What is religion to you? [Archive]

View Full Version : What is religion to you?

Cha

08-19-2006, 11:29

What is religion to you? I found a topic about religion in another forum and these are what I found:

Personally I don't give a crap about how Christians behave. They are free to proseltyize or hate as they or their church leaders will. I dislike Christians because they are brainwashed and offensive to my philosophical sense of taste and culture.

On the individual level, antiquated religions like Christianity are for simpleton type folk. On the collective scale, Koreans and Christianity approach mass neurosis in parralle with North Koreans and their dear leader. Same widespread and systematic foolishness.
I'd give you the link if you're interested, but I'm embarrassed about it because there is a lot of nationalism going on in that forum.

Papewaio

08-19-2006, 11:36

Religion is a useful tool for herd control ie it is a social-political instrument. It generally comes under the Games part of mob management as it helps focus them on things outside of their own day to day life. However alot of the religious festivals also revolve around feast days so it covers the Bread part of mob management as well.

Cha

08-19-2006, 11:38

Here's more:

Not to mention the "holier-than-thou" attitude. Honestly, I see no difference between Christianity and Islam. This "intolerant", "war-like", "my way is the only way" mindset is very dangerous. That's why after all these centuries, these two religions are still up to "no good".

to me, Christianity is basically rewrapped Buddhist type spirituality passed thru Sumer into the Old Testament, and then it gets unknowingly exported back into the areas where Sumerians brought their spiritual beliefs from...

but there is no real guarantee that the spirituality is interpreted in the right way in today's changing society.

This is one of the reasons why I love Buddhism so much. A monk once told me when I asked him if Buddha would be mad at me for praying to Jesus. He said, "if we were all in a burning building and there was only one door, only one way out ... how many people would perish? If there are many doors, how many people would be saved? Maybe everyone! Each religion is a door to escape our suffering. Each religion is a door to salvation." I was so happy with this answer.

I think these are all interesting opinions, which I never thought about before.
And I'm posting this because it's about time we had another religion thread.
By the way, I'm not anti-Christian.

Keba

08-19-2006, 12:00

Religion: an antiquated remnant of a society that had no understanding of it's surroundings, thus requiring a way to explain the phennomena that were, at the time, mysterious, unpredictable, and could not be understood at that level of social and technological development.

I don't really care about religion, as long as they don't bug me with their beliefs. Although I personally have very little respect for the top three monotheistic religions (aka Christianity, Islam and Judaism), they are far too exclusive and intolerant of other faiths for me to like.

Justiciar

08-19-2006, 15:51

I don't get why people have such a problem with religion to be honest. I'm not a big fan of organised faith, but on a personal scale it's something to be cherished by those who have it and accepted by those who don't. It isn't the cause of war and hatred.. that's just group mentality, and getting rid of religion isn't the answer to it.

Moros

08-19-2006, 15:59

The ultimate proof of men's stupidity.
The ultimate tool to power.
The ultimate lie.
more?

scotchedpommes

08-19-2006, 16:10

scooter_the_shooter

08-19-2006, 16:52

I believe everything in the bible.....but I don't see the need to go to church it's all there in bible! I can read, Does a preacher know more then the bible? I think not.

scooter_the_shooter

08-19-2006, 16:56

only I would add that where possible, I would be in favour of complete removal
of the monotheistic religions in the traditional sense. People who have their own
spiritual beliefs, internalised, are in no way any threat in the same manner that
anti-evolutionary groups are, for instance.

So if you could ban organized religion you would?....how tolerant of you~:rolleyes:

Sigurd

08-19-2006, 17:20

Religion is having answers to the terrible questions.

IrishArmenian

08-19-2006, 17:28

macsen rufus

08-19-2006, 17:45

To many people, their religion is not a sincere spiritual conviction, rather more a flag to wave to "prove" they are right and everyone else is wrong. I do believe there is some Truth to be found in most religions, but by the time it becomes "organised" you have a power hierarchy whose main interest is self-preservation and seizing the "doctrinal high ground".

Another Buddhist analogy: The various Gods are like trees in a forest, and the road to Nirvana passes beside the forest. You can visit any tree you like on the way, or none of them, and still reach Nirvana. But you can also get lost in the forest.

whyidie

08-19-2006, 17:54

The religion I knew in my youth was a beautiful thing. Your beliefs were reflected in your actions, not in your words. Those who I thought of as religious behaved in a manner that seemed transcendent. Not transcendent to the point of not caring about the world and the ills of others. For they did care. And they did things that reflected their caring. Their faith seemed to come from within and eminate outwardly in thought and actions. Not perfect in any sense of the word. But trying. Honestly trying.

Now its seems like a lot of people who claim to be religious are troubled. Bothered terribly in fact. They have an itch that they just can't help but scratch. I don't get the sense that there is serenity in their souls. Religion doesn't seem to give them that anymore. Rather than calming the hurricane it seems to redirect it elsewhere.

I suppose like all powerful things there is the potential for great good and the potential for great harm.

Religion doesn't kill people, people kill religion.

JimBob

08-19-2006, 18:00

On an organized level it is a method of herd control. On the personal level, where the defenition is much broader, it is a wonderful thing. I don't belong to a faith, my religion is my beliefs and morals. Everyone has a religion whether you know it or not.

Al Khalifah

08-19-2006, 18:03

What is the consumer-driven Western world to you?

Kanamori

08-19-2006, 18:05

I just think that it's funny that something meditative and spiritual like religion was so popular, and regularly practiced. I mean, what the heck?!

Keba

08-19-2006, 18:09

Forgot to point out ... religion, the only thing where you get to be called a sheep without anyone being offended. I love that one. :laugh4:

Kanamori

08-19-2006, 18:21

On the personal level, where the defenition is much broader, it is a wonderful thing. I don't belong to a faith, my religion is my beliefs and morals. Everyone has a religion whether you know it or not.

I live by a code, but I would certainly not call it spiritual, and spirituality is central to religion, I think. So, I think that religion is neither universal nor as popular as you might think. For there are many people who do not associate their moral code with any sort of spirituality.

Samurai Waki

08-19-2006, 18:25

My mind is the only temple I pray too. And not surprisingly the only one that has ever answered my prayers.

B-Wing

08-19-2006, 18:30

Wow, based on those quotes, religion seems to be the scapegoat that athiests blame all the world's problems on.

To me, "religion" is any alternative to nihilism. Personally, I choose to believe that Jesus (the one popularly called Christ) spoke the truth, and all that it implies. And oddly enough, I don't find my faith demanding me to conform to anyone else's views.

Keba

08-19-2006, 18:39

Wow, based on those quotes, religion seems to be the scapegoat that athiests blame all the world's problems on.

That is because we are right, history will prove my point.

I can only speak for a few atheists, and we don't blame religion for the world's problems, at least not solely. It is a factor, but not the only one. What we are bothered with is religious people pushing their religion upon others, whether those people want to or not.

What is the consumer-driven Western world to you?

An abomination ... I'm communist.:2thumbsup:

B-Wing

08-19-2006, 18:56

What we are bothered with is religious people pushing their religion upon others, whether those people want to or not.

Ahh, no one can argue with this. Of course, you can apply it to any belief or ideal, but I suppose religion has been one of the most commonly "pushed" things in history, which is ironic for Christianity, since Jesus was clearly "take it or leave it" in his approach, as opposed to "convert or die!"

Aenlic

08-19-2006, 21:53

Several major religions insist that everyone else must be pushed into believing them as well, in particular Christianity and Islam. Both of these religions have a history of forcing conversions at the point of a sword, using politics and government to force their religious ideas on everyone and just generally not being tolerant of others who don't believe as they do. For this reason, I feel no real need to be particularly tolerant of these religions or their adherents.

Aside from that, "faith" fosters an inability to think logically and skeptically about everything else. Someone who is unable to apply simple logic and common sense to their own beliefs is unlikely to be able to do so in other areas as well. Anyone who believes that the Bible/Koran/Torah and Talmud/Vedas/whatever is true simply because God said so is blatantly unable to reason. Such inability to recognize circular reasoning doesn't bode well for reasoning abilities in other areas. Many of our modern day problems are the result of people not being able to think clearly and rationally about issues. This is a direct result of their inability to think clearly and rationally about religion.

When humanity finally throws off the chains of religion and superstition and fantasy, then we'll finally be able to progress as a species.

scooter_the_shooter

08-19-2006, 22:20

Several major religions insist that everyone else must be pushed into believing them as well, in particular Christianity and Islam. Both of these religions have a history of forcing conversions at the point of a sword, using politics and government to force their religious ideas on everyone and just generally not being tolerant of others who don't believe as they do. For this reason, I feel no real need to be particularly tolerant of these religions or their adherents.

