Notices

View Poll Results: What is religion for?

Voters
14. You may not vote on this poll
  • Religion is the opiate of the masses.

    10 71.43%
  • Religion is the only way out of our troubles.

    1 7.14%
  • Religion is right for some fights, but not for all.

    3 21.43%
  • Religion doesn't exist.

    0 0%
Results 1 to 66 of 66

Thread: What is religion?

  1. #1 What is religion? 
    Forum Bachelors Degree The P-manator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    474
    So, what is it, and what is it for? Do you agree, like Karl Marx, that it is the "opiate of the masses", or is it the only way out of our troubles in life? Or do you stand in between, unsure wether to believe that there is someone there to carry our sins?

    I think, personally, that there is no one so easily reachable as some of the religions seem to think, no one being who you can give your sins to every time you pray. I think that the true divine being, whatever and whoever it may be, is much harder to reach than that. It is much more like Buddhism than anything else, but instead of nirvana, there is a spiritual heaven: not physical, but something that if you believe in enough, your mind will go there, and it is there where you can truly rid yourself of your sins. To reach that, however, you must focus on it, and find a medium to get there. I have chosen science. Others may choose different paths.


    Pierre

    Fight for our environment and our habitat at www.wearesmartpeople.com.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Freshman llantas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    New Mexico
    Posts
    42
    "Religion doesn't exist"!?


    “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." -Stephen F Roberts

    http://godisimaginary.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Answering this objectively is somewhat nonsensical because each Religion defines itself and its purpose. But perhaps the existentialist approach is helpful.

    Religion is part of mankind's search for meaning. It is an important part of mankind's attempt to face, manage, cope with and answer his existential dilemna: his responsiblility for doing what he does and being what he is.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Bachelors Degree The P-manator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    474
    That is true. It seems it is a way of finding answers about the world.
    Pierre

    Fight for our environment and our habitat at www.wearesmartpeople.com.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman Bonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    32
    Religion is something you're born into, if your ancestors do believe in one. To some, it's way of life, a faith in god that resolves all our problems, miracles in times of need and just represents culture and tradition. There are somethings in this world that have no real logical explaination and religion is the way to go about it. And really, it's something we lean onto in times of anxiety, depression and suffering.. in those critical times of need.
    Representing the Pigloo Tribe ^^
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by The P-manator
    That is true. It seems it is a way of finding answers about the world.

    There are somethings in this world that have no real logical explaination and religion is the way to go about it.
    Well, I guess it depends on what you mean by the world, but most people think of the world as consisting of what is objectively observable, and compared to science, religion is woefully inadequate to finding answers in regards to this.

    If you say instead that religion seems a way of finding answers about oneself, then religion is at least closer to a more equal footing with science because many if not most people find science and the objectively observable and measurable to be insufficient on that score.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bonzo
    Religion is something you're born into, if your ancestors do believe in one.

    To some, it's way of life, a faith in god that resolves all our problems, miracles in times of need and just represents culture and tradition.
    Even if this is true for the majority of people this is utterly inadequate when discussing the definition of religion. You see myself and most of the people I talk to about religion did not grow up in the religion to which they now belong. This is because a lot of the people who are most vocal about their religion are those who came to it as a result of a personal quest. Even those born into a religion do not take it seriously until they in some sense discover it for themselves. Otherwise religion is just something in the background of life like the hospital in which they happened to be born, and that is not something you talk about very often.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bonzo
    And really, it's something we lean onto in times of anxiety, depression and suffering.. in those critical times of need.
    Again even though religion may play such a role in many peoples lives, this is also quite inadequate for a definition, for then you would have trouble explaining those people where their religion primarily brings them great suffering and hardship: martyrs, missionaries, and others who deprive themselves in the search for understanding and self-transformation.

    Indeed for myself and many others religion is the opposite of comfort, but instead represents ideals to reach for in the cold harsh light of the truth, striving against the warm comfort of the dark which our self-justifications provide for ourselves. Religion is often a matter of self-denial and challenging oneself -- refusing to take the easy and comfortable path in life.

    Therefore, I think that the comfort it provides to some people is somewhat incidental. People can find comfort in just about anything including in anger, hatred and the repudiation of God.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman llantas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    New Mexico
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by Bonzo
    Religion is something you're born into, if your ancestors do believe in one.
    I would not like to be judged on what my ancestors believed v_o
    “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." -Stephen F Roberts

    http://godisimaginary.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    320
    religion=culture

    same thing
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    722
    Religion is the answer to man's search for the purpose of life. They have found many answers. Only one MAY be right. And everyone claims that his religion is the right one.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by prasit
    Religion is the answer to man's search for the purpose of life. They have found many answers. Only one MAY be right. And everyone claims that his religion is the right one.
    I am not so sure about this. I think the purpose of life can be found in the nature of life itself. To grow - to become - to live. But that is just the purpose of life on the most basic level, because these things ask their own questions: to become what, to live how? But I think it is in the nature of living things to answer those questions themselves. So it is true that religion may indeed be a part of this determination of purpose, but nothing demands that there be only one purpose for everyone. In fact, it seems to me that the nature of living things suggests quite the opposite: that each can choose and develop its own unique purpose apart from others.

    That does not mean that everything is equal, for after all, one can choose death.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    722
    mitch wrote:
    So it is true that religion may indeed be a part of this determination of purpose, but nothing demands that their be only one purpose for everyone.
    I am not so clear what you mean by that. I speculate that a man who grows, lives, breeds etc. may start asking what he is here for, really. By searching for meaning and purpose he may come up with a good answer that other people adopt, and a religion was born.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by prasit
    mitch wrote:
    So it is true that religion may indeed be a part of this determination of purpose, but nothing demands that there be only one purpose for everyone.
    I am not so clear what you mean by that. I speculate that a man who grows, lives, breeds etc. may start asking what he is here for, really. By searching for meaning and purpose he may come up with a good answer that other people adopt, and a religion was born.
    I was objecting to the idea that only one religion could be right. I know you said "may" and not "could" and in that sense I agree with you and you can consider my statements to be a clarification. Regardless of what religions may claim, it need not be the case that everyone has the same purpose in life. This idea of a single purpose is related to the idea of everyone being the product of one creator. But even this does not neccessitate everyone being created for the same purpose.

    Furthermore, I was pointing out that it is the nature of living things to participate in the process of their own creation rather than being designed, and as a result they are likely to play a role in determining their own purpose. It is true that farmers and shepherds tend to raise their crops and flocks for a single purpose, but that is because they have needs, and even though plants and sheep have comparitively little free will, they still may have their own "ideas" about their purpose at times. Anyway, it seems unlikely to me that God creates out of need and it is evident that He has created an enormous diversity of life. So even if God has created living things for a purpose, it seems to me that it would be such a purpose that leaves a great deal to be decided on our own parts.

    Some might say that we were created to serve God. I don't think so, for this makes no sense to me. But even if it were true, I think it is implied by our nature as living things that it is greatly up to us to decide how we will serve God.

    Personally, I think God created life for its own sake and as a result it is up to us to determine our own purpose. But this only means that we are free to choose, it does not mean that all choices are equal. Surely the choices which increase our potentiality, awareness and opportunities are preferable to those which stifle or destroy ourselves and lead to stagnation. I think this what religious truths are really all about. I have claimed in other threads that God created life for the purpose of an eternal relationship with Him. But this is not a restrictive purpose but just the opposite. It simply means that God, like a parent, would encourage us to make choices, which increase our powers of self-determination rather than diminish them so that we can always (eternally) move on to bigger and better things. That would be the only meaningful way to have an active eternal relationship with an infinite God.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Bachelors Degree The P-manator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    474
    Quote Originally Posted by SealOtter
    religion=culture

    same thing
    So you are saying atheists have no culture.

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    I think the purpose of life can be found in the nature of life itself. To grow - to become - to live.
    Hmmm, the meaning of life. Is that really what religion is trying to answer? Yes, Buddhism tries to get there, but some do not even consider Buddhism a religion, but more a set of principles.

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Well, I guess it depends on what you mean by the world, but most people think of the world as consisting of what is objectively observable, and compared to science, religion is woefully inadequate to finding answers in regards to this.
    Many religious "extremists" believe that religion can answer scientific questions. I think it is the other way around. I find religion through science, although I do not worship anything.
    Pierre

    Fight for our environment and our habitat at www.wearesmartpeople.com.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    722
    mitch wrote
    I was objecting to the idea that only one religion could be right
    I said only one religion may be right on the assumption each religion has different beliefs, different gods. They can not be right at the same time.
    Furthermore, I was pointing out that it is the nature of living things to participate in the process of their own creation rather than being designed, and as a result they are likely to play a role in determining their own purpose.
    You lost me there. I did not exist before I was created, how could I participate in the process of my own creation?
    Some might say that we were created to serve God
    Personally, I think God created life for its own sake and as a result it is up to us to determine our own purpose
    Your statements support my argument that "Religion is the answer to man's search for the purpose of life. They have found many answers. "
    In this thread, I am not advocating which religion, if any, is right. I just give the opinion of why it exists.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by prasit
    I said only one religion may be right on the assumption each religion has different beliefs, different gods. They can not be right at the same time.
    Is the way of the birds right? How about the way of the fish?
    Shall the bird say to its children that it is ok to swim under the water or shall the fish say to its children that it is ok to fly in the air? Just because the bird knows the right way to live and the fish knows the right way to live does not mean that only one of them can be correct.

    Quote Originally Posted by prasit
    Furthermore, I was pointing out that it is the nature of living things to participate in the process of their own creation rather than being designed, and as a result they are likely to play a role in determining their own purpose.
    You lost me there. I did not exist before I was created, how could I participate in the process of my own creation?
    But you did. You are not now what you were yesterday. You are not now what you were a year ago. You are not now what you were in you mother's womb. And what you were in the womb is not what you were before fertilization.

