Scientology or Above others-ology?

The symbol for Scientology and at first glance, one may ask… “What in the heck does that mean?” However, as the image tells you, it stands for the things that are a main staple in the religion. 

Also, The cross of Scientology:

has 8 points, which stand for the eight dynamics of Scientology. 1. The self. 2. Creativity, sex, procreation. 3. Group, society, community. 4. Species Survival. 5. Life forms in general. 6. Matter. 7. Spirit. 8. Infinity of the Supreme Being.

What is scientology? For some, you may know this answer, however, I didn’t know what this religion was, even after we saw the video of Tom Cruise talking about it. Scientology is a religion that offers a precise path leading to a complete and certain understanding of one’s true spiritual nature and one’s relationship to self, family, groups, Mankind, all life forms, the material universe, the spiritual universe and the spiritual being. (scientology.org) Scientology like most religions has a system of beliefs that they follow adamantly. It was created in 1952 by science fiction and fantasy author, L. Ron. Hubbard

            Man is an immortal being.

            His experience extends well beyond a single lifetime.

            He capabilities are unlimited, even if they aren’t presently realized.

While I was navigating through the scientology website, I noticed that almost every link you clicked on there was a video to explain what you needed. Also, in one of the videos someone had mentioned that inside the church there are video clips that explain concepts and someone just has to push a button and they can learn about the concept in a short two minutes.

 Scientology presents itself as a very technologically driven group of people. I mean look at that piece of technology they are presenting to the public. And not to mention they had multiples of these throughout the building. Technology is an important practice throughout this religion because it is the methods of applying the principles of something, as opposed to mere knowledge of the thing itself. This is important in Scientology because they are applying the beliefs they have to their lives, and within that application they are bringing those beliefs to life, and into practice, and they are following through with the methods of Scientology.
 

Even in the designs of the churches, it’s different than most churches that I have seen.

One the top is a picture of the Cathedral Bassilica in Saint Louis, Missouri and on the bottom is a picture of a Church of Scientology located in Spain.

From the two pictures listed above, I get the idea that the Church of Scientology is purposely avoiding the universal designs of typical churches such as the arched doorways, and stained glass windows, and possibly domes on the top of the buildings. The Church of Scientology doesn’t show any arched doorways and it has normal windows. Also, while the top image seems to look more like a castle, the bottom image seems to start narrow and branches out, representing a need in a way for expansion. Also, something else I noticed was that in most catholic churches or churches in general, they typically have a dome located on the top at some point, and that to me represents a way of getting closer to God, or the higher power. However, the Church of Scientology doesn't do this. I think that if someone where to see these two very different designs that may not even consider the "church" of Scientology a church because of the grave differences that are obviously apparent. I think that the Church of Scientology purposely makes these distinctions so that they can consider themselves greatly different than other religions.  

In the video of Tom Cruise that we saw in class, I thought it was interesting the way he portrayed himself as a scientologist. He portrayed himself as a person who believes that he is the only one that can help. I find this slightly selfish, because what happens in the case where multiple scientologist show up at the scene, do they begin to argue over who is best fit to lend their assistance? I find that if someone in the future were to see the video posted below they would probably think that Scientology is a selfish religion that places themselves above others.

As soon as the video starts Cruise says, “I think it’s a privilege to call yourself a scientologist. And it’s something you have to earn.” Now, I do not know much about religion, but, I do know that you should not have to earn the right to be a member of a certain religion.

He also mentions that being a scientologist means that if you drive by an accident, you get out and help because you “know” you’re the only one who can help in that situation. However, I find it difficult to believe that they are the only ones who can help in a dire situation. For example, unless there is a doctor who is a scientologist, they can’t help someone who just had a heart attack. For this reason, I find it hard to believe that this “religion” does not place themselves above others and other religions.