Uhhh....the crusades were quite some time ago:dizzy2:

What about all the atrocities the germans did in ww2......I feel no need to tolerate germans.....Come on that argument doesn't even make sense.:wall:

I've met an atheist family who will believe anything against religion wether there is proof or not (especially christianity). and these people are crazy. Their son has tried to commit suicide one or two times.

I've met a christian who !@#$ed up their kid with all the fire and brim stone stuff..... that the kid can't function any better than someone who is mentally retarded.

There are crazies in every group it's nothing new.

Aenlic

08-19-2006, 22:46

Uhhh....the crusades were quite some time ago:dizzy2:

Not just the Crusades. Are you kidding? Heretics burned at the stake, as recently as in colonial America. Missionaries in South America encouraging the removal of one foot of the natives so they couldn't run away while being forced to attend church. Children of native American tribes being removed from their families and raised in Christian schools to turn them into good little Protestant Americans. An endless stream of examples of Christians attempting to legislate their religions by force onto everyone else. Does Prohibition ring a bell at all? The same things people are currently using to criticize militant Islamic fundamentalists is not all that far removed from recent history in the West, and was done by Christians.

What about all the atrocities the germans did in ww2......I feel no need to tolerate germans.....Come on that argument doesn't even make sense.:wall:

Well, I'm not surprised that you can't follow the logic and instead turned to a completely specious argument instead.

I've met an atheist family who will believe anything against religion wether there is proof or not (especially christianity). and these people are crazy. Their son has tried to commit suicide one or two times.

So? What does that have to do with the discussion? What are these unproven things they believe about Christianity? Maybe their son committed suicide because he was tired of all the Christians telling him he was going to Hell without any proof and decided to find out for himself?

I've met a christian who !@#$ed up their kid with all the fire and brim stone stuff..... that the kid can't function any better than someone who is mentally retarded.

Exactly my point. Thanks for making it for me again.

There are crazies in every group it's nothing new.

My point wasn't about crazies. It was about religion teaching people to be irrational and thus unable to think logically and skeptically. It was about religion teaching people to accept irrational and illogical thought as normal. It was about religion making people so unable to distinguish between reality and fantasy that it spills over into other facets of their lives, from believing in aliens at Area 51 and ghosts and holistic medicine and chiropractors and infomercials to electing blatantly ignorant people to government just because they are "true believers" of the same nonsense.

Any other misconceptions I can clear up for you?

Patriarch of Constantinople

08-19-2006, 22:48

i use religion to fill in holes in life, things that cant be explained by science. It also helps me with my porblems because i know theres some higher diety looking after me and everyone

Reverend Joe

08-20-2006, 02:00

:2thumbsup:

Religion is everything.

Religion is bliss.
Religion is hell.
Religion is a bright fever.
Religion is a cold madness.
Religion is brutality and opression.
Religion is the liberation of one's mind.
Religion is a one-man road for the lucid.
Religion is a highway for the comfortably numb.
Religion is an awakening.
Religion is an opiate.
Religion is an explanation.
Religion is a refusal to accept explanations.
Religion is a way of bringing everyone together.
Religion is a way of tearing people apart.
Religion is fear.
Religion is love.
Religion is starvation of the senses.
Religion is an exploration of the senses.

So... decide.

Orb

08-20-2006, 02:35

Divinus Arma

08-20-2006, 02:35

Religion is an antiquated word with little meaning nowadays. We should instead be referring to an "existential perspective". After all, that is what we are really talking about: the persepective of existence, how it came to be, its purpose and our own. Everyone has some sort of existential perspective, even atheists.

As for Christians and Muslims being equally intolerant: I don't see many Christians strapping explosives to themselves and then walking onto crowded city buses. I don't see calls from Christains for the death and destruction of the heathen infidel. Maybe 1000 yrs ago, but gimme a break.

Sasaki Kojiro

08-20-2006, 02:41

It's just weird.

Justiciar

08-20-2006, 02:47

This is in the UK, so it might be different elsewhere, but I've always found aetheists here to be far more intolerant than Christians.
Exonctually.

IrishArmenian

08-20-2006, 07:11

Not just the Crusades. Are you kidding? Heretics burned at the stake, as recently as in colonial America. Missionaries in South America encouraging the removal of one foot of the natives so they couldn't run away while being forced to attend church. Children of native American tribes being removed from their families and raised in Christian schools to turn them into good little Protestant Americans. An endless stream of examples of Christians attempting to legislate their religions by force onto everyone else. Does Prohibition ring a bell at all? The same things people are currently using to criticize militant Islamic fundamentalists is not all that far removed from recent history in the West, and was done by Christians.

Ah, but Christianity started in what Christians call the "East". Do not try to judge the Western Christians by the Eastern Christians and vice versa unless you just say believe Jesus is the saviour of man kind and the fundamentals of Christianity.

Patriarch of Constantinople

08-20-2006, 08:01

Ah, but Christianity started in what Christians call the "East". Do not try to judge the Western Christians by the Eastern Christians and vice versa unless you just say believe Jesus is the saviour of man kind and the fundamentals of Christianity. Tequinically (i can never get that word right) it was roman at the time but now is the east. Anywho, eastern christianity has alot of differences with the western one. Pretty much like trying to judge Roman Catholics by the Orthodox Christian.
And vice versa

Claudius the God

08-20-2006, 09:10

Wht is religion to you?

put simply... nonsense... plain and simple...

I don't have a problem with people who believe traditional forms of nonsense in the privacy of their own homes, but the ones who promote such nonsense and encourage irrational or even plain stupid behaviours are a disgrace to humanity.

here are a bunch of quite thoughtful and sometimes fun quotes both condemning and supporting religion/s and/or god/s:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Religion
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Faith
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/God
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Atheism

B-Wing

08-20-2006, 10:15

Several major religions insist that everyone else must be pushed into believing them as well, in particular Christianity and Islam.

I cannot speak for Islam, but I can assure you that there is no record of Jesus Christ commanding his disciples to forcefully "convert" anyone. Evangalism is clearly commanded, but nothing that would be considered violating one's "rights". Whenever Christians have done so, they have done so in contradiction. And claiming Christianity is worthless because of the number of poor examples is like claiming socialism (or any other form of government) is worthless because its advocates have failed to live up to its ideal.

Aside from that, "faith" fosters an inability to think logically and skeptically about everything else. Someone who is unable to apply simple logic and common sense to their own beliefs is unlikely to be able to do so in other areas as well. Anyone who believes that the Bible/Koran/Torah and Talmud/Vedas/whatever is true simply because God said so is blatantly unable to reason.

I can agree with what you're saying. But its certainly not fair to say that everyone who follows or believes in a certain religion does so because the same religion says to. Scriptures' claim to be divinely inspired isn't my reason for believing it. I believe it based on the evidence of its validity, particularly that which I have experienced myself.

When humanity finally throws off the chains of religion and superstition and fantasy, then we'll finally be able to progress as a species.

I'm glad you're interested in the betterment of mankind, which is what I assume you mean by "progress as a species". As a Christian, I also believe that improving the health, happiness, and wellbeing of our race should be of great importance to all persons. But, as a Christian, I believe that there is another dimension, so to speak: eternity. And I don't think our condition as eternal beings directly correlates to our situation as a species. So both sides must be addressed, and in different manners. You may not find this belief useful, but the ethical and moral implications of Christianity do not interfere with the betterment of the human race. Only when one chooses to deny science's practicality in response to their inability to reconcile scientific theory (or their understanding of it) with the Biblical story (or their understanding of it) is the progress of the species endangered. And I don't see any good reason for a Christian to do so.

kataphraktoi

08-20-2006, 14:37

All the stupid things CHristians have done have been against Jesus' teachings so why blame Christianity because of people who don't FOLLOW its teachings??

Its like me saying I'm a pacifist and yet I go out killing people, do you blame pacifists for killing people??

The Crusades were against Christ's teachings
The Spanish Inquisiation were against Christ's teachings

and yet Christianity is to be blamed for something it does NOT advocate.

You don't find me saying Buddha is evil just because his followers participated in the persecution of Christians during the Tang Dynasty do you? You don't find me saying Buddha is evil just because the Lamais of Tibet persecuted Christians during the 19th century do you? Buddha's a nice chap, would have been a low maintenance buddy cos he fasted a lot, but I can't blame him for his misguided follower's doing can I? Of course not.

So why should anyone be disgusted if Muslims, Christians think they're right and ur wrong. Athiests think they're right and religious ppl as wrong so why should they escape being called "intolerant"........