    Life is a continuous process. Not only in time but also in space. Where are the limits of what is you? Is it only what you have control over like your body, your car, your house? Is it only what you require to live like your body, the plants, the ozone layer, the sun?

    You are created not all at once but in a continuous process of life that extends to the beginnings of time. Everything that you are is the result of the choices made by life in its process of development on this planet.

    You were gifted with an inheritance from all that went before you and you embraced it and made it your own and then you proceeded to build on this beginning to make yourself what you are today. You use the internet to talk to people around the world to share ideas. Is this how you were made, or did you play a part in making yourself this way? What is the most important part of you, do you think? What is it that makes you, you. Do you say that you played no part in the creation of this part of youreself?

    Quote Originally Posted by prasit
    some might say that we were created to serve God
    Personally, I think God created life for its own sake and as a result it is up to us to determine our own purpose
    Your statements support my argument that "Religion is the answer to man's search for the purpose of life. They have found many answers. "
    In this thread, I am not advocating which religion, if any, is right. I just give the opinion of why it exists.
    And I agreed that religion may indeed be a part of man's effort to determine his own purpose. But I say that it is only a part of that effort because it is the nature of living things to determine their own purpose. And so we see that some people to do not look to religion for that determination of purpose, and that does not mean that they are therefore without purpose. Furthermore, in some religions you see the question of purpose addressed right away and in others it is never addressed. Therefore, I expressed doubt as to whether this is an adequate definition of religion.

    The list of religions is not a list of the possible answers to this question of purpose. Religions are rather much like living things themselves. They have their own internal system of rules and reasoning. They only answer the questions which they themselves choose to ask.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    722
    Mitch wrote
    Shall the bird say to its children that it is ok to swim under the water or shall the fish say to its children that it is ok to fly in the air? Just because the bird knows the right way to live and the fish knows the right way to live does not mean that only one of them can be correct.
    If the bird says life only exists above water and the fish says life only exists under water, then at least one of them must be wrong (In this case both are). Muslim says only one God exists, his name is Allah, his teaching is Goran and Christian says only one God exists, his name is certainly not Allah, his teaching is Bible, then at least one of them must be wrong.
    Mitch wrote
    You are created not all at once but in a continuous process of life that extends to the beginnings of time. Everything that you are is the result of the choices made by life in its process of development on this planet.
    I am the results of the survival of my ancestors, but I am not them. I am the one who wrote to you yesterday, changed a little bit, but not re-created overnight. I am different from you although we may share a common ancestor far back in the past, it does not mean that I am them nor you. The earliest that I can admit that 'I' was created is when my father's sperm fused with my mother's egg. My awareness of self started after that. I did not participate in the procreation of myself. I did not choose to be the youngest son of a working class family. (Had I been able to choose, I would have chosen to be born in a fabulously well-to-do family. )
    Furthermore, in some religions you see the question of purpose addressed right away and in others it is never addressed.
    Could you tell me which religion does not address the purpose of life, directly nor indirectly?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by prasit
    Muslim says only one God exists, his name is Allah, his teaching is Goran and Christian says only one God exists, his name is certainly not Allah, his teaching is Bible, then at least one of them must be wrong.
    Things in life are rarely this simple. A name is simply something people call you. Some people have many names. Officially, God has no birth certificate and therefore no name. It is possible that the Koran and the Bible are both God's teaching and yet neither are His teaching. God speaks to and inspires everyone, and yet God does not put a pen to paper or employ a publishing company.

    Don't get the wrong idea. I am Christian. I only recognize the Bible as the word of God. But I still deny that one or the other, Christianity or Islam must be wrong. There are Christians who do think that Islam is wrong. But even in a science there are scientists who have opinions which are wrong. It does not make their whole science wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by prasit
    I am the results of the survival of my ancestors, but I am not them. I am the one who wrote to you yesterday, changed a little bit, but not re-created overnight.
    Exactly! Little time = little change. Lot of time = big change.

    Quote Originally Posted by prasit
    I am different from you although we may share a common ancestor far back in the past, it does not mean that I am them nor you. The earliest that I can admit that 'I' was created is when my father's sperm fused with my mother's egg. My awareness of self started after that.
    But all life is aware, and awareness changes as life changes. Your awareness today is not what it was yesterday. Your awareness as a fertilized egg is not what is now. And in the process of fertilization there was no time in which there was not life that became you, so there was no transition between not alive an alive thus no transition from not aware to aware. Sure a lot of your uniqueness came from that event, and yet that uniquess was already mostly already determined in that particular sperm and egg and so if you really want to chase that down you have to go back farther. But this process of going backward continues, step by step, back to the beginning of time. Life, awareness and even uniqueness is a continuous process.

    Quote Originally Posted by prasit
    I did not choose to be the youngest son of a working class family. (Had I been able to choose, I would have chosen to be born in a fabulously well-to-do family)
    Sorry this will not fly. By the same argument you could say that if you had a choice between yesterday and today then you would be fabulously well-to-do today. Choices are always limited and incremental and this does not mean choices do not determine who and what you are. Besides this "well-to-do" stuff is a matter of circumstance - it is environmental. choices do not determine your environment only you.

    Quote Originally Posted by prasit
    Could you tell me which religion does not address the purpose of life, directly nor indirectly?
    Just because you can come up with some indirect means of answering the question of the purpose of life in all the religions to you does not make answering this question their purpose. That is simply you imposing your idea of the purpose of their religion on them. I already agreed that religion play a part in man's effort to determine his own purpose. But to claim that this defines religion is quite another claim altogether, and I have stated ample reasons to doubt this claim.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Bachelors Degree The P-manator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    474
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Quote Originally Posted by prasit
    I did not choose to be the youngest son of a working class family. (Had I been able to choose, I would have chosen to be born in a fabulously well-to-do family)
    Sorry this will not fly. By the same argument you could say that if you had a choice between yesterday and today then you would be fabulously well-to-do today. Choices are always limited and incremental and this does not mean choices do not determine who and what you are. Besides this "well-to-do" stuff is a matter of circumstance - it is environmental. choices do not determine your environment only you.
    The indians (from India) believed that if you were good in your lifetime you would be re-born as a human, and probably a wealthy one. However, if you were bad, you would be re-born as a fly, frog, or other being.
    Pierre

    Fight for our environment and our habitat at www.wearesmartpeople.com.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    墨子 DaBOB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,674
    "Religion is the opiate of the masses."
    I'm not sure how religion compares to an opiate. If you are insinuating that people can get addicted to religion, than that doesn't really makes sense.

    "Religion is the only way out of our troubles."
    A person who uses religion to take away their "troubles" is not truly religious, although the may be on a path that will lead them to being religious.

    "Religion is right for some fights, but not for all."
    Religion is not right for any fights.

    "Religion doesn't exist."
    Well I'm pretty sure if you go to your local church you will find that it in fact does exist.

    The reason I posted was because I found that none of those are "what religion is". Maybe you should give us some more choices.
    Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. -Spoon Boy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    722
    mitch wrote:
    Things in life are rarely this simple. A name is simply something people call you. Some people have many names. Officially, God has no birth certificate and therefore no name. It is possible that the Koran and the Bible are both God's teaching and yet neither are His teaching. God speaks to and inspires everyone, and yet God does not put a pen to paper or employ a publishing company.
    My point is that each religion says it is unique and all others are either non-existent or inferior. This is irreconcilable.
    But all life is aware, and awareness changes as life changes. Your awareness today is not what it was yesterday. Your awareness as a fertilized egg is not what is now.
    I believe that plant has no awareness. But there is no way to prove whether awareness is in any living thing or not.
    Sorry this will not fly. By the same argument you could say that if you had a choice between yesterday and today then you would be fabulously well-to-do today. Choices are always limited and incremental
    There is a certain level of limitation that you can say that the ability to choose is negligible. A brain-dead patient in coma have the ablility to choose approaching zero. I, for all practical purposes, was not aware, could not influence, the fertilization process that created me.
    Just because you can come up with some indirect means of answering the question of the purpose of life in all the religions to you does not make answering this question their purpose.
    But you just said that in some religions it is never addressed. So you change your mind?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by prasit
    My point is that each religion says it is unique and all others are either non-existent or inferior. This is irreconcilable.
    No it is not, for the same applies to the birds and fishes. Obviously the birds are superior because they can fly high in the sky and yet just as obviously the fish are superior because they can swim deep under water. Perhaps the birds say that God is the air we fly in, while the fish say no, God is the water in which we swim. Irreconcilable? Not at all.

    Your claim that it is irreconcilable is obviously incorrect because I can reconcile it just fine. So simply say instead that you cannot reconcile it and I would have no argument with you.

    Quote Originally Posted by prasit
    I believe that plant has no awareness. But there is no way to prove whether awareness is in any living thing or not.
    Of course a plant has awareness. It knows when the sun is out because all of its biological processes change in response. A plant may not have much more awareness than a single celled organism but it responds to the changes in its environment. It is not a matter of proof really, but a matter of what you think this word awareness means. It is easy to define awareness in a species centered manner so that only humans are acknowledged as being aware. In fact, I think that at one time humans defined awarness in a manner associated with language and thus only those who spoke the same language were considered human at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by prasit
    There is a certain level of limitation that you can say that the ability to choose is negligible. A brain-dead patient in coma have the ablility to choose approaching zero. I, for all practical purposes, was not aware, could not influence, the fertilization process that created me.
    The human mind is our true life form. Therefore, if the mind is dead then we are dead. The body has its own awareness because it is alive. It may not be much compared to a mental awarness that a truly alive human has, but it is there. Life and awareness are measurable. It is not a matter of whether or not, but how much. Even the mental awareness of a fully alive person can gradually fade as that person gets older.