People are going to have different views on the religion of Scientology. I believe that when looking at such a different religion than most people are used to, one shouldn't look at it with a closed mind. They should look at it as if it's something that their religion was like, so when they observe their symbols and reasoning, they can find a contextual purpose for it, and not just shun it off as if it has no importance. 

The Book of Abraham

Before I began reading the Book of Abraham, I thought back to a conversation that was mentioned during class about how it is hard to read a text such as the Book of Mormon, and this text included without having some sort of outside thinking coming into the situation.

Something I found interesting throughout the reading that I noticed really early on was that this book is not adding the use of –eth, onto the end of certain words like it did in the Book of Mormon and that to me, makes it seem like this is more of a present day text than the Book of Mormon.

The thing that I would pay attention to the most would be the language and the words that they are using because words can tell you a lot about the historical context of a document. The words in this document appear to be normal everyday language that we would use in today’s society. However, the thing that makes me contemplate the timing of this document is the way the words are arranged and the sentences that it uses. For example, “it came to pass,” which is used multiple times throughout the document, is not something that we would normally say.

Overall, I think it is hard to determine if this context was written when it has been said to be written, because certain aspects allow me to think that it is more of present day writing, like the wording of sentences. However, on the other hand, the way the words are arranged in some passages makes me think that it was written at an earlier date.  

Skepticism of Mormonism

While reading the Book of Mormon this week for class, I could not help but be skeptical of this. Maybe it’s because of my own biases and what I myself believe. I honestly, do not know what to believe when it comes to this book. I think that some aspects of this could be his own but at the same time, I find it really difficult to imagine that him at such a young age, 15 years old, could contemplate all of the ideas listed in this book.

                Smith says,

                “And I, being only fifteen years of age, and being somewhat of a sober mind, therefore I was visited of the Lord, and tasted, and knew of the goodness  of Jesus,” (529)

                This is skeptical to me because why out of all of the people that he shared a community with would the Lord pick a 15 year old boy? The fact that he states he was forbidden to preach unto to the people, makes me wonder if this really happened, or if he is just trying to make a case so that people will believe him about this “encounter.”

                I think that he wanted to be able to commit to a religion without having to go through the troubles of everything that he possibly would have had to go through at his age in the video that we saw so he took concepts that people had already been aware of and made them relate to him, and then spoke to the people about it, and they believed him and followed him. 

Jesus in America

            While I was reading The Third Book of Nephi, I thought it was interesting how the story was presented. Before Christ had visited the people, there was a storm, earthquakes, and darkness. The darkness lasted for 3 days and then the resurrection of Christ. A figure clothed in white descended from the sky, and presented himself to the people as Christ. I think this series of getting to the presence of Jesus Christ in the Americas is interesting in a sense that it took much damage and disaster to get him there.

            Something that stood out to me was when Smith writes,     

            “And it came to pass that the people began to wax strong in wickedness and abominations; and they did not believe that there should be any more signs or wonders given; and Satan did go about, leading away the hearts of the people, tempting them and causing them that they should do great wickedness in the land,” (463).

            This stood out to me because later on they are given a sign of Jesus Christ. That sign being him simply professing who he is. I find it a little odd, that seeing that Satan had corrupting them and made them believe that their shouldn’t be any more signs or things like that, they immediately believed the sign of Christ. This makes me wonder, if Satan really did corrupt the people, or if they simply let him believe that he did.

            As far as what in their world would be challenged, I’m not sure I can answer that without a biased answer. I’d answer it by saying how can they simply believe Jesus when he comes back and claims that, he is who is when, when they don’t really know that. I say this because, I was taught that Jesus was crucified in front of the people and when he came back, it was known who he was. But, Jesus appeared in the United States and they didn’t know who he was before. So, I guess, the thing I would challenge would be the fact that they believed Jesus was who he said he was. 

Misunderstanding throughout this Religion

For the first blog post regarding the Baha'i faith I'll admit I was confused as to exactly what the Baha'i stood for. While reading the book, my initial reaction to this faith was one that was contradictory. Some followers of this religion were very compassionate and stood for unity throughout the nations and other religions. And other followers did not stand for either of those principles at all.