Come on, lets be sensible here. Each and everyone of us will always think some ppl are wrong and we're right....

We have better things to argue about.....like how my country's bananas are better than yours...

Sigurd

08-20-2006, 14:49

"Pure religion ... is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction and to keep himself unspotted from the world".

Sigurd

08-20-2006, 14:54

Buddha's a nice chap, would have been a low maintenance buddy cos he fasted a lot
Makes you wonder about the figurines, right? ~D

kataphraktoi

08-20-2006, 15:11

:laugh4:
Makes you wonder about the figurines, right?

Oh you cheeky fella. :2thumbsup:

Cha

08-20-2006, 16:06

I have mixed feelings about the church.

I agree that the system of one God tends to make people of other religions turn away from Christianity. While most of the Christians are tolerant towards others, I noticed that some Christians tend to be conservative, and were suspicious of people who acted "liberal".

On the other hand, I have seen how the church can help during times of trouble. When Christians know one another, they help each other get through difficult times. I have two uncles who lost their jobs during the last recession. My grandfather sent them money once in a while. One of my uncle was over 50 and couldn't find a decent job. He worked in one of those jobs where he had to be away from his home for days and travel great distances. When I saw him three years ago, he looked very tired but was full of anger. I met him again last month, and he looked full of hope. If it wasn't for the church keeping his hopes high, then I don't know what he would be doing now. He is studying to be a priest. My other uncle became an alcoholic after he lost his job. The church helped him get through hard times. Later on, he met a friend who was his roommate in college. His friend invited my uncle to work with him in his business.

By the way, the bad times tend to return after the good times. I have already seen three different recessions so far.

Red Peasant

08-20-2006, 16:17

kataphraktoi

08-20-2006, 18:56

Kataphraktoi, you are confusing 'Religion' with 'Christ's teachings'. One can follow Christ's precepts (whether you believe he existed or not) and the best of Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, the ancient and modern philosophers, etc, etc, without having to construct an authoritarian, prescriptive, narrow-minded, institutional structure in order to manipulate and pervert those teachings.

No I am not, I know the difference between religion and Christ's teachings and by no means claim his precepts exclusively as Judaeo-Christian. I am simply identifying false grounds for accusation when the two are mixed together. I believe I have in fact segregated and not mixed religion and Christ's teachings together.

And are you assuming religion is "authoritarian, prescriptive, narrow-minded, institutional structure"???

Why is it only religion?

A religion is an opinion, much like political ideology is an opinion, much like atheism, evolution is an opinion.

Its not religion vs secularism. Its religion as one of many issues of human opinions which we frequently disagree over.

Red Peasant

08-20-2006, 20:31

We shall have to agree to differ then. ~;)
There's no use arguing about matters of opinion or belief.

Tribesman

08-20-2006, 21:42

What is religeon to me ? It is about being nice .

As for Christians and Muslims being equally intolerant: I don't see many Christians strapping explosives to themselves and then walking onto crowded city buses.
Perhaps you don't see it because you don't look Divinus .

See an example of being nice by suggesting that someone actually looks before making a silly accusation .~;)

Papewaio

08-21-2006, 00:24

What is the consumer-driven Western world to you?

Consumer-driven & Western world.

Choice of goods.
Choice of services.
Education.
Free to choose my belief system.
Nearer equality of man and woman.
Freedom to choose the number of children I have.
Longer life span if I choose to look after myself.
So access to health services and accurate information.
Free to choose who I marry or who I live with.
etc

Mithras

08-21-2006, 01:10

Hm...

I generally see that Aetheists tend to be far more derogatory towards Christians than Christians are towards them. I have seen not one occasion where a Christian has insulted an aetheist on the grounds of religion and more than I can count where aetheists have insulted Christians on the grounds of religion.

This is in the UK, so it might be different elsewhere, but I've always found aetheists here to be far more intolerant than Christians - while speaking about the crusades loudly.

Not one occasion? have you actually met a Christian? I mean by default you must have meet at least one with a hateful or backwards opnion based upon their Christian outlook?

I cannot recall an atheist ever coming to my door or harrassing me on the the street. Nor can I remember receiving arrogent midly bigoted pamflets to my door. A few pretentious comments, half baked insults and completly valid criticisms vs 2000 of aggressive proliferation at any cost is like comparing the drizzle to the Tsunami.

A religion is an opinion, much like political ideology is an opinion, much like atheism, evolution is an opinion.

Some opnions have more merit than others would'nt you agree?

As for Christians and Muslims being equally intolerant: I don't see many Christians strapping explosives to themselves and then walking onto crowded city buses.

It's waiting in the shadows, you can see it's reflection in shot-up abortion clinics and death threats to Non-Christians. Don't delude yourself into thinking that a few pleasent decades mean that Christianity is free of its hubris. A bad few years, an unfortunate turn of events and they'll be strapping bombs to their chest in the name of his perfect love.

As to what I think of religion and the individual. I consider it a block of marble half carved already: their is already shape, theme and structure to it but it what occurs next is up to you.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

08-21-2006, 02:07

In response to the quotes in the first few posts, where the quoted individual says:

Christians are brainwashed...bad, etc.

I disagree. 99% of the Christians and about 80% of the agonistics I know, regardless of which Church they go to, if they worship often, or exactly how they go about it, are welcoming, good spirited individuals, who serve their community willingly and as often as possible.

On the other hand, almost all my conversations with atheists go something like this:

A: What do you believe in?
Me: I'm Catholic.
A: *launches long tirade about why they are right and I am wrong*

This happens almost every single time I talk to an atheist in real life.

Conclusion: From my experience (I'm sure it's not like this everywhere), it is not Christians, Muslims, or Jews who are brainwashed or just bad people, but it is the atheists who rub their doctrine into our faces, and are generally inconsiderade jerks. I have never met a Christian who has tried to sway me to his faith with such blunt and disgusting methods (the fact it is also my faith does not apply, as generally the people do not know).

Disclaimer: This applies to my experiences in real life, not the .Org, TWC, SCC, or any other places I may or may not be involved. I am responding to the unknown quoted individual. I am not bashing atheists, but I am absoloutly sick of the way they attempt to bludgeon my faith.

John86

08-21-2006, 05:22

I love how the atheist makes it seem as thought the world would be perfect if there was no religion. An atheist can never truely understand what religion and spirtuality mean to the believer, and therefore have no right to make statements blaming the worlds problems on Christians.

Atheists have the capacity to kill too, you know. Religion unites, Atheism seperates.

Keba

08-21-2006, 09:32

On the other hand, almost all my conversations with atheists go something like this:

A: What do you believe in?
Me: I'm Catholic.
A: *launches long tirade about why they are right and I am wrong*

This happens almost every single time I talk to an atheist in real life.

Remember, it works the other way, too. Almost all Christians (minus a couple of friends with whom the conversation goes differently, I'll explain later) have a similar conversation, it goes:

A: Do you believe in God?
Me: No, I'm atheist.
A: Oh ... I'm a member of the Church of ...

You can guess where it goes, at which point I start a tirade about how I'm not interested in religion (using all the proper reasons), questioning their faith, etc.

Now, with my friends it's different, it goes like this:

A: You're an atheist?
Me: Uh-huh. So?
A: But how can you believe there is no higher power?
Me: Correction, I don't believe, I claim ... and I can, done that for the past 19 years, doing it still.

This is usualy where the converastion changes direction, and thus ends the religious part.

So, you see ... the whole religion sucks is a defense mechanism you develop fairly early on, since the religious bunch bug you incessantly, you learn how to drive them off quickly.

However, most of the criticism used is grounded in reality, maybe a bit exaggerated, but true nevertheless.

Ignoramus

08-21-2006, 09:44

Mithras

08-21-2006, 10:46

Atheists have the capacity to kill too, you know. Religion unites, Atheism seperates.

heh heh you're funny. Name one religion which doesnt have a legion of sects and name a single war which was fought in Atheisms name.

All the benefits the "Western" nations have is because of Christianity. Democracy came about because of Christianity, we have the freedom of speech, we can choose who we can marry, we are allowed to wear what we like.

Without an absoloute(God), nothing else makes sense. If you take away God, why is it wrong to kill or steal? Chaos would follow, because there would be me no morals or rules.

False, even if what you said was true (it isnt) it would not make Christianity correct. Hypotheticly even if Christianity did encourage morality that doesnt make it the correct veiwpoint.

Modern Democracy is a product of the early modern world. The enlightenment where (Pagan) antiquity political/Social/Philisophical thought combined with the economic and social changes triggured by the black plague. Christianity was not univolved however it was often found in opposition to these changes rather than in favour of them (kings divine rights and all that Jazz) fused to emphasise that various factors which encourage democracy.