    Of course you were not aware by the standards you have today, but neither were you any where near the standard of awarness you have today when you were four years old. But the point is that the biological process of life which is you today is a continuation of the biological processes in the sperm and egg which joined in that fertilization and step by step grew into what you have become.

    I believe that just as our body is the application of the information we inherited in the DNA passed to us from our parents, our mind is created by an inheritance from our parents not passed to us in our DNA but communicated directly to us in the parent child relationship. In a real sense a parent teaches his/her child to be a person (mind). But this process is not essentially different than the creation of our bodies, just a different medium is all. So the child's awareness begins with ideas which are practically word for word what their parents (or someone else) told them, until they learn to discern things for themself.

    Quote Originally Posted by prasit
    But you just said that in some religions it is never addressed. So you change your mind?
    Nope. I am denying that your claim is an adequate refutation. You can hear hundreds of explanations of what the Christian religion is about and never once see this particular question addressed. Does that mean that no one has addressed the question? Of course not. Its just not high on the list of priorities. Is an answer to the question of the purpose of life part of the world wide Christian consensus about what is Christian belief? Not at all. Therefore, in Christianity you basically have a lot of diverse opinions on this question but nothing really substantial. A Christian could live his whole life going to church every sunday and never once hear an answer to this question. On that basis I am saying that Christianity is an example of where it may never be addressed. But this does not mean that you will not hear a Christian's opinion on the matter or that you could find "some indirect means of answering the question of the purpose of life."
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22 Re: What is religion? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    317
    Quote Originally Posted by The P-manator
    So, what is it, and what is it for? Do you agree, like Karl Marx, that it is the "opiate of the masses", or is it the only way out of our troubles in life? Or do you stand in between, unsure wether to believe that there is someone there to carry our sins?

    I think, personally, that there is no one so easily reachable as some of the religions seem to think, no one being who you can give your sins to every time you pray. I think that the true divine being, whatever and whoever it may be, is much harder to reach than that. It is much more like Buddhism than anything else, but instead of nirvana, there is a spiritual heaven: not physical, but something that if you believe in enough, your mind will go there, and it is there where you can truly rid yourself of your sins. To reach that, however, you must focus on it, and find a medium to get there. I have chosen science. Others may choose different paths.
    Anything that is attractive, or beautiful can be used as an "opiate of the masses", anything with depth, meaning, and realness . But it does not mean that that is what it is in its original format.

    Jan.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    722
    mitch says
    Perhaps the birds say that God is the air we fly in, while the fish say no, God is the water in which we swim. Irreconcilable? Not at all.
    That is not what I said in my example. You changed the statement and interpreted your own statement.
    Of course a plant has awareness. It knows when the sun is out because all of its biological processes change in response.
    Water also respond to the sun, it evaporates. It has no awareness.
    Actually what I have in mind is conciousness, not awareness.
    Life and awareness are measurable
    How, and what is the unit of measurement?

    In a real sense a parent teaches his/her child to be a person (mind). But this process is not essentially different than the creation of our bodies, just a different medium is all.
    I think you oversimplify. The creation of bodies is much more complex and going thru different mechanism.
    I try to understanding your explanation. But I still believe that I cannot be participating in my own creation. Our disagreement is in how we define 'I'.

    About religion and the purpose of life, you still have not convinced me. But I can not convinced you either. So I won't pursue it further.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by prasit
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Perhaps the birds say that God is the air we fly in, while the fish say no, God is the water in which we swim. Irreconcilable? Not at all.
    That is not what I said in my example. You changed the statement and interpreted your own statement.
    Nevertheless, you have failed to demonstrate any irreconilablity that is not simply your inability to reconcile them.

    Quote Originally Posted by prasit
    Of course a plant has awareness. It knows when the sun is out because all of its biological processes change in response.
    Water also respond to the sun, it evaporates. It has no awareness.
    Correct and yet we interpret the plant's response as a sign of life, and that is difference. The response by the water is directly caused by the sun, but the response of the plant is in service to the needs of the plant to maintain its own dynamic structure.

    Quote Originally Posted by prasit
    Actually what I have in mind is conciousness, not awareness.
    Ahh... another word we humans have invented that, in the end, really means no more than life, just like the word "awareness". We do keep trying to make our own form of life seem "special".

    Quote Originally Posted by prasit
    Life and awareness are measurable
    How, and what is the unit of measurement?
    There is no scientific consensus on this yet. But it could be the number and heirarchical rank of the cyclical processes in the self maintaining dynamic structure that constitutes the living organism. It could be a combined measure of the sensitivity to the environment and independence from the environment. In could be the frequency and complexity of the adaptive responses to the environment, which could also be called learning.

    Quote Originally Posted by prasit
    In a real sense a parent teaches his/her child to be a person (mind). But this process is not essentially different than the creation of our bodies, just a different medium is all.
    I think you oversimplify. The creation of bodies is much more complex and going thru different mechanism.
    Actually I think it is the mental development which is the more complex process. It certainly occurs on a much much more rapid time scale.

    Quote Originally Posted by prasit
    I try to understanding your explanation. But I still believe that I cannot be participating in my own creation. Our disagreement is in how we define 'I'.
    Oh that could very much be so indeed! But let me ask you one more thing. Are you a creation that is complete and done with, or are you a creation in progress? If the latter, then who or what is doing the creating?

    Quote Originally Posted by prasit
    About religion and the purpose of life, you still have not convinced me. But I can not convinced you either. So I won't pursue it further.
    Agreed. All of what we are talking about is probably leading to the same conclusion.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    722
    mitch wrote
    Oh that could very much be so indeed! But let me ask you one more thing. Are you a creation that is complete and done with, or are you a creation in progress? If the latter, then who or what is doing the creating?
    The creation of 'I' was done. I was growing, some parts of me were destroyed, some were replenished. Now my body is mostly in deterioration (aging). I was created by the union of a sperm and an egg. In general term it is called conception. The growing and deterioration mechanism are designed without the designer, through the process called evolution.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    722
    mitch wrote
    Nevertheless, you have failed to demonstrate any irreconilablity that is not simply your inability to reconcile them.
    The statements 'life exists only above water' and 'life exists only underwater' are irreconcilable.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by prasit
    mitch wrote
    Nevertheless, you have failed to demonstrate any irreconilablity that is not simply your inability to reconcile them.
    The statements 'life exists only above water' and 'life exists only underwater' are irreconcilable.
    But it is reconcilable. For the birds, life only exists above water, and for the fish life exists only underwater. It all depends on how the words interpreted.

    There are a few odd birds that actually dive below the water for food, but for most birds there is no reason to acknowledge the existence of life underwater because there is no life for them underwater. Likewise there are a few odd fish that actually jump above the surface of the water, but for most fish there is no reason to see the air above water as anything but certain death.

    Likewise for me a Christian there is no truth for me in the Koran and I do go there, but I do see the Muslims who live by the Koran I even see other odd people who go back and forth between my world of the Bible and the world of the Koran. And therefore I at least can see that these two worlds are somehow reconcilable in some way. And the same is true for Hindu texts as well. So even though you can see the more Orthodox Christian declaring that there is no truth but the Bible and the more Orthodox Muslim declaring that there is no truth but the Koran, the only thing you can really say are irreconcilable are what these to Orthodox people say and not the two religions themselves.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Professor captaincaveman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,377
    There are a few odd birds that actually dive below the water for food, but for most birds there is no reason to acknowledge the existence of life underwater because there is no life for them underwater. Likewise there are a few odd fish that actually jump above the surface of the water, but for most fish there is no reason to see the air above water as anything but certain death.

    Thats not totally true, archery fish and amizonian snake heads eat prey from ouside of their surroundings. And anyone who fishes knows that fish know your there if your not quiet or still. And any pond fish know exactly where you are. My dads koi carp watch you coming over to the pond and come to the surface expecting food :wink:

    Plus osprey and herons are quite aware of whats in the rivers when they are still on the wing

    Sorry animals are one of my things :wink: but maybe its also true in your analogy, maybe both sides can see something in the others views but wont admit it out of respect for their own religion
    CAPTAINCAVEMAN


    I ANSWER TO NO-ONE - The wonders of athiesm

    that which does not kill us only postpones the inevitable
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    722
    mitch wrote
    But it is reconcilable. For the birds, life only exists above water, and for the fish life exists only underwater. It all depends on how the words interpreted.
    It is reconcilable when both see that they are both wrong. Life exists above AND underwater. They have to give up their beliefs. The beliefs, in itsself, are irreconcilable.
    So even though you can see the more Orthodox Christian declaring that there is no truth but the Bible and the more Orthodox Muslim declaring that there is no truth but the Koran, the only thing you can really say are irreconcilable are what these to Orthodox people say and not the two religions themselves.
    It is the Orthodox's interpretation of the religions. You interpretation of the religions make them reconcilable. So religions are not absolute, like relativity theory, their meanings depend on the interpretation of the believer.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by prasit
    It is reconcilable when both see that they are both wrong. Life exists above AND underwater. They have to give up their beliefs. The beliefs, in itsself, are irreconcilable.
    But they are not wrong. Life is good in the water and life is good in the air. The fact that there is life everywhere does not make them wrong. Most birds should indeed stay out of the water and most fish should stay out of the air. What they believe in works for them and that is all that is important to them. Just because the rabbit thinks he sees a logical contradiction in the views of the bird and the fish is simply no reason for the bird and fish to abandon their way of life and join the rabbit.