            After our class discussion, I came to realize that this religion is not like that in any way. This religion in all aspects stands for unity throughout nations, religious practices, and choices, it stands for compassion, and the betterment of others in a way. During class on Wednesday I thought of a quote that I think can summarize a little of what this religion stands for,

“It’s freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion”.

This quote came to mind because it seems like the Baha’I do not care about what other people believe when it comes to religion, or if they believe in religion. This is very important I feel in today society because so many people look down on others if they don’t follow the same religion as them.

I honestly had never heard of this faith before class, and I find that a little bit surprising considering that it is the second most widespread religion after Christianity. I’m not one to understand all the nitty gritty about the well-known religions, but I think that some of the aspects of Baha’I should be integreated into some of those religions a little bit more. For example, the unity of nations and religions, a good number of religious people, mainly Catholics and Christians seem to shun people in a sense when it comes to others religious beliefs. I have nothing against these religions in any way, however, I think that some aspects of Baha’I would make the religions a little bit more approachable. 

Compassion in Baha

In the video it is mentioned at the very beginning that rage is expressed in religious terms, and that not many people can see the compassionate side of religion, or that it is not at the forefront of their attention. For the compassionate aspect mentioned, she mentions the golden rule. And people give their testimonies of people from religious backgrounds being compassionate towards them.

Different aspects of this religion support the arguments shown in the video, while some aspects contradict the arguments.

For example, when the brother passes away, Baha ‘u’ llah, tells the brother that his last wish would be as he desired. Baha ‘u’ llah is being compassionate towards what the brother wants. He seems to be very compassionate for other beings throughout this book. He told the messenger of his letter that his life could be in danger, and if he didn’t want to deliver the letter then he would find a different person to do so. Baha ‘u’ llah, seems to be very compassionate towards other people that admire him, and want to follow his religion.

On the contradictory side of this argument however, I’m not sure if the people who are in charge of watching the people who are imprisoned actually follow the religion, but, they are not very compassionate towards the followers themselves. They   would torture messengers when they wouldn’t give information that the felt they knew, when they didn’t know anything. Also, they wouldn’t allow anyone in or out of the prison in which people were being held, they weren’t allowed to bath but once a week. The people in charge of watching over the prisoners did not treat them like they would have wanted to be treated. They treated them very poorly and in my opinion inhumanly. 

The Jamaican Man

I will never look at Bob Marley the same after learning about the Rastafari.  Before I learned about this way of life, I just thought of Bob Marley as a guy with dreadlocks and who smoked a lot of pot. But, now, I hear Bob Marley and I think of a guy who cares about the way of life he has taken, and who is passionate about the things that his homeland has gone through and how they relate the Bible to their own lives.

In the song Buffalo Soldier, at the very beginning you hear the words, “Buffalo soldier, dreadlock rasta,” this to me makes it known that Bob Marley is extremely proud of his way of life.

 “Stolen from Africa, brought to America. Fighting on arrival, fighting for survival.”

This line makes me think of the captivity of Babylon, and how the homelands were destroyed and had to start over and had to fight for their lives to be rebuilt. Bob Marley uses it in the context to me, as being taken from Ethiopia and not wanting to leave, and fighting to get back to where they came from.

Whenever we were shown the cover for the album, “Exodus” we mentioned what we thought was interesting. I thought it was interesting how the title of the album was larger and more prominent than the artists name. That to me says that Bob Marley was more concerned about the story he was telling, than his name being known.

                        

In the song Exodus, the words, 

“Send us another brother Moses (Movement of Jah people!) From across the Red Sea!”

 Bob Marley took direct instances from the Bible and incorporated them into his music. He includes things from Christianity, and his own way of life, Jah.