I would also argue that you're a pretty immoral guy if you're going to rampage around raping, murdering and stealing if god doeant exist.

Keba

08-21-2006, 10:59

All the benefits the "Western" nations have is because of Christianity. Democracy came about because of Christianity, we have the freedom of speech, we can choose who we can marry, we are allowed to wear what we like.

Without an absoloute(God), nothing else makes sense. If you take away God, why is it wrong to kill or steal? Chaos would follow, because there would be me no morals or rules.

At this point I would refer you to the work of Max Weber, specifically, his work on protestant ethics and the spirit of captialsim. It was their obsession with worldly wealth (and the accumulation of it) that spurred capitalism, so, yes, I grant you that Christianity created capitalism (and sice I hate capitalism ...).

Now, Chrstianity and democracy? Interesting, all the absolutis rulers were Christian ... it was the duty of a Christian to obey their betters ... so, where does democracy or freedom of speech fit in? I seem to remember that merely saying some things in Christian communities not that far in history would get you punished (as those are the word of Satan) ... not exactly freedom of speech in my mind.

The choosing of who we can marry is a different matter. It evolved in the 18th century, and Christianity had little to do with it. Rather, it is connected to the idea of Romantic marriage ... earlier on, love was the theme for tragic stories, and marriage was simply a tool to improve one's social position. BTW, we are feeling the sideffects of that in the vastly inceased number of divorces ... emotion can be fickle.

Allowed to wear what we like. Hm, I don't think so. If anything Christians were overly insistent on chastity and honor to allow that. We still do have that, albeit less and only in certain situation (school dress codes, etc). Suppose I like prancing around naked, if I could wear what I like, and that amounts to a hat, then I wouldn't be arrested, or would I?

Without an absolute, nothing makes sense when you don't understand the fundamental principles that this universe is founded on. The need for relgious enforcement of social norms is no longer present, law has taken that place. And if you think rules still come from a Church or from God (whose first rules on the list are that you must worship him), then you are sadly mistaken.

Now, about chaos. We've already ascertained that Christianity was a factor in the creation of capitalism. Capitalism makes cheating a good, even required thing, if one wants to succeed. Free market can be said to be chaotic ... therefore, I would let you find the conclusion of where the chaos stems from.

I am not one that thinks religion didn't advance humanity ... but please don't inflate things. Although I am curious to see the reasoning behind the above-quoted statement.

EDIT: Guess I was beaten to it by Mithras.

DukeofSerbia

08-21-2006, 11:58

I don’t know from where to start. Maybe from Cha’s posts from that other forum.

Not to mention the "holier-than-thou" attitude. Honestly, I see no difference between Christianity and Islam. This "intolerant", "war-like", "my way is the only way" mindset is very dangerous. That's why after all these centuries, these two religions are still up to "no good".

Islam is not only in “no good” relation with Christianity, Islam is in no good relations with other religions like Judaism (Israel and surrounding Moslem Arabs) and Hinduism (see Pakistan and India in Kashmir).

to me, Christianity is basically rewrapped Buddhist type spirituality passed thru Sumer into the Old Testament, and then it gets unknowingly exported back into the areas where Sumerians brought their spiritual beliefs from...

This statement is only belief and nothing more. Buddhism started as philosophy and later turned into religion.

DukeofSerbia

08-21-2006, 11:59

I think my views lie somewhere along the lines of those that Keba has expressed,
only I would add that where possible, I would be in favour of complete removal
of the monotheistic religions in the traditional sense. People who have their own
spiritual beliefs, internalised, are in no way any threat in the same manner that
anti-evolutionary groups are, for instance.

Ceasar010 answered on that excellent:

So if you could ban organized religion you would?....how tolerant of you

I will add that communists tried to do that and they failed. Religion will never extinct.

I believe everything in the bible.....but I don't see the need to go to church it's all there in bible! I can read, Does a preacher know more then the bible? I think not.

Typical attitude in Protestantism formally established from Martin Luther in XVI century.

I've met an atheist family who will believe anything against religion wether there is proof or not (especially christianity). and these people are crazy. Their son has tried to commit suicide one or two times.

I've met a christian who !@#$ed up their kid with all the fire and brim stone stuff..... that the kid can't function any better than someone who is mentally retarded.

There are crazies in every group it's nothing new.

I agree. But those “Christians” you mentioned are not.

DukeofSerbia

08-21-2006, 12:01

Religion is what keeps people going. If someone says they are an aetheist, I have found that they normally mean agnostic which is beleiveing in an external power that created life, planets, and that gravy. Rarely does a person have no hope for the afterlife. There has to be somewhere better than this.

Pure atheists don’t exist. Atheism means that you don’t have any idea (or to say conception) about God (Divine). Those so called atheists are antitheists. They have idea about God but it’s negative (they don’t believe in God in simple words).

Personaly, religion plays a part in everything I do. Yes, I am a Christian like most Armenians. But what gets me is when (My nephew tells me about this in America) a lot of American Wasps are so brutal, mean and stingy people. They set a badd exampel for the rest of the world and that sickens me, why is the standard Christian in most people's mind a lying, two-faced hypocrite? I would like to change that, but everyone has to do their part.

I agree with you. And as I know Armenians and Armenian Apostolic Church are Oriental Orthodox.
But, it is not so bad in USA like your nephew said. There are a lot of traditional Protestants in USA, and USA is more conservative than most countries in European Union.

Ah, but Christianity started in what Christians call the "East". Do not try to judge the Western Christians by the Eastern Christians and vice versa unless you just say believe Jesus is the saviour of man kind and the fundamentals of Christianity.

Tequinically (i can never get that word right) it was roman at the time but now is the east. Anywho, eastern christianity has alot of differences with the western one. Pretty much like trying to judge Roman Catholics by the Orthodox Christian.
And vice versa

I agree with both of you (it seems that we are (all three) Orthodox).

DukeofSerbia

08-21-2006, 12:02

@whyidie

Excellent post.

Now its seems like a lot of people who claim to be religious are troubled. Bothered terribly in fact. They have an itch that they just can't help but scratch. I don't get the sense that there is serenity in their souls. Religion doesn't seem to give them that anymore. Rather than calming the hurricane it seems to redirect it elsewhere.

That’s why Jesus Christ said to Disciples: “When I come to the Earth again will I found faith?” I don’t know in which Gospel is that (from my head) and I translated that from Serbian.

I suppose like all powerful things there is the potential for great good and the potential for great harm.

Religion doesn't kill people, people kill religion.

I absolutely agree.

DukeofSerbia

08-21-2006, 12:05

When humanity finally throws off the chains of religion and superstition and fantasy, then we'll finally be able to progress as a species.

And than we will finally create “Paradise in the Earth”...http://smiles.zy.cz/136.gif Religion will never extinct.

The most people in world history WERE KILLED by ATHEIST’S Communist’s regimes in Soviet Union, China and else where they ruled in XX century. http://smiles.zy.cz/254.gif

Are you satisfied now?

Hm...

I generally see that Aetheists tend to be far more derogatory towards Christians than Christians are towards them. I have seen not one occasion where a Christian has insulted an aetheist on the grounds of religion and more than I can count where aetheists have insulted Christians on the grounds of religion.

This is in the UK, so it might be different elsewhere, but I've always found aetheists here to be far more intolerant than Christians - while speaking about the crusades loudly.

I don’t know for UK, but I know for former Communist’s block in Eastern Europe. Do I have to mention how religion was prohibited (not officially except in Albania)? Discrimination and murdering/killing of Christians (plus Moslems and Buddhists in Soviet Union) was very high. When I was born dictator Joseph Broz Tito was dead, but Communists still ruled in Yugoslavia. I was baptized secretly...

DukeofSerbia

08-21-2006, 12:09

rory_20_uk

08-21-2006, 12:11

And than we will finally create “Paradise in the Earth”...http://smiles.zy.cz/136.gif Religion will never extinct.

The most people in world history WERE KILLED by ATHEIST’S Communist’s regimes in Soviet Union, China and else where they ruled in XX century. http://smiles.zy.cz/254.gif

Are you satisfied now?

Most were not killed in the name of Aethism though. Most Chinese were killed in The Great Leap Forward - a flawed political descision that affected everyone. In the USSR people were killed for many reasons, but it was unusual for their religion to be the cause of their deaths, more commonly political or ethnic grounds.

And let's not forget earlier genocides such as Ghangis Khan or Catholics in South America. Both had religion, and slaughtered many people.