    What the Christian and Hidu have work for them and your argument makes no more sense to them than the argument of the rabbit does to the bird and the fish.

    Quote Originally Posted by prasit
    It is the Orthodox's interpretation of the religions. You interpretation of the religions make them reconcilable. So religions are not absolute, like relativity theory, their meanings depend on the interpretation of the believer.
    The Orthodox interpretations work fine for those who only want to see their own world, while those who want to look over the horizon and to understand the whole world must indeed make some adaptations.

    Science is constructed from objective observation and measurement. Differences in matters of fact must be resolved and yet there can be different interpretations. In Quantum theory, the vast majority accept the Copenhagen interpretation, a minority like Everett's many worlds interpretation, and the really stubborn fringe try to salvage David Bohm's interpretation. They all agree on matter's of fact, of course, as they must, for it is science after all.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    722
    mitch wrote
    But they are not wrong. Life is good in the water and life is good in the air. The fact that there is life everywhere does not make them wrong. Most birds should indeed stay out of the water and most fish should stay out of the air. What they believe in works for them and that is all that is important to them.
    We are discussing on the premise that certain beliefs are irrconcilable, not whether a certain belief is workable for certain being. If a christian says there is only one god in the USA and a Hinduist says there are a thousand gods in India, they are reconcilable. However, if the christian says there is only one god in the whole universe and the Hinduist says there are a thousand gods in the whole universe, and they agree on the meaning of god and universe, then they are irreconcilable.

    The Orthodox interpretations work fine for those who only want to see their own world, while those who want to look over the horizon and to understand the whole world must indeed make some adaptations.
    science adapts its theory in light of new evidence, because it is the discipline of science. Religion adapts its belief in light of new evidence, because it needs to survive.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Guest
    Let me aid in this conversation (of which is too long for me to bother reading):

    The psychology of humans suggests that they view themselves so superior they need an ultimate creator even more superior than themselves.
    Why?
    Humans have always had limited success in doing things on their own. Governing eachother has also been met with limited success due to the irrationality of most leaders. It's logical to assume that naturally they'd want the promise of there inevitably being safety from their problems and the leaders elected by their idiocy.

    Because of this many people seek the need to find some higher purpose, or something "non-selfish" or "holy" they can follow. And if there be a grand creator thrown in that ends up taking almost all worry off of their hands, so be it. This is why End-Timers may literally be the reason the world ends*.

    People have a long history of never wanting to really blame themselves for their own mistakes. It's a case of psychological denial that even infiltrates psychology in the case of the ID* and other theories.

    With Abrahamic-based religion it gets a tad more deceiving because people admit they're "not perfect" and "prone to error/sin". However they attribute the imperfection to two fictitious people (adam and eve), and the sinful nature of humans to something uncontrollable.

    If you disagree with my statement, please attempt to observe many people you see writing psychology books or christian literature, and even in churches. They will more often than not avoid putting the blame on themselves.
    Even if it isn't obvious people are prone to actively deceiving themselves and placing the blame in another area. It's of similar effect when bad things happen.

    Note*: The Etruscans are an example of this type of self-fullfilling prophecy.

    Note2*: Freuds ID concept (among others) is a perfect case of denial where nobody is to blame but an "Inner Dummy" (not the person responsible). Which means that rather than blaming themselves for their own controllable urges, they can blame it on something they can't really control.
    In the book "Battling the Inner Dummy" it is mentioned numerous times that the ID is impervious to logic and rationality. This means it's difficult if not impossible to control or stop on the spot (if not impossible period).

    P.S: I'm tired, bored, and probably making no attempt to make sense. Apologies.
    This is also a case of "TOO MANY PARAGRAPHS! @_@"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by prasit
    But they are not wrong. Life is good in the water and life is good in the air. The fact that there is life everywhere does not make them wrong. Most birds should indeed stay out of the water and most fish should stay out of the air. What they believe in works for them and that is all that is important to them.
    We are discussing on the premise that certain beliefs are irrconcilable, not whether a certain belief is workable for certain being. If a christian says there is only one god in the USA and a Hinduist says there are a thousand gods in India, they are reconcilable. However, if the christian says there is only one god in the whole universe and the Hinduist says there are a thousand gods in the whole universe, and they agree on the meaning of god and universe, then they are irreconcilable.
    But what you are failing to take into account is that religion is primarily subjective truth. It is not based on objective observations like science. The religious view of the world is a subjective one. From that point of view my world is not your world, because I do not see and relate to the world the same way that you do.

    A purely objective approach should be a scientific one and there is no place for God in that approach at all. Therefore when the Christian and Hindu make claims about God or gods, it really does not make any sense to say they are irreconcilable based on an assumption of an objective reality in these things. If there is truth to what they are talking about then there must be a subjective aspect to reality, and so your argument does not apply.

    Quote Originally Posted by prasit
    The Orthodox interpretations work fine for those who only want to see their own world, while those who want to look over the horizon and to understand the whole world must indeed make some adaptations.
    science adapts its theory in light of new evidence, because it is the discipline of science. Religion adapts its belief in light of new evidence, because it needs to survive.
    Religion mostly does NOT adapt at all precisely because it does NOT need to. You like to assume that all the fundamentalist Christians who reject science (evolution) in favor of their faiths are just stupid. But the truth is that your objective reality is just an abstraction. Religion is verified for the religious by subjective evidence which they do not find lacking at all. Your objective evidence is far less real to them.

    When I was talking about adaptions I was talking about particular persons who like myself want to live in the worlds of both science and religion, embracing both the subjective and objective aspects of reality.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    If you disagree with my statement, please attempt to observe many people you see writing psychology books or christian literature, and even in churches. They will more often than not avoid putting the blame on themselves.

    Even if it isn't obvious people are prone to actively deceiving themselves and placing the blame in another area. It's of similar effect when bad things happen.
    Such garbage (=unsubstantiated bigoted self-justifying opinion). What I see are a lot of atheists in this forum who want to put the blame for everything miserable in the world on religion. I see a lot of atheists who refuse acknowledge that the fault for the problems of this world lie in their own human nature. Religion tries to get people to look at themselves to change themselves first. "First take the log out of your own eye so that you can see to take the speck out of the other person's eye." It is the atheists, who blame religion, who deceiving themselves by thinking that the solution is the end of religion (absence of those who disagree with them). So whether religion has been successful in changing the religious people you have known is not the point, although I cannot see how you could judge properly with those logs in your eyes. The point is that religions addresses the real need for change in human beings themselves. Religion aims for the highest ideals and it is not surprising that most people fail to live up to those ideals. But God help us if most people were to join the kind of willfull self-deception I see in the behavior of a lot of the atheists in this forum.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Such garbage (=unsubstantiated bigoted self-justifying opinion). What I see are a lot of atheists in this forum who want to put the blame for everything miserable in the world on religion.
    You always see what you are looking for, mitch. Bible codes for example. I for one blame things on far more than religion. However since this is a religious thread I'd rather not get off topic by blaming other things such as the obvious (politics).

    I see a lot of atheists who refuse acknowledge that the fault for the problems of this world lie in their own human nature.
    That depends upon your definition of human nature. I don't recall in my post denying that the predominant amount of humans are the results of a certain type of "nature" which most of humanity posesses. but there are people that end up defying that stereotype.

    Religion tries to get people to look at themselves to change themselves first. "First take the log out of your own eye so that you can see to take the speck out of the other person's eye."
    According to a specific set of interpreted guidlines that can do just as much harm as it can good. As with any man-made system it is imperfect (depending on your definition of perfection). I also bring into question your definition of "change", as few religious people experience this "change" you speak of. Refer to my statement about how people like to pass the blame onto something else.
    In fact I can quote one of my colligues here: "You fail by assuming humans can change"

    It is the atheists, who blame religion, who deceiving themselves by thinking that the solution is the end of religion (absence of those who disagree with them).
    Not entirely so. Part of the solution would be more education than removal. I stand by the illusion of "free will". But adhere to the (in)famous statement (of which I forget the author is): "Educate a theist, and he/she's no longer a theist"
    A lot of issues now days are the direct cause of religion, and many are the indirect cause. However this is not to suggest that there aren't many other causes to problems, this is just to suggest that religion isn't as "useful" as many would be lead to believe. If people would leave religion entirely out of science, politics, etc, and peacefully conduct their business then I doubt there would be an issue. It'd also be nice if the majority were educated.

    Instead you have people picketing funerals, undereducation, ignorance, improper child care, etc. Although Atheists are capable of the exact same, I've not met many that are quite as "zealous" about it as a theist normally is. However my personal encounters are probably limited since people tend to attract more of their own kind than anything else.

    The point is that religions addresses the real need for change in human beings themselves.
    Give evidence that this is, in fact, the actual need for change. Then we can debate about it if need be.

    P.S: I agree with parasite on adapting. Religion has many times in the past. Interpretations on the earth, what holds the earth up, genesis account, certain bible stories, etc, have all slowly but surely changed through the ages.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    722
    mitch wrote
    But what you are failing to take into account is that religion is primarily subjective truth. It is not based on objective observations like science. The religious view of the world is a subjective one. From that point of view my world is not your world, because I do not see and relate to the world the same way that you do.
    Then there is no need for reconcilation. You can believe whatever, and I cannot dispute that, because it is your subjective world. and vice versa. Goodbye, Mitch.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Bachelors Degree charles brough's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    joplin MO USA
    Posts
    425
    I am surprised that this good question was not answered in this whole string of responses!

    I can explain what religion is in a single paragraph. Social scientists avoid doing so, however, because a simple, scientific answer would be confrontational and stir up a religious storm. Social scientist are very career-conscious and avoid confrontation with both our religious and our secular ideologies.