Bob Marley was not just a guy who made music and smoked a lot of pot, like I originally thought. Bob Marley’s music was a way of sending out the messages of his way of life in a way that would make people want to listen. 

Dreadlocks in Religion?!

First, I find is extremely interesting that we are writing about how the village in the video participates in the system of symbols we see in our book, but the Rastas would oppose their religion as a system of symbols, and more as a way of life.

In the video, you didn’t really see it all that much, however, they mention dreadlocks. At first I never would have thought dreadlocks to be connected to be a religious symbol. In our book, it states that dreadlocks function as a mystical link between those who believe in Rastafari and Jah, or the “earth-force.”  The dreadlocks are to symbolize the doom that Babylon will eventually face. I find it interesting that there is such a religious context behind a simple hairstyle.There are many reasons why dreadlocks could have possibly came to the world, however, according the Rastafari it symbolizes their belief to naturalness. 

While, the video does not directly mention dreadlocks, they mention wrapping the dread locks in a turban, which is worn like a crown. The video recognizes the turban as a crown, and a way to develop a closer connection with the Lord, and connecting them back to the Holy land of Ethiopia. The video mentions that the turban is a distinct and ancient dressing from Ethiopia. I find it a little bit shocking that in our book it says that the HYBF grew their locks as a direct attack on the social norms concerning grooming, and that they knew people would consider them antisocial. However, from this video and the wrapping of the dreadlocks in an ancient dressing that connects back to the holy land, it seems like they were not really concerned with people connected with actual people, but more of their relationship with Jah. 

Religion is Everywhere

While reading the reading for this blog I couldn’t help but think of something religious.  The article throughout the majority made me think back to the Psalms. I say this because the message I got from the Psalms, well, throughout a large portion of the Psalms was the message of God being the almighty, and the powerful, and the helper, and anything that you needed, God would be it for you.

                “He opened his mouth in parables, and his words were sweeter than the purest honey; his whole behaviour was admirable, and his whole aspect pleasant.” (18)

The quote above stood out to me because I thought directly back to the Psalms. I thought right back to the Psalms in which they are talking about the Lord in his greatness.

It’s hard to just talk about one aspect of religion that is included throughout this reading. I’m not exactly sure if this is right, but I get the impression that this was simply their way of writing the stories of the Bible, without the title being directly known as a religious aspect.

First, the obvious religious figures. David, Solomon, Abraham, Noah, all are names that are very closely related to the Bible. Also, the reading mentions Jerusalem, which is an obvious aspect of religion.

This reading has religious aspects threading throughout the entire thing.  

                 

                “Blessed art thou, my lord, in that such wisdom and understanding have been given unto thee…” (25)

I picked this quote out because to me it represents a staple in religion. Looking to the Lord for wisdom and understanding throughout this lifetime.

This reading has multiple aspects of religion intertwined throughout, whether it be something small, or something that religion is based around. I believe that it’s kind of difficult to find something that doesn’t have even one religious aspect intertwined throughout it.

Question of reader or writer?

“The student who fears God earnestly seeks his will in the holy scriptures. Holiness, makes him gentle, so that he does not revel in controversy; a knowledge of languages protects him from uncertainty over unfamiliar words or phrases, and a knowledge of certain essential things protects him from ignorance of the significance and detail of what is used by way of imagery,” (68).

This passage stood out to me because I got the impression that Augustine is saying that even the person who fears God, turns to God in the end to help with the fear. I also enjoyed how the authors states what the holiness does for the student. It allows him to have different sources of understanding.

Another thing that stood out to me was when Augustine states that we have to consult the rule of faith, if close consideration doesn’t explain the punctuation and articulation of a passage. This was interesting to me because he went on to talk about how different punctuation throughout the scriptures can change the entire meaning of it, or at least make the message different.