~:smoking:

Scurvy

08-21-2006, 13:01

a religion is only as good as the believer (ie. a religion - or religous text - cannot be held responsible for the actions of its followers, because everyone interprets the religion differently....

Orb

08-21-2006, 13:09

Sir Moody

08-21-2006, 13:22

I'm agnostic i don't know whether god is real or not but i go out and talk to priests and generally try to get a understanding of what a religion stands for (having read the quotes from Buddhism i think i may have to arrange a meeting with the local temple it sounds interesting) and in general Ive found a few things out.

First off: Religion is Necessary - I'm probably not going to make many atheist friends in this thread because i said that but its an undeniable part of humanity to want to believe in something more powerful and greater than themselves and while some can "believe" (not the right word but its the same thing) in science or humanity and not in a God other people cannot and religion fills this gap it provides humanity with something to believe in and this is a good thing - the atheists may say the future is a world without religion but I'm afraid i think they are wrong. Humans need to believe and not everyone is wired the same way no matter what happens people will always believe in what they want to believe i find it hard to see how such a radical shift in our behavior could lead to a world where everyone believes the same thing (baring proof i.e. a divinity coming down and telling us who's right :laugh4: )

Now Ive got that out of the way i believe that the major religions that i have spoken too (so far that would be Roman Catholics, Protestants, Judaism and Islam) all have a major problem at the root of their core - and this is extremism and its a disease that effects all of them to various levels. An important part of faith in my opinion is to question your beliefs to ask yourself why and keep asking and never give such an easy answer such as "because god said so". Extremists don't follow this and instead they seem to justify everything by their particular god and refuse to bend or question anything and this is just plain dangerous. Now extremism isn't just a Religious problem we see Political Extremists (Those who follow one form of politics be it Communism or fascism they are all forms of extremist behavior) as well but in the religious community's the major faiths don't seem to discourage it infarct they seem to ignore the problem even exists or even encouraging their followers to not question their beliefs and just be the good "sheep".

So as a summery what is religion to me? It is a necessary service to Humanity that has fallen into bad practices and lost its way.

oh and to those who blame religion for the worlds problems - religion isn't to blame, human nature is.

caravel

08-21-2006, 13:26

Religion, Ideology whatever, it's all the same thing. All adds up to a control mechanism for the masses and the enforcement of a secular society, to make war ok.

Avicenna

08-21-2006, 13:30

Religion: one of the topics with the highest rates of being closed in the tavern.

Scurvy

08-21-2006, 13:34

Ghengis Khan? which religion? (curiosity, I'm not saying I don't believe you, but I don't know which).

One way to look at it is the world today, in England, Muslims are accepted as equal members of society, in Islamic countries, Christians (more native Christians than white tourists) are attacked, murdered, fired, arrested for no reason and other nasty things. I don't see Muslim majorities giving equal rights to those that Muslim minorities demand elsewhere.

England is exceptionally accepting for all religions compared with the vast majority of other countries, both christian and muslim, also most christian countries are more developed than muslim (as a generall rule) and so religion is less radicalized and there is more understanding...

Keba

08-21-2006, 13:53

Questions for those who oppose religion:

1. If religion is result of ignorance, why then progress in scientific knowledge doesn’t push religion as ignorance? If religious evidences are not scientifically true, why the most people still believe in them?

2. If religious evidences are not scientifically true, are they then nonsensical?

3. If religion is really illusion, is it possible reality without any illusions?

4. If faith is in opposition to reason, why the most famous heads from science didn’t found contrasts between reason and faith?

1. The ingrained nature of religion in society. It is inertia, most people continue being religious because their parents were, therefore inertia. The second part will be in the next answer.

2. Simple, as science advanced, suddenly religious beliefs advanced as well, from Heaven being in the clouds above, to heaven being a spiritual realm, from God as a person to God as an abstract idea, the first cause, if you will. Therefore, as science advances, relgion moves it's beliefs beyond the reach of science, and moving them again when science catches up. So, to the second one, I would like some religious evidence, I believe religion is a system of belief ... not proof, so which religious evidence do you mean? If you want a solid answer, yes, it is nonsensical.

3. No, human beings have a habit of idealising and justifying their actions, otherwise, they would not be able to retain sanity. For example, you hear of so-and-so casualties in a war, now take a moment and image that many lives of people to the last detail, and how their families will continue ... not so pleasant now, is it? That is the sort of things that a mind tends to protect itself from. Therefore, reality without illusion would drive individuals either to insanity, or suicide. What I believe is that religion is not a good protective mechanism, it is too ingrained, and leaves too much room for manipulation of one's world-view, while at the same time, shaping thought to certain molds.

4. And how many of those people were devout religious people? Most probably saw God (or whichever deity or deities they believed in) as the first cause, not as an actual being around that one has to meet and whose hand moves things around. They were, every last one of them, inquisitive minds, which is an oddity in religion, as questioning it does not find one in good relations with the faithful. However, the closer we come to the present, the fewer scientists are religious. For the most part, I would call it inertia.

Does that answer your questions?

DukeofSerbia

08-21-2006, 18:39

Most were not killed in the name of Aethism though. Most Chinese were killed in The Great Leap Forward - a flawed political descision that affected everyone. In the USSR people were killed for many reasons, but it was unusual for their religion to be the cause of their deaths, more commonly political or ethnic grounds.

And who said that?

You know how many churches, monasteries, mosques and temples were annihilated to ground in USSR, especially when Stalin ruled? And what was built on their places?
The same story was in PR China in so called "cultural revolution".

And let's not forget earlier genocides such as Ghangis Khan or Catholics in South America. Both had religion, and slaughtered many people.

~:smoking:

Ghengis Khan and religion?! As I know Mongols then were shamanists and they didn't killed in the name of religion. :book:

@Keba
I will answer you.

Banquo's Ghost

08-21-2006, 18:45

Ghengis Khan and religion?! As I know Mongols then were shamanists and they didn't killed in the name of religion. :book:

Well, Orda Khan will no doubt correct me if I'm wrong but my reading indicates that Chinggis Khan believed that he was appointed by the great god of the sky to rule the world. At least, that's what appears in The Secret History (written after the sky god was proven correct).

Thus he used the age-old excuse for war, persecution and brutality - God told me to do it.

Reenk Roink

08-21-2006, 18:48

Some radical environmentalist groups commit what could be dubbed as "eco-terrorism" in the name of nature.

I believe I don't have to go further... :wink:

DukeofSerbia

08-21-2006, 18:56

Well, Orda Khan will no doubt correct me if I'm wrong but my reading indicates that Chinggis Khan believed that he was appointed by the great god of the sky to rule the world. At least, that's what appears in The Secret History (written after the sky god was proven correct).

Thus he used the age-old excuse for war, persecution and brutality - God told me to do it.

I admit that I heard this the first time.:oops:

scotchedpommes

08-21-2006, 19:37

Ceasar010 answered on that excellent:

I will add that communists tried to do that and they failed. Religion will never extinct..

I don't doubt that it will never be extinct, as some feel the need to cling to
such fallacies in order to live. Unquestioning faith is simple, it is an easy answer,
and many do believe, and will continue to believe, but the mere fact of the
increasing numbers of faithful doesn't confirm any truth of their religion.

I have seen some interesting points being made by the religious here, though
must say I was surprised to see the "the world would descend into chaos
without religion" line being taken. One of those most insulting views taken by
Christians in particular seems to be one that suggests Atheists cannot have
morals simply because they do not subsribe to the code for living as written in
their scriptures.

Without an absoloute(God), nothing else makes sense. If you take away God, why is it wrong to kill or steal? Chaos would follow, because there would be me no morals or rules.

I have no God, and yet, strangely I have a sense of morals and rules. Who
would have thought it possible, Ignoramus?

scotchedpommes

08-21-2006, 19:42

here are a bunch of quite thoughtful and sometimes fun quotes both condemning and supporting religion/s and/or god/s:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Religion
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Faith
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/God
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Atheism

And I must say I quite like more than a few.

"Faith is one of the world's great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate."

- Richard Dawkins

scooter_the_shooter

08-21-2006, 19:55

Red Peasant

08-21-2006, 20:31

Blodrast

08-21-2006, 22:27

A lot of you seem to confuse religion with church (as I believe it was pointed out at least once throughout these 3 pages...).
Some of you have actually answered "For me, the church...". They are two completely different concepts. One is an ideology, based on spirituality or what have you, the other one is a social institution - often with political power, etc.

I find it completely silly to confuse the two of them. The fact that an idea was poorly implemented (and I'm not gonna go about debating the reasons, there's way too many of them), does not make the idea bad/poor/wrong.