    Religion is the means by which mankind, having evolved as hunting-gathering group social animals, had to evolved language and then "religion" (actually, merely a common world view) in order to expand his grouping into large bodies so human numbers could increase. All "religious" world views (which includes Asiatic Marxism) have four things in common which enable them to bind people into these large groups or societies: they preach or teach a common origin, a common goal to which all aim to achieve, issue a common moral formula for its or their achievement, and propose a common threat or enemy.

    Even our secular ideology fits this, but its goal, "the pursuit of happiness" is a selfish and hence defective goal. "Happiness" is something you cannot achieve by seeking it. This, and the absense of a secular moral system, explains why our science-secular system is weakening and old religions are staging a fanatical come back.

    charles http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com
    Brough,
    civilization-overview (dot) com

    --------------------
    There are no accidents, just someone taking too much risk. . . (CB)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by charles brough
    I am surprised that this good question was not answered in this whole string of responses!

    I can explain what religion is in a single paragraph.
    That was more than one paragraph. You lose that bet.

    As for your post, psychologically there are many alternative reasons. You *CAN'T* stereotype all religion. Especially if you limit it to "the persuit of happiness".
    Why you ask? That's like saying people commit suicide because they're all manic depressive.
    Fact: Suicides aren't always the cause of depression. In some cases it tends to be a bit more stupid.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    As for your post, psychologically there are many alternative reasons. You *CAN'T* stereotype all religion. Especially if you limit it to "the persuit of happiness".
    Why you ask? That's like saying people commit suicide because they're all manic depressive.
    Fact: Suicides aren't always the cause of depression. In some cases it tends to be a bit more stupid.
    Well the intellegence of this response encouraged me to look much more favorably on your response to my post. But then perhaps this time you were not as tired as when you made the post which I obviously took offense at.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    You always see what you are looking for, mitch. Bible codes for example. I for one blame things on far more than religion. However since this is a religious thread I'd rather not get off topic by blaming other things such as the obvious (politics).
    In response to the this I shall merely point out that my statements were more cautious than yours. While I limited myself to talking about only some atheists in this forum, specifically those who blame everything on religion, you have said that I "always" see what I am looking for. It may be that I see what I am looking for when it comes to finding any excuse I can for agreement and reconciliation, but then that is a worthwhile thing to look for, don't you think?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    I see a lot of atheists who refuse acknowledge that the fault for the problems of this world lie in their own human nature.
    That depends upon your definition of human nature. I don't recall in my post denying that the predominant amount of humans are the results of a certain type of "nature" which most of humanity posesses. but there are people that end up defying that stereotype.
    What stereotype?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    Religion tries to get people to look at themselves to change themselves first. "First take the log out of your own eye so that you can see to take the speck out of the other person's eye."
    According to a specific set of interpreted guidlines that can do just as much harm as it can good. As with any man-made system it is imperfect (depending on your definition of perfection). I also bring into question your definition of "change", as few religious people experience this "change" you speak of. Refer to my statement about how people like to pass the blame onto something else.
    In fact I can quote one of my colligues here: "You fail by assuming humans can change"
    I have to emphatically disagree! For the idea is simply to look for the fault in yourself first, not to irrationally assume that the fault for EVERYTHING lies in yourself alone. Yet even this bad habit is better than the opposite. Our prisons our full of people who have opposite habit of assigning blame to other people for everything wrong that happens in their life and even for the things that they do themselves.

    So yes the religious message of looking at yourself first is not the message that everyone needs to hear. No problem, since everyone is not forced to hear it are they? Those who do go to the extreme of blaming everything on themselves is typical of those who are abused because this is a relationship with a person of the opposite habit. But the primary problem is the person who does blame others when they are the one with the problem. Two people with the tendency to blame themselves too much can have a fruitful relationship with each other (as long as it hasn't become so extreme that they depend on an abuser to reinforce their habit).

    The fact that human beings can change, is manifestly true to religious people because they have experienced it numerous times. Religion may, however, be faulted in representing this change as coming far more easily than is the case. Changing habits of human behavior once they have been programmed in, is easily the most difficult thing that a person will ever have to do. It often requires no less that a complete death and rebirth of the personality, which is why it is rarely even attempted in the more difficult cases, unless ones life is almost completely destroyed by the habit in question.

    It is true that many people find greater mental health in skepticism and leaving a religious organization that is doing them more harm than good. But just as often, people find greater mental health in leaving skepticism behind and joining a religious organization, and this may go back and forth. Religion is the most harmful to mental health when instead of offering liberation it adds more pressure and expectations to an already oppressive load. But an atheist with his own arrogance, intolerance and prejudices can represent the same kind of harm. Only when we learn to tolerate and rejoice in the diversity of human belief and personality can we truly claim to support mental health.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    It is the atheists, who blame religion, who deceiving themselves by thinking that the solution is the end of religion (absence of those who disagree with them).
    Not entirely so. Part of the solution would be more education than removal. I stand by the illusion of "free will". But adhere to the (in)famous statement (of which I forget the author is): "Educate a theist, and he/she's no longer a theist"
    It is when you say things like this that you show yourself to be a complete ignoramus. This is pure self-agrandizement. To think that if everyone were as smart and as educated as you then they would agree with your point of view. What BS. What education do you have that you think justifies such a preposterous claim. What do you know about my education? A statement like this derives from a deep seated intolerance of any different point of view. I think this kind of thinking implies that you have more in common with the fundamentalist religious extremists than you have differences. This is the kind of arrogance and bigotry that are responsible for the devastation of the world by the Nazis and the Communists.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    If people would leave religion entirely out of science, politics, etc, and peacefully conduct their business then I doubt there would be an issue. It'd also be nice if the majority were educated.
    Is this going to be your justification for the Jeremy re-education camps of the future?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    The point is that religions addresses the real need for change in human beings themselves.
    Give evidence that this is, in fact, the actual need for change. Then we can debate about it if need be.
    The evidience so overwhelmingly abundant, that your request is ridiculous. You yourself suggest that education is the solution. This itself locates the problem in the people themselves. However education as the solution to every problem is one the liberal falacies. It is simply not always true that people do what they do out of ignorance. So although education helps with many problems, it is not the solution to every problem. But it is clear that the worst human problems are a product of "aberrant" or irresponsible human behavior. Psychology seeks an answer to the first and I believe that religion addresses the second.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    In response to the this I shall merely point out that my statements were more cautious than yours. While I limited myself to talking about only some atheists in this forum, specifically those who blame everything on religion, you have said that I "always" see what I am looking for.
    Your statements were both hostile, insinuating, and suggesting that most atheists here fit your category. "cautious" they were not. In fact I reread your entire post just now...where did you say some atheists?
    Oh, wait, you didn't. The statements context seems to suggest you mean the majority of atheists here on the forum. I responded accordingly.


    What stereotype?
    The stereotype you appear to use for the people you just mentioned. Unless that isn't stereotyping. Which is fairly hard to believe.


    For the idea is simply to look for the fault in yourself first, not to irrationally assume that the fault for EVERYTHING lies in yourself alone.
    Ah but see, that's the beauty of the worlds population. Everything is indirectly your fault through inaction. This isn't a low-self esteem inducing belief as much as it is realizing that inaction can be blamed on everything, including yourself. This means that rather than falling into an egotistical attitude where one says "oh well that's not MY fault" you realize that yes, indirectly, it's your fault.



    Religion is the most harmful to mental health when instead of offering liberation it adds more pressure and expectations to an already oppressive load.
    Or causes wars. Or more inaction (end-timers and self fulfilling prophecy). Or psychological disassociation. Or allows people to find whatever they're looking for to support their twisted, hateful, etc ways. The list can go on.
    But an atheist with his own arrogance, intolerance and prejudices can represent the same kind of harm.
    Funny how you refer to religion as just religion (although sometimes in unfavorable light)...then an Atheist as "arrogant, intolerant, and prejudice" in a directly unfavorable light and no means of redemption in the ending of your paragraph.

    Fact: there are more prejudice people on the planet thanks to them twisting their religious view so it's impossible to talk sense into them
    Fact: More often than not theists are picketing funerals of war hero's and such, banning gay marriage with no legal backing other than the bible (which has NO place in the government since the separation of church and state), etc.
    Fact: Theists are known by many to be the most arrogant group there is. Especially those of biblical religion. They believe the universe was created just for their benefit, they're always right, atheists are wrong, evolution is false (simply because they were taught so), the bible is perfectly accurate, all other religions are false, humans are the greatest creation, etc.

    Note while the latter one included the most egotistical statements, some theists I've met hold none of these views. Which is rare, but to them I solute.

    *massive rant*
    Well...gee. Actually the statement is suggesting that mosts theists are rather under-educated. This is true, as few seek educations concerning their faith or something that would severely question their faith. And those that do tend to walk away with little. I've discovered this by reading a lot of books published by creationists (such as Why Christians CAN'T Trust Psychology), and finding that a lot of it is a case of creationists making up things. TalkingOrigins.org's FAQ mentions this if you care to read it.

    To quote Joe Meert: "Let me state that the scientific work of creationists goes largely unnoticed by mainstream science for good reason"
    While that wasn't a direct attack against you you certainly took a lot of offense. I'll be nice and spare you the "Since you're so defensive about it..." routine and move along with the topic.