Saint Augustine goes on the talk about the punctuation throughout the scriptures and how we should be reading it. However, he states that such issues that revolve around punctuation are left for the readers to resolve. He also says that the punctuation problems can also be applied to reading aloud, and that this situation, can be resolved by consulting the rules of faith or the surrounding text. It seems that he tends to put the punctuation errors and errors when interpreting the scriptures on the readers, when I think that the way the scriptures were written allows us to interpret and read them incorrectly. 

On Christian Teaching

Throughout On Christian Teaching, book two, I got the feeling that Augustine was telling the readers that in order to understand the Bible we must understand the language in which it was written, so in this instance, Latin. And if we don’t understand that language then we have to understand the background of the stories. He states on page 40, “Because a translator, unless very expert, often strays away from the author’s meaning, we should aim either to acquire knowledge of the languages from which the Latin scripture derives or to use the versions of those who keep excessively close to the literal meaning.” However, I feel like even if a story has been translated, the one that remains closest to the literal meaning could still have some striations from the original context.

Throughout the article that was assigned to us, I felt that it was telling us some of the same things but not entirely. It begins to talk about the different approaches when it comes to using the Scriptures. The first way was by creating a blueprint, then reading and using them as if they are concrete building blocks. However, this assumes that we already have prior knowledge to the larger picture the Scripture provides. The other process allows readers to use the Scripture for our own uses, and puts us in charge. People who use this way believe that the Bible is a way in which the Lord speaks to us.

With one of these approaches it states that “one cannot read the Bible without bringing some understanding to the table,” that to me is a similarity, but overall, I feel like they rarely tell us the same way to interpret and read the Bible.

I think that there are some aspects of the two different sources that are positive. For instance, in the Augustine book, I think that his point that states we need to have an understanding of the language and if we don’t then we need to know the background of the stories is a valid point. I think this because if the language doesn’t fit the story we could get an entirely different message. With the article, I think it’s a positive thing that some readers feel that they can use the Scriptures for their own use, and have control, because it allows the readers to use the Scriptures in a way that they feel is appropriate for their situations. 

Beauty in the Psalms

The Psalms of 120-134 were beautiful. I felt like they were a little bit different than what we are used to reading when it comes to the Psalms.

Specifically, I want to mention things that I read in Psalms 121.

            “I life my eyes up to the mountain, from where will my help come? My help is from the Lord, maker of heaven and earth. He does not let your foot stumble. You guard does not slumber.”

The beginning of this Psalm made me reevaluate how I feel about the Psalms, because originally I felt that they were boring and simply said the same things over and over again. However, this part of the Psalms, made me realize that the things the Psalms tell us, and say have more meaning than simply telling us things about past history. Even nowadays, we are told in church whenever we need help or need a way out of a situation that we can’t seem to resolve ourselves to ask the Lord for help and it will come. We’re also told that the Lord doesn’t give us anything we can’t handle. (“He does not let your foot stumble”) and to be honest, when I would hear that I would think, “Yea, okay whatever.” But, after reading this Psalm I honestly believe that it’s true. It says that the Lord helps people when they need it, and he guides their feet in the direction that they need to be headed in.

Psalm 134 to me also meant a lot.

            “Life up your hands toward the holy place and bless the Lord. May the Lord bless you from Zion, He Who makes heaven and earth.”

From this I get that if we allow ourselves to bless the Lord with a presence in our lives, and in our hearts then he will return the blessings from the Mountain of Zion. It all goes back to the saying, “You get out what you put in.” If you put your faith in the Lord, then he will put his faith in you, and help you when you need it, and he will show you the way to your destiny.

The Hymn of Aten and the Book of Psalms

I’m not so sure that these two versions is a result of direct borrowing. It was kind of hard to relate the two together because in the other comparisons that we have done there were words that were specifically the same throughout the two.

