around for a lot of reasons.
It gives people something to hold onto, there is tradition to religion and were a society of sentimentalists(the American penny), as long as people are having revelations there will be religion(and that's just the reality of consciousness), cultural expectations, and looking for a call to meaning. I mean, there is a lot more reasons and  I just want to be clear that I'm not advocating for the existence of religion. I'm just trying to be helpful. 

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

My belief is that most people are still religious because many people have no one else to turn to.

Erm... Isn't this rather insulting. So these religious people you are describing know that it's all false, but continue the charade because they have "nowhere else to turn?" they're doing it out of some desire to avoid facing oblivion? Isn't that rather arrogantly coming from the position that oblivion definitely exits and that these people are scared and running from it. Isn't it more likly that people are doing this because they are responding to something. Whether you believe the something is entirely as they describe it etc by the by, do you really think that calling a large body of people cowards like that is really a sophisticated way to approch this question?

Of course there is scientific evidence that suggest that there is an explanation for everything, but most people choose to still hold onto that little piece of God.

Really? Every time there's a new scientific discovery, ultimately we are left with more questions than answers. And I've yet to see a scientific discovery that displaces the need for God. Could you enlighten me.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

Just to say, I am mostly more accepting of your post now that you've clarified it, but I did want to take issue with this

This suggests that Adam and Eve weren't the first humans to walk the earth.

 

Why? Why could God have not used the processes of evolution etc to create humans.

The fact that there are 14 billion year old fossils suggests that the world is much older than what the bible tells us.

Where exactly does the Bible tell us how old the earth is?

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

In less you are suggesting that God created Adam and Eve first as monkeys and evolved over time (which would be an interesting concept and a truly fascinating story), I don't believe this is stating that God used the process of evolution to create humans. Also, God said man, not monkey.

Yes, but God did make the beasts of the Earth first. It is perfectly possible that he used those beasts (inc mokeys) to create humans.

In addition, it states that God created man in his/her image, so even if he created monkeys first to evolve into Human later, are you stating that God looks like a monkey?

In his own image doesn't mean "looks like". There is something deeper than mere appearance we're talking about here.

Just out of curiosity, do you happen to have any evidence that God in fact did use Evolution to create humans?

The order of creation makes sense in evolutionary time-scales.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1200486/The-Genesis-enigma-...

Of course, it is possible that we misinterpreted the scriptures, and no where does this prove that God specifically said that he created the world 6,000 years ago. But, by taking a mathematical approach and using the information studied by Scholars, many believe this is a reason to believe the earth was created 6,000 years ago.

The problem with this approch is that it ignores several key aspects that we know about Biblical writings. First, we know that the geneologies mentioned in the OT are not complete. OT writings would often only mention generational "heroes" so as to make the point of the billiance of the line. Begat does not simply mean "fathered" it means "preceded". Secondly, the hebrew word for day used in Genesis is "Yom" which is also the hebrew word for "era/generation". It's perfectly possible, and indeed probable given the writing style of the book of Genesis, that it was poetic more than purposeful.

[Sean Lindsay]

Point of clarity:  Human's did not evolve from modern monkeys.  Modern monkeys, apes, and humans evolved from a common ancestor that was neither modern monkey, ape, or human, yet still a primate.  For example, you have the division of platyrrhini (new world monkeys) and catarrhini (old world monkeys and apes) at one point in primate evolution, yet if you are to speak of human and monkey common ancestry, the common ancestor is neither a catarrhine or a platyrrhine. 

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

I'm well aware. I was being colloquial.

[Sean Lindsay]

No worries.  I just wanted to put that since it is a common misconception in Evolution.  While you were on the up and up, other readers of this thread might not have been.

[Aiden Christopher Brown]

Part of the reason that there are still religions, as well as for order, is another way for our species to find people who share interests with us and make social bonds.