    The evidience so overwhelmingly abundant, that your request is ridiculous. You yourself suggest that education is the solution. This itself locates the problem in the people themselves. However education as the solution to every problem is one the liberal falacies. It is simply not always true that people do what they do out of ignorance. So although education helps with many problems, it is not the solution to every problem. But it is clear that the worst human problems are a product of "aberrant" or irresponsible human behavior. Psychology seeks an answer to the first and I believe that religion addresses the second.
    And I said education solves every problem...where now? It's common for democrats and liberals in general to focus far too much on the education system. However in the long run, it is education that keeps this country up and running. The more founding, the more people that can afford it, the smarter most of the country becomes, the more research is conducted thanks to more founding, etc, all leading back to technological and intelligence growth overall.
    Said technology would aid in probably just about every issue, assuming that people actually ivent things. but I'm getting ahead of myself.

    Humans tend to suffer from far more problems than just aberrant or urresponsible behaviour. And many are far worse than those two, such as egotism, power drives, sexual drives, etc. Many issues can be combined and create even worse cases than before with a voletile mixture. Psychology deals with most of these and seeks the answers to them.
    Education combined with psychology (and other sciences) is what can aid in stopping irresponsible human behavior.


    And actually I should have rephrased the prior comment about the need.
    What is the "real need for change" that you stated? There is a need for change, perhaps. But what is this "real need" you speak of? Does this mean other needs for changes aren't real?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    Your statements were both hostile, insinuating, and suggesting that most atheists here fit your category. "cautious" they were not. In fact I reread your entire post just now...where did you say some atheists?
    Oh, wait, you didn't. The statements context seems to suggest you mean the majority of atheists here on the forum. I responded accordingly.
    You are right I said "many" which is the word I use when I have lost count. In this context of a large number of posts by a lot of different people it is synonomous with "some". I would not say majority because even estimating a percentage would be a tiresome task.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    The stereotype you appear to use for the people you just mentioned. Unless that isn't stereotyping. Which is fairly hard to believe.
    Interesting. It did not know there was a stereotype for such people. Could you explain or give an example?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    Ah but see, that's the beauty of the worlds population. Everything is indirectly your fault through inaction. This isn't a low-self esteem inducing belief as much as it is realizing that inaction can be blamed on everything, including yourself. This means that rather than falling into an egotistical attitude where one says "oh well that's not MY fault" you realize that yes, indirectly, it's your fault.
    Yes well that would be an example of the pathological extreme that I was talking about before.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    Or causes wars. Or more inaction (end-timers and self fulfilling prophecy). Or psychological disassociation. Or allows people to find whatever they're looking for to support their twisted, hateful, etc ways. The list can go on.
    Religion does not cause wars. Religion is an inconvenient obstacle to war, so people often have to find a theological justification to overcome this obstacle. Go ahead, lets hear your examples of such wars caused by religion. The cause for wars is in our animal character described in evolution - competition for finite resources.

    Religion imposes limitations on what people can do. It is atheists who don't even need to overcome this obstacle to pursue their "twisted, hateful, etc ways."

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    Fact: there are more prejudice people on the planet thanks to them twisting their religious view so it's impossible to talk sense into them
    Fact: More often than not theists are picketing funerals of war hero's and such, banning gay marriage with no legal backing other than the bible (which has NO place in the government since the separation of church and state), etc.
    Fact: Theists are known by many to be the most arrogant group there is. Especially those of biblical religion. They believe the universe was created just for their benefit, they're always right, atheists are wrong, evolution is false (simply because they were taught so), the bible is perfectly accurate, all other religions are false, humans are the greatest creation, etc.
    Now that is what I call a rant and I shall immitate this one to provide you with a mirror.

    Fact: There are more prejudiced people on the planet thanks to atheists twisting their view of religion and pretending it is logic so it's impossible to talk sense into them.
    Fact: More often than not atheists are out spreading hatred of people for no other cause than their religious belief.
    Fact: Atheists are known by many to be the most arrogant group there is. Especially those who pretend that science is on their side. They believe that they are the ultimate product of evolution, they're always right, theists are wrong, creation is false (simply because they heard the word "evolution" once upon a time), science is perfectly accurate and knows everything, all other opinions are false, etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    Note while the latter one included the most egotistical statements, some theists I've met hold none of these views. Which is rare, but to them I solute.
    Of course you are the judge of what religious beliefs are proper and acceptable. NOT. Forgive me I shall not submit my beliefs for your approval because I care nothing for your solute.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    *massive rant*
    massive rant? Should I have imitated you and said this instead?

    Let an atheist experience a little more of life and gains a little maturity and he/she will no longer be an atheist.

    But this would would show me to be just as complete an ignoramous as you. This would pure self-agrandizement. To think that if everyone was as "mature" as I am then they would surely agree with my point of view, would be plain BS. I, at least, can recognize that there are always going to be people older and more mature than I am that will not agree with my point of view. To make such a statement would indicate a deep seated intolerance, arrogance and bigotry that I despise. So I would much rather denounce your statement than imitate it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    Actually the statement is suggesting that mosts theists are rather under-educated. This is true, as few seek educations concerning their faith or something that would severely question their faith.
    But this is not what you said. This, at least, shows the type of caution that is indicative of a modicum of intellegence and education. Skepticism is indeed a skill imparted by education. And I have little doubt that some percentage of poorly educated people would indeed abandon the religion in which they were raised (and never thought critically about) once they learned these skills.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    And those that do tend to walk away with little.
    Instead of denouncing this with another "rant" (or imitating it either) since that would be repetitive, I will simply ignore this as a rhetorical (if a bit careless) introduction to the following statements.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    I've discovered this by reading a lot of books published by creationists (such as Why Christians CAN'T Trust Psychology), and finding that a lot of it is a case of creationists making up things. TalkingOrigins.org's FAQ mentions this if you care to read it.
    Well I can certainly imagine the kind of nonsense that one might find on the web or in print. However, there are good reasons for being cautious about trusting psychiatrists, for they certainly have made some serious blunders some outright criminal (personal familiy experience with this speaking). In addition, there are a rather a large number of theories of about such work and some are rather questionable. BUT, it is a bit irresponsible to overlook the reality of the types of mental illness where the need is real and the treatments are reliably successful. Certainly I think it is very irresponsible for people to claim that they can do this kind of counseling without any training but only a knowledge of the Bible, which is why many seminaries (including the one I graduated from) do offer psychology and counseling courses to their clergy in training.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    To quote Joe Meert: "Let me state that the scientific work of creationists goes largely unnoticed by mainstream science for good reason"
    While that wasn't a direct attack against you you certainly took a lot of offense. I'll be nice and spare you the "Since you're so defensive about it..." routine and move along with the topic.
    Don't know where you got that idea from. Are you confusing this with a different thread? If you think I would ever be defensive about THAT, you apparently are not familiar with my own numerous denouncements of "Creation science".

    http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.c...11&t=198&m=121

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    And I said education solves every problem...where now? It's common for democrats and liberals in general to focus far too much on the education system. However in .....
    before with a voletile mixture. Psychology deals with most of these and seeks the answers to them.
    point taken. Agreed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    Education combined with psychology (and other sciences) is what can aid in stopping irresponsible human behavior.
    I don't think so. Not at all. When faced with drug or alcohol abuse, even psychologist recognize that AA programs are the most successful. Our only way of dealing with other types of irresponsible human behavior are merely punitive measures and these are clearly not working.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    Does this mean other needs for changes aren't real?
    No. Use of word "real" is a habit of self-expression, nothing more.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    The stereotype you appear to use for the people you just mentioned. Unless that isn't stereotyping. Which is fairly hard to believe.
    Interesting. It did not know there was a stereotype for such people. Could you explain or give an example?
    "atheists who refuse acknowledge that the fault for the problems of this world lie in their own human nature."

    Which depends on your definiton of "human nature" but you basically explained the stereotype. Which I've seen theists aside from yourself use. However since this is irrelevent, should we skip it?


    Religion does not cause wars. Religion is an inconvenient obstacle to war, so people often have to find a theological justification to overcome this obstacle.
    Religion causes wars. More specifically semetic religions. Muslims are an example, as extremists can easily use the religion to fuel their efforts. Then again, the base cause might be the extremists, but the base cause beyond that could be their childhood, or beyond that. Base causes go on to infinity, so lets skip that.

    Most people that use it as justification tend to not even know what their bible says that opposes it. Instead, they do what I've said before, and look for justification rather than opposition. You always find what you're looking for.
    And, incidentally, "God" has *caused* more wars and deaths than most would care to admit. He's forced people that disagree with him out of their homelands, forced them to change their ways (free will argument), killed them directly (free will argument), "aided" (supposedly) in many wars for his "chosen ones", etc.
    The religion, thusly, provides a gateway as long as people believe they are the "chosen ones". Other versus can also do this minus the "chosen one" bit, but the one that mentions them appears most popular.

    Go ahead, lets hear your examples of such wars caused by religion. The cause for wars is in our animal character described in evolution - competition for finite resources.
    Religion imposes limitations on what people can do. It is atheists who don't even need to overcome this obstacle to pursue their "twisted, hateful, etc ways."
    You heard them. God has directly caused them himself, and directly killed people. For the rest people need only seek spiritual justification (which almost everybody religious does for almost everything).
    Laws impose limitations for the good of the collective. Most atheists are sane enough to realize that it's better to live life justly than to go on rampant killing sprees. Lets not confuse atheist with psychotic. In fact I know numerous atheists that live in such a way it wouldn't matter if they were religious or not to a just god. All without the belief in one at all.

    I'd also like to note that more religious people are in prison than atheists. Especially by calculating it on a global scale. Religion isn't much of an "obstacle" as it is a limiter that most of us have built-in. Those that don't need therapy, or a crutch. Which is often religion.

    (first two facts you listed)
    I was speaking of planetary scale, and severeness. You normally don't meet a sane atheist that says everybody else will burn in hell or die.
    Also, atheists I've met tend to be less prejudice of religion and more prejudice against stupidity in religion.
    hate is a very strong word, and again on a planetary scale atheists have few if no hate crimes or hate-in-general people within the categorization.