The first similarity between the two texts is: in the Psalm book line 2: “Wrapped in light like a cloak, stretching out heavens like a tent-cloth.” And when The Hymn to the Aten states: “You are appealing, great, sparkling, high over every land; your rays embrace the lands as far as everything you have made.” The only difference really is the amount of words it takes to get the point across. It appears that in the book of Psalms and in the Hymn to the Aten, someone is telling the Lord that the light that he creates covers everything that he has made. In the books of Psalms line 14, it says, “he makes the hay sprout for cattle, grass for the labor of humankind to bring forth bread from the earth,” seems like a chain reaction in a way. One thing leads to another that leads to another, and gives us the things we need for nourishment. In the Hymn to the Aten, it says, “in the underworld you make a Nile that you may bring it forth as you wish to feed the populance,” it says he does what he does for the betterment of the people, but only when he chooses too. While in the book of Psalms to me it says that he does what he does for the betterment of the population all the time.

They both represent the lives of Israelites to me because I believe that the book of Psalms kind of describes the things that they ended up going through over the times, and both readings send the same message. What I got from the Psalms and the Hymn to the Aten was that everything that happened was simply to benefit something else. These two are similar in the messages that they are trying to get across, but the book of Psalms is more obvious with how it perceives the message. 

Bay Book and Psalms.

After our class discussion on Wednesday I began to really think about the Psalms and the different translations. Well, really the translations between the Book of Psalms that we have and the Bay book. I've never really been that big of a religious person, I believe in God, but don't have a religion, and haven't read the Bible before. So, after our discussion I was thinking about the fact that these 'books' aren't just a story about religious figures or the figures we've known to be connected to religion, they're music for people's lives.

While we were talking about the Puritans and the Psalms, I kind of feel like they allowed the books translations to be their, 'instructions' as to what they were supposed to do here. In Psalm 2:8, of the Bay Book, it says "Aske thou of me, and I will give and of the earth thou shalt possesse the utmost coast abroad," this may have seemed to the Puritans that God was on their side when they came here.

I believe that people wanted these "stories" to have a special meaning so they found a way to incorporate that into something that has a meaning for everyone, which would be music. So many people singing the same thing, has to send a message.

Differences throughout the Book of Psalms

In just the first two lines of Psalms 2, in the Bay book, I’ve noticed that they arrangement of the words have been switched around a little bit. It doesn’t change the meaning of the Psalm, but for someone who has read a different translation of the book of Psalms, they may have to look at it for a little bit longer. They tend to use different words as well. Instead of mountain, the Bay Book uses the word hill.

I decided to translate Psalms 6 through the two different books. I felt that it was easiest to understand the last part of the Psalms. “The lord hears my plea, the Lord will take my prayer. Let all my enemies be shamed and hard stricken, let them turn back, be shamed in an instant.”  The Bay Book translates this in a very similar way, but instead of saying let the enemies be shamed in the beginning the Bay Book doesn’t imply this until the end of the translation.

I feel like the meaning behind the two translations is the same, as it should be. However, they use different words and the way that the Bay Book translation is organized is a little bit confusing and difficult to read. I would rather read the translation that we have for class because it’s easier to read and to me, understand. I don’t feel as if they change throughout the contexts. I just feel that the words have been switched out for other words, and the order of the words have been switched, however, the meaning still means the same thing.

Effigy Mounds and Geertz

I’m on the fence about the effigy mounds being reflections of a “system of symbols”, as mentioned in the Geertz definition. However, I feel like certain aspects of the mounds, and how they have been created can have a connection. The effigy mounds are considered by some to be representations of the same belief systems that were visible on the pottery. To me, I feel like the things throughout the pottery relates to the Geertz definition because even then they had an “ideology” about an upper world and a lower world, and Earth simply being in the middle. In a religious context, it’s like a heaven and a hell.