Also, the mindset "Religion caused bad things in the past, hence it's bad", is extremely flawed in my view. As it was already pointed out, the crusades, the inquisition, all of these were AGAINST the teachings of religion. They were imposed, and led, by the church (remember the distinction between the two I pointed out earlier).

Moreover, the simple fact that stupid assholes do criminal things in the name of something, does not make that something wrong. Is Islam a fundamentally flawed thing because there are suicidal crazies who want to "kill all the infidels" ? (Please be aware of the causality relation here: whether it exists or not is my whole point, and I claim it does not).

Different people interpret the same thing in different ways. That does NOT make that thing wrong. Look at how many people get warning points here on the org, and why ? Because they have different interpretations of the SAME rules. Does that make the rules themselves flawed ? No, of course not. So why do you try to apply the same judgement to religion ?

One last thing: I am by no means an expert in religion, and I can't claim to know the details of all the religions in the world. I am aware, and I will grant you that there are many so-called "religions" that are nothing more than spin-offs, scams, with the sole purpose to create an organization with some sort of power/influence (social, political, whatever).
I do not believe those things qualify as "religion".
So asking about "religion" in general, is a bad thing - because we get people arguing on the good side of it (with the "real" religions in mind), and people arguing on the bad side of it (with the fake ones in mind). Of course, both sides are right, simply because the concept they are talking about is too general and vague.

What do I consider a "real" religion ? Those whose sole purpose is to provide some answers, and which are based on spirituality. All old religions are "real" enough, however, these new, 20th century "The Church of The Seventh Day of God's Anger with A Pink Ribbon", don't cut it for me.

Again, I will disagree with those who claim that religion is a bad thing because of the crusades, jihads, or any crap like that. That does NOT make religion a bad thing. That makes the churches at that time (i.e., the institutions) wrong. Also, the fact that those happened such a long time ago makes them even more irrelevant. People did a lot of crazy/stupid stuff because they were "uncivilized" throughout time (see "medical" assistance until the previous century or so... leaking blood, or using leeches as the universal remedy, etc). That's because of ignorance, pure and simple.

We're still not civilized enough - proof of that being that we still have wars, and not ones based on or caused by religion - but simply because of greed for power... blech. Religion was, in many cases, the excuse. The _real_ reason, however, most of the time, was power/getting rich/more influent/etc...

Shaun

08-21-2006, 22:32

caravel

08-21-2006, 22:39

Ok, I think we know which group is more tolerant in general...look at this thread how many atheist have made smart ass remarks, poked fun at religious people, and wished there was no more religion.

How many religious people have done that to an atheist in this thread....

We've made smart ass remarks but haven't started any smart ass crusades or smart ass wars as yet. Looking back through history you won't find many incidences of warfare/invasion etc, with an aim to wipe out religion, moreso to propogate it. The Crusades, the Arab invasion of the middle east, was all for the supposed propogation of religion. The Spanish and Portuguese conquests of the Americas were the same. Native Americans were persecuted because the were regarded as heathens, Africans slaves in the Americas suffered the same sort of treatment. Religion has been used, especially by Christians, as a means to justify war throughout history and throughout the world. Even in the present day we hear presidents of certain countries referring constantly to 'god' before they send in the bombers to flatten someone elses country.

As to these bloodthirsty, intolerant, atheist, warmongers? They're mainly a 20th century phenomenon, and undoubtedly in far fewer numbers than their witchburning, crusading counterparts.

Blodrast

08-21-2006, 23:04

To me, religion is another name for lies, predjudice and unjust hatred. It is a usefull mean to control the population like sheep, it is answers that may not be questioned. It is the backwardsness to society, fighting over it is like fighting over who has the best imaginery friend.

I really hate religion...

... which obvioulsy proves that you have not read the thread.
The population, as I'm sure you can tell, was not controlled by religion, but by the church. Make the distinction.

Where did you get the hatred part ? From which religion ? I'm afraid you're not very familiar with what you're hating... as you may have heard, Jesus (for example) was preaching the exact opposite of hatred: love. But hey, as they say, don't let reality get in the way of your opinions!

Redleg

08-22-2006, 00:32

... .

Where did you get the hatred part ? From which religion ? I'm afraid you're not very familiar with what you're hating... as you may have heard, Jesus (for example) was preaching the exact opposite of hatred: love. But hey, as they say, don't let reality get in the way of your opinions!

Its extremely difficult to argue religion with individuals who are wrapped up in prejudicial bigotry against anything to do with religion.

I happen to be a Christian that also has beliefs in a few things that go against the church teachings of today, because to me religion is a personal thing - not a group mindset of people having to follow what their preacher or preist tells them to believe in.

Now those who rile so much against religion, what have you placed as a belief system for your personal conduct?

Now this is a trick question - because each and everyone of us as thinking rational humans have a belief system - be it based upon a religious principle, a social-economic principle, a scienitific principle, or several other philosphoical (SP?) principles that enable you to think.

Blodrast

08-22-2006, 00:42

Redleg, I don't agree with all the Church's teachings, either, I am afraid.
I personally believe we all should take the teachings from the holy books, church, priests, and whatever sources we consider adequate, and filter them through our own soul, through the rest of the principles and beliefs we have. The result is the spirituality and a bunch of moral precepts that we all live our lives by.

What this means is that no two people will completely and fully agree on each and every single tiny little detail written in the Bible, Koran, or somewhere else. And that's fine.
But the main ideas will most likely be the same, by any name.

And yes, it's pretty ironic that anti-religion bigots can be as fanatical as the pro-religion zealots. I'm not a big fan of either, myself. Fanaticism sucks in any way, shape or form.

Redleg

08-22-2006, 01:01

Here is an anology for you Blodrast about how I view my religion.

Once long ago as a young man I used to worship the sun - but as I discovered multiple times - to much causes lots of pain. Church based religion principles are much like that in my opinion.

I think upon my belief in a higher power and read the Bible to attempt to come to some understanding of the lessons contained in that book. Sometimes I actually learn things that make me a better person to my neighbors - and sometimes you have to hit me over the head over and over again before I learn the lesson.

One should be very careful of attempting a literial translation of the bible because it contains parables (SP) not exact history. So the lessons that one can learn about morality and personal conduct are more important then the belief that God created the universe in 7 days.

Like you I find those who belittle religion just as acidine as the religious fundmentalists who attempt to think they can convert all to their belief system. What is even more acidine is that they lose their common decency to their fellow man because of their bigotry toward religion. That is a sure fire method to get someone to rethink their belief system....:dizzy2:

scotchedpommes

08-22-2006, 01:12

Blodrast

08-22-2006, 01:17

Thank you for sharing your opinions, Redleg :bow:
I fully agree about the Bible part - I don't understand a huge part of it either, but in any case it should not be taken literally. I also believe (although I am not able to give any examples off the top of my head) that things are not all black or white - i.e., there can be several quite different "right" ways of interpreting something, and this seems to be especially true with the Bible.

As for the conversion part - I find that utterly wrong. I disagree with conversion, for the following reason: what I call "faith", must come from within. If one is "convinced" of it, or it is imposed on one, through whatever conversion means, then that is not true faith. That is merely X convincing Y of something by being more charismatic/well spoken/whatever.

I disagree with people who actively try to convert anybody to their religion/principles.
I believe that if one is genuinely interested in another religion (= set of principles and moral beliefs), a practitioner of that religion could share his/her views on it. In other words, this is how I see it: if someone comes to me asking me about my religion, I'll tell him/her what I know. If they don't ask me, I'm not gonna flaunt it, or try to "convert" them, or try to impose it on them in any way. But if they want to know more about it, sure, I'll share my beliefs.
The main point is, again, that all of this has to come from within - so if one asks, then presumably one is actually interested. But if one is not interested, one should never, ever be forced into believing or accepting anything. I am aware that the church did forceful (in some way or another) conversions, and I believe they were the wrong thing to do. As I said in my previous post, that is not the measure by which we should judge religion, i.e. by the poor way that the Church implemented the principles. Moreover, afaik, major Christian religions don't try to convert anybody anymore these days.

Blodrast

08-22-2006, 01:20

Regarding the wording used, I would have thought it reasonably clear that when
many refer to religion, [in the context of this thread in particular] they are
referring to so-called 'organised religion' which is an accepted term to be used
when referring to institutions such as the church.

Given the thread is asking for our views on religion, it is natural to expect views
on the institutions to go with those hand in hand.

I beg to differ, the distinction is quite clear, imho.
It's like putting together the teachings of Jesus, with the burning at stake by the Inquisition. They are quite clearly and obviously two different things, and should be considered as such.

Do you believe the Inquisition was wrong ?
Do you believe that Jesus' teachings were wrong ?