    Fact: Atheists are known by many to be the most arrogant group there is. Especially those who pretend that science is on their side. They believe that they are the ultimate product of evolution, they're always right, theists are wrong, creation is false (simply because they heard the word "evolution" once upon a time), science is perfectly accurate and knows everything, all other opinions are false, etc.
    Technically, the majority of scienctists and scientific data is on their side. Unless proved otherwise I'm not sure how this claim is inaccurate.
    Also, when a theist is right I'll admit it. thus far they've rarely been in debates such as this. This includes books I've read written by theists.

    As for the science statement...I've never met an atheist, in all my chat logging (which was over a month), who said that. In fact I've never met an atheist really say any of that, save for science is on their side. TalkingOrigins is also a case of "I've never seen it there either". In fact, no educated person (atheist or theist in general) will suggest science is perfect, knows everything, and all other opinions are false...so what are you talking about?
    Your "mirror" appears a tad incorrect. Unless you can tell me you've met some moron that said that. Heh

    Of course you are the judge of what religious beliefs are proper and acceptable. NOT. Forgive me I shall not submit my beliefs for your approval because I care nothing for your solute.
    actually, no, I was just saying that those exempt from those extremes should be respected. unless you think those extremes are a good thing.

    If you care not for my solute of respect, you apparently view yourself above me. Egotist.

    massive rant?
    it lessens the quoted text. Makes it less of an annoyance to read and people know that it was after a certain statement at the same time. Less mountains of text for those previously reading this, and people can just scroll up.

    But this is not what you said. This, at least, shows the type of caution that is indicative of a modicum of intellegence and education. Skepticism is indeed a skill imparted by education. And I have little doubt that some percentage of poorly educated people would indeed abandon the religion in which they were raised (and never thought critically about) once they learned these skills.
    I only meant to refer to those undereducated (thus biased). In fact that is what the statement referrs to. Although it can be taken both ways, assuming that education makes a theist an atheist. However I prefer to interpret it in a more neutral light.
    I know a number of intelligent people that are religious for reasons I can't disagree with. these people tend to not rely on the bible so much as the possibility god exists.
    And many atheists I've seen tend to continually think critically about the possibilities, in fact the most intelligent person I know leans more towards agnostic (and admits it). While I can't deny that some do fit your criterea (I ended up correcting a few myself), I can say it doesn't apply to all.

    I do believe I should be more cautious later, since you react like a volitile mixture dropped on the ground.


    If you think I would ever be defensive about THAT
    Pardon, I should've said offensive.


    When faced with drug or alcohol abuse, even psychologist recognize that AA programs are the most successful. Our only way of dealing with other types of irresponsible human behavior are merely punitive measures and these are clearly not working.
    Ah, but see, they are. They aren't completely STOPPING it, as that is impossible even in religion, but they are working. I'd also like to explain that most of those "AA" programs use a certain amount of psychology as well. However I'd like to disagree with those psychologists. If applied properly it could aid as much as an AA program. Then again, therapy and AA might as well be the best of both worlds. So consider my stance neutral on that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    317
    charles brough,

    Religion is the means by which mankind, having evolved as hunting-gathering group social animals, had to evolved language and then "religion" (actually, merely a common world view) in order to expand his grouping into large bodies so human numbers could increase.
    What a load of bollocks.

    All "religious" world views (which includes Asiatic Marxism) have four things in common which enable them to bind people into these large groups or societies: they preach or teach a common origin, a common goal to which all aim to achieve, issue a common moral formula for its or their achievement, and propose a common threat or enemy.
    Even more bollocks.

    Even our secular ideology fits this, but its goal, "the pursuit of happiness" is a selfish and hence defective goal. "Happiness" is something you cannot achieve by seeking it. This, and the absense of a secular moral system, explains why our science-secular system is weakening and old religions are staging a fanatical come back.
    Brilliant!.......I don't think.

    Where do you get these ideas from?

    Jan.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Guest
    Religion is a crutch for those who are singularly unable to accept reality.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Freshman jagoman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    88
    Following a 'Religion' is a way to secure a better afterlife. If you dont believe in an afterlife, there is no need for a religion, except to keep EVERYONE protected from the dangers in life, but this is only the case if that religion is the governing body of the world.
    Ignorance is Bliss ... till death
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    Brilliant!.......I don't think.
    He admits that he doesn't think! Hahahaha

    Following a 'Religion' is a way to secure a better afterlife. If you dont believe in an afterlife, there is no need for a religion, except to keep EVERYONE protected from the dangers in life, but this is only the case if that religion is the governing body of the world.
    Assuming there is an afterlife. While I believe in the possibility, religion is one of the WORST ways to go about it. Besides an afterlife is sort of what you'd want to make of it. There is little difference from this life aside from freedom and such, probably. Many people don't consciously choose because their od latches onto them probably. Aside from that I can say that it isn't limited to heaven/hell (assuming those exist). Philosophically, anyway.
    By the same coin, it's possible that people perceive themselves to forevery be in a dream. Before we die, our brain activity spikes really high. During which we might possible perceive years or almost an infinite amount of time. An example is, during regulary dreaming, you can sometimes live an entire lifetime in under half an hour (I've done it before and woke with a good jolt).
    I believe the above is talked about in a weird-animated movie (i'll tell you the name later).

    And as for religion protecting the world: The predominant amount of people killing, in jail, etc, are religious. It effectively doesn't help the world anymore than psychology and the economy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Bachelors Degree charles brough's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    joplin MO USA
    Posts
    425
    Jerymy claims I failed to explain what religion is in a single paragraph:

    "Religion is the means by which mankind, having evolved as hunting-gathering group social animals, had to evolved language and then "religion" (actually, merely a common world view) in order to expand his grouping into large bodies so human numbers could increase. All "religious" world views (which includes Asiatic Marxism) have four things in common which enable them to bind people into these large groups or societies: they preach or teach a common origin, a common goal to which all aim to achieve, issue a common moral formula for its or their achievement, and propose a common threat or enemy. "

    That is what religion is and it is one paragraph. In these posts, one should be careful and read with concentration---not carelessly. One should think before writing, also. After all, this is a SCIENCE forum, not an atheist-Fundamentalist "gotcha" type debating group. We are trying here to find and present new and better ideas and concepts---not to "bet" and "hahaha" each other.

    Also, you have mis-read what I wrote about secular. I never stated it was a religion.

    charles http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com
    Brough,
    civilization-overview (dot) com

    --------------------
    There are no accidents, just someone taking too much risk. . . (CB)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Guest
    I was just making a joke about how it was more than one paragraph because of how you did it. Sheesh XP

    However I tend to be stuck reading or posting at hours that stretch into the AM rather than a sane hour. So you'll have to excuse me if I lose a bit of mental focus.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    722
    charles wrote
    All "religious" world views (which includes Asiatic Marxism) have four things in common which enable them to bind people into these large groups or societies: they preach or teach a common origin, a common goal to which all aim to achieve, issue a common moral formula for its or their achievement, and propose a common threat or enemy. "
    Buddhism does not preach a common origin.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Bachelors Degree charles brough's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    joplin MO USA
    Posts
    425
    Prasit states Buddhism has no belief in a common origin. This is an interesting point. One should be aware that there are many types and forms of Buddhism. Even Shintoism is a Buddhist religion and it certainly teaches a common origin (for the Japanese people). But, mainly, it could be true that they teach no common origin. Generally, when a religion fails to answer all of the questions, the one not answered IS ansered anyway with the belief that IT IS UNKNOWABLE. Thus, again, the religion or world view achieves a common belief! Or, the answer might be "we have always been here." That teaches no common origin, but it is a common answer to the question anyway!

    I once had an opportunity to ask a lot of loaded questions of a UCLA sociology professor. I had him literally sweating! He answered the "origin" question with "one religion believes they have always been here." I did not press him further on that because I did not want to humiliate him further and was really only interested in finding out what his orthodox thinking would produce.

    I am a member of the UCLA Plato Society.

    charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com
    Brough,
    civilization-overview (dot) com

    --------------------
    There are no accidents, just someone taking too much risk. . . (CB)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    722
    charles wrote
    when a religion fails to answer all of the questions, the one not answered IS ansered anyway with the belief that IT IS UNKNOWABLE.
    So whatever the religion says, you are always right!
    Buddhism does not address the question of origin because it is irrelevant to enlightenment, not because it is unknowable.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Bachelors Degree charles brough's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    joplin MO USA
    Posts
    425
    Yes, whatever a religion gives for answers to the four questions is always regarded as "right" by its followers.

    As I stated before, there are many Buddhisms and you speak for only how you enterpret the one you favor. Are you claiming that Buddhism is not a religion?

    charles
    Brough,
    civilization-overview (dot) com

    --------------------
    There are no accidents, just someone taking too much risk. . . (CB)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    The predominant amount of people killing, in jail, etc, are religious. It effectively doesn't help the world anymore than psychology and the economy.
    Yes and more religious people are murdered by atheists than atheists are murdered by religious people.

    That can be considered tit for tat in your misuse of statistics, but in this case there is some serious truth to this. For sometimes atheists really get carried away, such as in the case of Hitler, and in the case of the communists in the cultural revolutions of China, Tibet, Vietnam, and Cambodia.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Guest
    If hitler was an atheist, then why did he try to unite the whole country under one religion? And in a case of hitler, it was more his psychological instabilities and racism against his own race that did it. As for communism, wtf? Communists tend to again unite the country and ban all religions but one. Name one communist country that has their whole country united to "atheism".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Professor captaincaveman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,377
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    If hitler was an atheist, then why did he try to unite the whole country under one religion? And in a case of hitler, it was more his psychological instabilities and racism against his own race that did it. As for communism, wtf? Communists tend to again unite the country and ban all religions but one. Name one communist country that has their whole country united to "atheism".