Part of me agrees with Lynne Goldstein when she suggests that the mounds could be resource maps, however, part of me believes that the Effigy mounds were built as a system of symbols. The reason I say this is because Mallam has a very good point. There are three different groups of mounds; Earth, air, and water, and those are the things that humans as a civilization rely upon for survival. I understand that they may have had to figure that out when they first built the mounds, but how could they have known that the later generations would adapt to needing the same things. Also, as Mallam states, it seems like they realized that the Earth, air, and water aspects of their lives had to in a sense work together to maintain the appropriate means of living conditions.

Also, in a recent study it showed that whenever the predominate “class of mound” was present, the complimentary or opposing “class” was somewhere in relation to it. That to me can relate to Geertz’s definition because it can act as an order or existence, in a way. Like, without the air and water, the Earth wouldn’t have a means for survival. The Earth being depicted in the middle of figure 5.6 to me means that the Earth was reliable on the sky and water back then, as it is now.

Indian Mounds of Wisconsin

Throughout the first assigned reading in the Indian Mounds of Wisconsin, I was actually interested in how they were going to go about excavating the different mounds simply to discover the reasoning and the people (tribes) behind it.

To build onto what we discussed in class about the Native Americans living in villages around the mounds, if they weren't civilized and where just savages, something tells me that they wouldn't have just ignored the structures that were on the land prior to their villages. I honestly believe that if the Native Americans were so uncivilized as we've read about then the mounds wouldn't still be standing. Also, we can doubt the abilities of the Native Americans being able to construct the mounds, however, how often do we hear about someone questioning the ability of the Egyptians creating the pyramids. Like stated in class, we tend to tell stories to explain the things that we don't have a solid concrete answer for, but, does that give anyone the right to question what another group of individuals are capable of?

One thing that struck me as odd was the fact that the difference in the conclusions in who actually built the mounds and the different ways they came about those conclusions. Lapham saw connections between the mounds and the modern day Native Americans in the area and pottery and pipes that had been recovered. While,William Pidgeon claims to have heard the histories of the mounds and traditions of the mounds told by the builders themselves. Pidgeon also wrote about how he heard many stories from De-coo-dah and how he had informed Pidgeon about their builders and their secrets. However, Silverberg states that the instance from Pidgeon is just a myth and never had any objective existence. Why couldn't the people build off each other? Isn't that what research is about? Taking someone else's findings and studying them and finding a way to prove them wrong? Not just hearing something that you don't agree with and immediately saying its false.

Richard Dawkins Video

I feel that Dawkins is extremely biased. He's an evolutionary biologists and in his line of work he's been pre-conditioned to not believe something unless there is proof to prove it. I feel that he lets his occupation get in the way of things that he could believe.
Like what another student said in class today, because nobody was around in the time when all of this started we have nothing to go on except our beliefs and the beliefs of others.
As far as the "appropriate" way to discuss religion, I'm not so sure there is an appropriate way to do so. I would think that one of the closest ways to do so would be to simply listen to people and their beliefs and to not try to change or force someone else to change their religion just to be happy.

Why Do We Believe?

I'm not going to lie, this article confused the heck out of me. So, if this doesn't make sense that's why. :\

The author made a satement saying that scientists are searching for an explination for why belief in God exist, but not if God actually exist.. But, that makes me think where the idea of "God" came from if he doesn't exist. According to the article, a Richard Dawkins, who said that religion is nothing more than a useless evolutionary accident.
I want to say that the believers that are mentioned on the second page of the article are right. If we have to ability to think, and the mental capacity to discern a God, how would these ideas have gotten there? Did someone in the pre-historic times just think of a higher, alimighty power, to allow us to put our faith into something or someone who has the ability to change our lives, and know about our lives before we take the steps to create them.
On the third page it says, "I wondered why no society ever survived more than three generations without a religious foundation as its raison d'etre." I feel like a society as a whole has certain religious beliefs, but it's the individual people who don't believe the same things that the society does.
This article was difficult for me to read and understand. I belive mainly because it's hard for me to see a point of someone who doesn't believe in God arguing about why we believe, and if we why have a belief for God, but not not positive that a God does exist.