If you can answer "Yes" to both questions, then I agree with you, from your perspective the two things are one and the same. However, I would like to warn you that the same does not go for all people, and they will answer in consequence.

I can also give you further examples of other religions.
Anyway, my view is that religion and church are quite different concepts.

scotchedpommes

08-22-2006, 01:28

Blodrast

08-22-2006, 01:58

I am not disputing the distinction between religion and church, but saying merely that when some have been using the word religion it seems they have been referring to organised religion, which refers specifically to the church and its
influence.

Yup, you're right - I noticed that - which is exactly why I made the distinction between them clear in my first post. I guess we can't do much to help it, because the starter of the thread was a bit ambiguous, and the people have already answered.
But yes, you raise a valid point - when looking at the answers several people have given, one needs to keep in mind that some folks answered with religion in mind, and others with church in mind.

Shaka_Khan

08-22-2006, 19:40

I agree this topic is ambiguous. I believe the starter of this thread had Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism in his mind.

The Spartan (Returns)

08-22-2006, 22:01

religion is a good thing.

Don Corleone

08-22-2006, 22:59

Religion is the social structure by which people come together to attempt to define a moral existence guided by a common faith.

Done properly, people apply their faith in the world and good deeds result, a harmonious existence in which people genuinely care for one another, fellow believer or not.

Done poorly, it leads to ignorance, bigotry, hatred, violence. Etecera.

In other words, as with all other human institutions, it's moral value depends on the moral values of the humans involved such as Law, Philosophy, Statesmanship, Politics, Commerce, etcetera.

More and more, however, it's coming to be an albatross around my neck, and I find it increasingly a distinction that separates me from people I respect and who's company I enjoy. They view me as benighted and a simpleton, and I view them as intolerant and rancorous. I say this because Ievangelize by example, not by word, yet not a week goes by in the Backroom or in real life where people with whom I thought I mostly agreed and certainly respected laugh and ridicule that which they do not know.

AntiochusIII

08-22-2006, 22:59

religion is a good thing.And that is because...?

Not that I expressly disagree, but, well, ambiguous statements leave things unsettled.

Personally, I prefer to study religion as a social, political, and historical force as opposed to discussing the merits of individual religions -- I, after all, have no believes -- my occasional mockery of religion is based on my disgust of fundamentalism, bigotry and organizations that encourage them. I have conceded long ago that it is not a wise idea to discuss religion with other individuals face-to-face; you will offend them much for little gain. Indeed, I find the secularization of this part of human understanding to be a most pleasing trend.

After all, there's no proof in the very fundamental of religion, and the very majority of philosophies at that. It's a far better cause to explore their actual practical influence to the world when so many others question the same fundamental question that is logically impossible to solve.

Nonetheless, I'd like to warn my fellow posters not to take the usual stereotype of Eastern religions as seriously as many of you do now. Buddhism, Hinduism, and a thousand other sects -- to portray them as exotic and superior, free of bigotry and holes, traditions and superstitions, of prejudice of which Christianity has been called down for, is to distort their images for the better. There's just about as much dispute on the issue of what is Nirvana as there are on what constitutes Christianity, and there's just as much -- which means far greater, in number, to the formers -- who ignores those very fundamental flaws and keep on believing, as they are ingrained to do. Though I have abandoned Buddhism long ago, I still didn't found out a general concensus -- or even something remotely resembling true understanding, of the concept of Nirvana, which has been interpreted far and wide, from the Heavens, to the very loss of existence itself.

cunobelinus

08-23-2006, 13:04

religion is a way for people to try and understand things they cant and its something that can bring people through things that otherwise they couldnt that all religion is to me .

Xiahou

08-23-2006, 15:26

When humanity finally throws off the chains of religion and superstition and fantasy, then we'll finally be able to progress as a species.
Right..... because humanity hasn't progressed at all under religion. Now if you'll excuse me- I have to take my chariot to the garage for service. :laugh4:

More and more, however, it's coming to be an albatross around my neck, and I find it increasingly a distinction that separates me from people I respect and who's company I enjoy. They view me as benighted and a simpleton, and I view them as intolerant and rancorous. I say this because Ievangelize by example, not by word, yet not a week goes by in the Backroom or in real life where people with whom I thought I mostly agreed and certainly respected laugh and ridicule that which they do not know.I sympathize Don, but in perspective, the tribulations faced by modern-day Christians are pretty insignificant compared to what early Christians were forced to give up for their faith. Don't lose heart. :wink:

kataphraktoi

08-23-2006, 15:31

We shall have to agree to differ then.
There's no use arguing about matters of opinion or belief.

Agreed :2thumbsup:

I sympathize Don, but in perspective, the tribulations faced by modern-day Christians are pretty insignificant compared to what early Christians were forced to give up for their faith. Don't lose heart.

IN some places like China, its like the 1st century. Its funny though, Christianity has nearly been wiped out three times (Tang, Ming Dynasty and Communism) and now China has the largest number of Christians in the world.....lol :P

DukeofSerbia

08-23-2006, 17:21

1. The ingrained nature of religion in society. It is inertia, most people continue being religious because their parents were, therefore inertia. The second part will be in the next answer.

Inertia? I disagree. Inertia is not the satisfying argument. Religion survived and will survive because the man is rational but also is irrational being (I will say even more irrational than rational).

2. Simple, as science advanced, suddenly religious beliefs advanced as well, from Heaven being in the clouds above, to heaven being a spiritual realm, from God as a person to God as an abstract idea, the first cause, if you will. Therefore, as science advances, relgion moves it's beliefs beyond the reach of science, and moving them again when science catches up. So, to the second one, I would like some religious evidence, I believe religion is a system of belief ... not proof, so which religious evidence do you mean? If you want a solid answer, yes, it is nonsensical.

Again I disagree. Christian system of belief (dogma) isn’t changed over 1500 years. And this is especially in Orthodox Church. Roman Catholic Church changed by time and Protestant Churches…
And if there is no true in religion that doesn’t mean that religion is nonsensical. Denying trueness of theological statements doesn’t mean denying sense of religion. Sense and trueness are not the same.

3. No, human beings have a habit of idealising and justifying their actions, otherwise, they would not be able to retain sanity. For example, you hear of so-and-so casualties in a war, now take a moment and image that many lives of people to the last detail, and how their families will continue ... not so pleasant now, is it? That is the sort of things that a mind tends to protect itself from. Therefore, reality without illusion would drive individuals either to insanity, or suicide.

You explained well and than you became irrational…

What I believe is that religion is not a good protective mechanism, it is too ingrained, and leaves too much room for manipulation of one's world-view, while at the same time, shaping thought to certain molds.

“My answer has to be against religion no matter what arguments I used before that.”

4. And how many of those people were devout religious people? Most probably saw God (or whichever deity or deities they believed in) as the first cause, not as an actual being around that one has to meet and whose hand moves things around. They were, every last one of them, inquisitive minds, which is an oddity in religion, as questioning it does not find one in good relations with the faithful.

Why is hard to admit that most famous scientist were religious?:wall: I don’t care how they interpret religion.

However, the closer we come to the present, the fewer scientists are religious. For the most part, I would call it inertia.

If you claim that “we are closer to present time, the fewer scientists are religious” than you need to prove that.

Does that answer your questions?

Mostly no.

DukeofSerbia

08-23-2006, 17:23

I don't doubt that it will never be extinct, as some feel the need to cling to
such fallacies in order to live. Unquestioning faith is simple, it is an easy answer,
and many do believe, and will continue to believe, but the mere fact of the
increasing numbers of faithful doesn't confirm any truth of their religion.

I can agree with this.

I have seen some interesting points being made by the religious here, though
must say I was surprised to see the "the world would descend into chaos
without religion" line being taken.

I never said that but we saw and still see what happened when atheists come to power (like communists).

One of those most insulting views taken by
Christians in particular seems to be one that suggests Atheists cannot have
morals simply because they do not subsribe to the code for living as written in
their scriptures.

I never said that. I know many atheists who are moral.
Moral is not religion. Moral is only one element of religion (as dogma, cult and religious community).

DukeofSerbia

08-23-2006, 17:25

A lot of you seem to confuse religion with church (as I believe it was pointed out at least once throughout these 3 pages...).

Agree. But with your explanations not…

Some of you have actually answered "For me, the church...". They are two completely different concepts. One is an ideology, based on spirituality or what have you, the other one is a social institution - often with political power, etc.