    I agree if hitler was an athiest, that isn't a reason or an excuse for his actions. Thats like saying if hitler was religious he wouldn't have done it.
    CAPTAINCAVEMAN


    I ANSWER TO NO-ONE - The wonders of athiesm

    that which does not kill us only postpones the inevitable
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    If hitler was an atheist, then why did he try to unite the whole country under one religion?
    That nonsense again?

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Quote Originally Posted by http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mischedj/ca_hitler.html
    It is important to be able to identify the difference between Hitler's public speeches and writing and what he really thought. A devious politician leading a nominally Christian country like 1930s Germany will say lots of Christian-sounding stuff to maintain popularity. Mein Kampf illustrates Hitler's views on propaganda:

    "To whom should propaganda be addressed? … It must be addressed always and exclusively to the masses… The function of propaganda does not lie in the scientific training of the individual, but in calling the masses' attention to certain facts, processes, necessities, etc., whose significance is thus for the first time placed within their field of vision. The whole art consists in doing this so skilfully that everyone will be convinced that the fact is real, the process necessary, the necessity correct, etc. But since propaganda is not and cannot be the necessity in itself … its effect for the most part must be aimed at the emotions and only to a very limited degree at the so-called intellect… it's soundness is to be measured exclusively by its effective result". (Main Kampf, Vol 1, Ch 6 and Ch 12)
    Hitler was anti-Christian as natural extention of his anti-Semitism. It is easy enough to get a clear picture of him from his own words.

    Quote Originally Posted by http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mischedj/ca_hitler.html
    Night of 11th-12th July, 1941

    "National Socialism and religion cannot exist together....
    "The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity....
    "Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things." (p 6 & 7)

    10th October, 1941, midday

    "Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure." (p 43)

    14th October, 1941, midday

    "The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity....
    "Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse....
    "...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little....
    "Christianity <is> the liar....
    "We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State." (p 49-52)

    19th October, 1941, night

    "The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity."

    21st October, 1941, midday

    "Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer....
    "The decisive falsification of Jesus' <who he asserts many times was never a Jew> doctrine was the work of St.Paul. He gave himself to this work... for the purposes of personal exploitation....
    "Didn't the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, faggots? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it's in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the
    instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St.Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea." (p 63-65)

    13th December, 1941, midnight

    "Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... <here insults people who believe
    transubstantiation>....
    "When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease." (p 118-119)

    27th February, 1942, midday

    "It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie."
    "Our epoch in the next 200 years will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold <its demise>." (p 278)
    In fact these attitutudes and ideas expressed by Hitler should sound very familiar, for the same sentiments have been uttered by several of the atheists in threads of this forum. It is, therefore, only natural for me to see the things which Hitler has done as the inevitable result of putting his atheistic ideas into practice.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    Communists tend to again unite the country and ban all religions but one. Name one communist country that has their whole country united to "atheism".
    More nonsense. Communists considered religion a disease and did their best to exterminate it as such. The asian communist contries were more sucessful than most, but their ultimate failure is more a testimony to tenacity of religious people and the failure of communism. It goes to show that Hitler's hope for the death of Chirstianity was a bit optimistic to say the least.

    Quote Originally Posted by captaincaveman
    I agree if hitler was an athiest, that isn't a reason or an excuse for his actions. Thats like saying if hitler was religious he wouldn't have done it.
    True. But then in the post of mine which we are discussing I wasn't blaming his atheism I was only supporting the claim that more religious people are murdered by athesists than atheists are murdered by religious people. And I was doing this only as fair turn around on Jeremy's misuse of statistics. I will grant that atheism is not the real cause of these atrocities if you will likewise grant that the wars, blaimed on religion because of thinly concocted excuses using religion, are not caused by religion either.

    We can say that there is a difference between atheism and the anti-religious sentiments of Hitler and the communists, even though it is difficult to see that difference because I hear a lot of the same sentiments as those of Hitler's above expressed by atheists in this forum.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Guest
    It's funny how you claim I misuse statistics. You know, personally, I'd like to believe hitler was more influenced by both sides. It's probable he was more agnostic.
    However christianity has, for the damned LONGEST time, tried to DENY any and ALL involvment with hitler, then blamed it on atheists. To me this appears to be a sheer case of "removing all blame from religion and shifting it to the non-believers".
    It's the exact same with communism. Lets tackle hitler first.

    http://www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm
    Hitler wrote: "I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.."
    And here's the neutrality I agree on
    http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mis...ca_hitler.html

    Quit blaming everybody you don't agree with. Hitler was most likely neither. What I find sad is that all the christians are saying "Oh hitler was SUCH an atheist! Atheist ideals are to blame for the holocaust!" when in reality it was hitlers own insanity, he used religion and believes as a fuel to the fire.

    http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/quotes_hitler.html
    “The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God's will, and actually fulfill God's will, and not let God's word be desecrated. For God's will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's creation, the divine will.”
    All these quotes just end up making hitler contradictory. In fact, looking objectively, it would appear christianity, catholics, and atheists are to "blame". You know, hitler also had support of the pope. If he was an atheist, why did he seek the popes approval?

    But aside from this, the entire situation screams "no belief system is to blame". Damn ignorant people pointing fingers.

    COMMUNISM:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_communism
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

    I can't find jack on your claim. In fact, with just simple communism, there are no claims as to religion. Here is a good example: China is communist.

    The following is a list of current communist countries


    China

    Cuba

    Laos

    North Korea

    Vietnam
    http://www.aneki.com/communist.html

    The other three I'm not sure of, but guess what? China has a major religion. Can you guess what it is? It isn't atheism!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    It's funny how you claim I misuse statistics. You know, personally, I'd like to believe hitler was more influenced by both sides. It's probable he was more agnostic.
    However christianity has, for the damned LONGEST time, tried to DENY any and ALL involvment with hitler, then blamed it on atheists. To me this appears to be a sheer case of "removing all blame from religion and shifting it to the non-believers".
    It's the exact same with communism. Lets tackle hitler first.
    What Hitler has to do with statistics I cannot imagine. But I explained rather clearly why anything making Hitler appear Christian is pure propaganda on his part. His private comments are clear about his real feelings.

    As usual I have only reflected your own attacks back at you and the sight you see is not pretty. But as usual you refuse to see that your attacks against religion are just as easily applied to atheism but instead of simply admitting that your attacks are invalid you continue to escalate. So as usual I will have to drop this arguement as a waste of time, since it is pointless against such an irrationally bigoted person.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Guest
    Translation: You wont admit you were wrong.
    And as usual your arrogance wins out on your own "claim". I could rip them to shreds, but why bother when you're this egotistical?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    It would be difficult, and inappropriate, for Mitchell to admit he is wrong, since he isn't.

    Too paraphrase what Mitchell is saying (correct me if I am wrong Mitchell), the evil men do is an attribute of humanity. It is done under many self righteous banners, including religion, nationalism, patriotism, economics, humanism, etc, but these are simply superficial expressions of the human desire to belong to a group - frankly it doesn't much matter what that group is, or what it believes in. If we think we can cure such evils by abolishing religion then we need a very serious reality check and a major re-education program. Of course, speaking as a devout agnostic, I would take a more practical route - round up anyone who believes such nonsense and execute them. This would have the added advantage of reducing global warming.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Guest
    Er, Oph, I was taking a "neutral" (emphasis on the quatation marks in case there are BLIND reading) standpoint. I basically said that. Except the way I did it made it impossible to blame it on either side, since hitler apparently contradicted himself. So who knows!
    However rereading what mitch said, it can indeed be applied to atheism as well...if hitler wasn't talking directly about religion. So where, exactly, are my sources reversed on me? Not to mention my arguments were based on shooting down the assumption it was caused by atheism or an atheist.

    Insofar, hitler is an unknown. You can't really prove he's a theist or atheist.

    Plus, going down a psychology route, it was far more than "beliefs" from a chosen organization that wound up to the initial purging.

    Also: You give mitch far too much credit. But I agree with how you put it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Perhaps I misunderstood what you were claiming Mitch was wrong about. Since we agree on what he was right about, it is probably best to move on.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    722
    charles wrote
    Yes, whatever a religion gives for answers to the four questions is always regarded as "right" by its followers.

    As I stated before, there are many Buddhisms and you speak for only how you enterpret the one you favor. Are you claiming that Buddhism is not a religion?
    I am claiming that Buddhism does not fit your definition of religion because it does not address the question of common origin. It does not mean Buddhism is not a religion. It means your definition is not correct.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Perhaps I misunderstood what you were claiming Mitch was wrong about. Since we agree on what he was right about, it is probably best to move on.
    Yes. I need to work on making sense. Apologies.

    And I backup the statement about buddhism. It doesn't have a common origin more often than not.
    It also fails to fit your definition charles.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    34
    religion in latin(religio) means binding on of duties. Basically, it is what you can do for your god. in christianity, it isnt really needed. one just needs to accept god and you are saved.
    "When you eliminate the inpossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbbable, must be the truth"- Sherlock Holmes
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    53
    These are two definitons of "religion". According to you people, what elements you will add or substract to make a new definition of religion?

    Religion is a system of social coherence based on a common group of beliefs or attitudes concerning an object, person, unseen being, or system of thought considered to be supernatural, sacred, divine or highest truth, and the moral codes, practices, values, institutions, and rituals associated with such belief or system of thought

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

    n. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
    A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
    The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
    A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion http://www.answers.com/religion&r=67
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •