Understanding Religion's Relationship To Human Social Systems

Today, our journey begins with a loaded question.  Pamela Krick James Apperson so you claim that "some gods exist". Not sure what relationship you may or may not claim to have with these. Question (if you choose to accept it): Who or what is your master? 22h   Active James Apperson  Physics.   Pamela Krick  who created physics?  In reply, I offer this: To ask "who" is a fallacy called "Begging The Question". Although, to be fair, I don't really want to get technical and philoso-nerdy about it. -- Maybe all known physics had a true beginning. Nobody knows if that's the case. -- Maybe all the energies this universe consists of had a true beginning. Nobody knows that either. -- Maybe there was some literal "who" that started those things. Nobody knows that either. -- Maybe there were many of those "who". Or maybe there was only one. Nobody knows that either. --  According to known human history, monotheism is a late invention.  Alt

Responding to the claim: "Modern psychology is based on ideas [found] in bible(s). [examples] [1] Work with attention, [2] introspection, [3] taking personal responsibility in order to heal. [4] Work with emotions..." --- My thoughts about this claim and supporting examples: Modern psychology is based on scientific discoveries. Those discoveries came about via the scientific method. Nobody in bible-cultures was using the scientific method for anything. However, they were often using the precursor to the scientific method: Learning via living. But that's not unique to biblical cultures. It's something that all humans have always done; since long before people invented any "God". [1] If people didn't pay attention to their own "work", they'd get hurt. Pain and failure have always been great teachers. They taught us to pay attention to our work. [2] Observing our own thoughts is an evolved ability. It's great that we have this abilit

Inspired by this video.    I recognize that some of the critical responses (in the comment section for that video) are not really fair. Some are also needlessly unkind. But setting that aside, some of the responses are very fair and definitely correct. I don't know if I want to make the time to list every misunderstanding, or every failed attempt at logic. For now, this one issue caught my attention. If (ever) the cause of someone finding serious fault with a bible is "a bad translation", then: The "that's a bad translation"-response is basically admitting that the offended-person is right to be offended (or otherwise critical) but then to say "if you come over to this better translation, you'll find that God's REAL word is saying something else". But that "solution" has some serious problems. 1. It means the religiously-devoted person is cherry picking verse-translations based on whatever wordings they think &q

Responding to yet another Christian-religious fundamentalist  accusing every outsider of secretly knowing their religion (or "totally not a religion") is true  but then "rebelling" against it because:  These reasons:  --- Here, I am about to quote you and then respond to this complex accusation. [These words between brackets are my words. They are my attempt to Steelman my interlocutor  and to help clarify meanings for readers]  --------- Gregg L Powers wrote: "However most people do not want to answer to [the only true] God or be bound by His rules. They want to live in rebellion. ... [thus] they will use the fact they cannot connect the evidence dots to justify why they don't want to believe. The desire [to evade accountability for shortcoming, and past mistakes, and how they plan to keep living] ... causes the rejection of the evidence" -------------------------------- First, I want to point out: Nobody in the world has a good reason to even