Religion is not ideology and Church is institution but not only that. Religion is spiritual relation between man and Divine/God.
The main problem in history of Christian Church (no matter Orthodox/Roman Catholic/Protestant) is on emphasizing Church as institution. Church is mystical body of Christ and eschatological community in history, too. If we talk about crisis of Church (from time of Emperor Constantine) then it is crisis of Church as institution.

Also, the mindset "Religion caused bad things in the past, hence it's bad", is extremely flawed in my view. As it was already pointed out, the crusades, the inquisition, all of these were AGAINST the teachings of religion. They were imposed, and led, by the church (remember the distinction between the two I pointed out earlier).

Crusades and inquisition are against Christianity. And say what Church? Roman Catholic.

One last thing: I am by no means an expert in religion, and I can't claim to know the details of all the religions in the world. I am aware, and I will grant you that there are many so-called "religions" that are nothing more than spin-offs, scams, with the sole purpose to create an organization with some sort of power/influence (social, political, whatever).
I do not believe those things qualify as "religion".

Every major religion in world has various sects.

Again, I will disagree with those who claim that religion is a bad thing because of the crusades, jihads, or any crap like that. That does NOT make religion a bad thing. That makes the churches at that time (i.e., the institutions) wrong. Also, the fact that those happened such a long time ago makes them even more irrelevant. People did a lot of crazy/stupid stuff because they were "uncivilized" throughout time (see "medical" assistance until the previous century or so... leaking blood, or using leeches as the universal remedy, etc). That's because of ignorance, pure and simple.

Jihad is part of Islam (no offense to any Moslems here) and Crusade is not part of Christianity.
Church is not wrong. Read my previous explanation about Church.

We're still not civilized enough - proof of that being that we still have wars, and not ones based on or caused by religion - but simply because of greed for power... blech. Religion was, in many cases, the excuse. The _real_ reason, however, most of the time, was power/getting rich/more influent/etc...

Agree. Most wars were/are because of power and rich.

I disagree with people who actively try to convert anybody to their religion/principles.
I believe that if one is genuinely interested in another religion (= set of principles and moral beliefs), a practitioner of that religion could share his/her views on it. In other words, this is how I see it: if someone comes to me asking me about my religion, I'll tell him/her what I know. If they don't ask me, I'm not gonna flaunt it, or try to "convert" them, or try to impose it on them in any way. But if they want to know more about it, sure, I'll share my beliefs.

I absolutely agree. Except the part how you define religion (I gave you definition).

Moreover, afaik, major Christian religions don't try to convert anybody anymore these days.

“Major Christian religions” means nothing. Did you mean Churches?

DukeofSerbia

08-23-2006, 17:27

The Spanish and Portuguese conquests of the Americas were the same.

Portuguese didn’t conquered territories because of Christianity. They wanted and did broke Muslim monopoly in spice trade from Malacca to Egypt which was very profitable. Venice and Genoa also had that monopoly in Mediterranean. Portuguese broke those monopolies in late XV century and after that Venice and Genoa declined in XVI and later centuries. Portuguese find alternative way of transport from India. It was around Africa via Atlantic Ocean. So, it was matter of money and wealth. Not to mention that Portuguese believed in stories that somewhere in Africa laid large stockpiles of gold.

Spaniards also tried to find alternative way to India and they went to West. That’s way they called Caribbean as West India. They didn’t find spices but they found a lot of gold and silver which they used in trade with Portuguese who had spices. Simple is that…

One of Cortes’ friend wrote that Spaniards came in America to “serve God and King and to became rich”.

And yes – both spread Christianity but it wasn’t the major motive.

I am not Roman Catholic and I don’t have any reason to defend what member of that Church did in the New World, but the whole story is not black-white as you and many others believe.

Africans slaves in the Americas suffered the same sort of treatment

They needed labor force in the New World to work on plantations. Was it cruel? Yes, but this nothing has with Christianity. It has with economy.

Religion has been used, especially by Christians, as a means to justify war throughout history and throughout the world.

This has nothing with Christianity. If somebody is nominally Christian this doesn’t mean necessary that he/she is Christian in reality. Christ said: “By their results you will recognize them.” (I don’t know how is exact in English – I translated from Serbian).

Even in the present day we hear presidents of certain countries referring constantly to 'god' before they send in the bombers to flatten someone elses country.

Are you kidding?

As to these bloodthirsty, intolerant, atheist, warmongers? They're mainly a 20th century phenomenon, and undoubtedly in far fewer numbers than their witchburning, crusading counterparts.

What those atheist’s regimes did (Communism) is incomparable with anything what happened in history.

Keba

08-23-2006, 17:45

Inertia? I disagree. Inertia is not the satisfying argument. Religion survived and will survive because the man is rational but also is irrational being (I will say even more irrational than rational).

And yet you use the term survive. I will ask, how many of those with religion are religious because their parents were? There are few converts these days ... most of the faithful are from families of such beliefs, thus, inertia ... I do because my parents did it, and taught me that way when I was growing up, therefore, I will teach my child while growing up. It is also because most of the non-religious tend not to care, and if their mate places enough importance on religion, they will allow it. How do I know this? Experience, first-hand.

Again I disagree. Christian system of belief (dogma) isn’t changed over 1500 years. And this is especially in Orthodox Church. Roman Catholic Church changed by time and Protestant Churches…
And if there is no true in religion that doesn’t mean that religion is nonsensical. Denying trueness of theological statements doesn’t mean denying sense of religion. Sense and trueness are not the same.

I'm not saying that the dogma has changed, although I will say it most certainly has, nothing lasts forever unchanged, but what I'm saying is that the explanations have ... there is no religious proof, there is only belief ... and when faced with the advancement of science, that explanation has moved, always beyond the reach of science. While Christians still worship the same God as before, the explanation for him has changed ... like I said, he is no longer in the cloudes, but beyond, everywhere and nowehere ... notice the difference between the explanations?

“My answer has to be against religion no matter what arguments I used before that.”

There I merely said that religion makes a bad protective mechanism, too easy to manipulate ... we all have our own ... how do atheists survive with no protective mechanism, they don't, they merely find a different one, whether that is science, a belief in humanity or even a belief in the self, but all find a mechanism. What I'm saying is that religion is no longer necessary in a world where such a high accent is put upon the individual, rather than the group.

Why is hard to admit that most famous scientist were religious?:wall: I don’t care how they interpret religion.

I'm not saying that they are not religious, but that most of them used explanations or beliefs that organized religion would have frowned upon. Darwin believed he was discovering the way God created man, and yet, the Bible says exactly how God created man ... so, if he were a good faithful member of the flock, he wouldn't have gone out and did what he did. Religious, but not fitting the mold, and thus, in a way, not since they do not operate dogmatically.

If you claim that “we are closer to present time, the fewer scientists are religious” than you need to prove that.

Very well, since I tend to move around academic circles a bit, I will tell you this, most of the people I have met are either Ahteist, Agnostic or, if religious, so outside the mold one cannot consider them such. Although I would most be interested in the statistics, I do not have them.

By religious I mean as a dogmatic follower of a certain organized religion, thus, very few (if any) scientists are such even in the first place ... it only stands to reason that, since even the common people with barely any understanding of the moves made to refute God's existance, that those who actually perform such research are less likely to be that way. Not to mention that every openly religious scientist I've heard of was a hack.

kataphraktoi

08-23-2006, 17:46

I hate it when people think that Crusades is Christian concept, its not. It's a Catholic concept. And Catholics, despite their presumptious title of "Catholic" don't represent all Christians.

The idea of a Crusade is absent in the Orthodox Church as is the idea of a "Holy War" as a concept. John Haldon and George Dennis make a good argument when they say that Byzantium's wars were seen intrinsically as holy as they were fought to defend the empire (seen through Byzantine eyes as a reflection of the Kingdom of Heaven). Therefore, no need for a separate or distinctive institution of a "holy war" in Orthodoxy when every action is seen as an act of service to a cause.

But that does not necessarily make wars "holy" in anyway. It is the idea of "service" as opposed to the phenomena of "war" itself. Whereas the Crusades saw "service" and "war" as both holy and integrated activities.

And yet you use the term survive. I will ask, how many of those with religion are religious because their parents were? There are few converts these days ... most of the faithful are from families of such beliefs, thus, inertia ... I do because my parents did it, and taught me that way when I was growing up, therefore, I will teach my child while growing up. It is also because most of the non-religious tend not to care, and if their mate places enough importance on religion, they will allow it. How do I know this? Experience, first-hand.

In the third world country, its a different case. It seems that a religious revival is going on in those areas, Individual choice as opposed to family environment is the main situation of choice there. Don't take this as a dis at you or anything, I agree with on the points above for more developed modern societies.

Keba

08-23-2006, 17:50

Actually, the Crusades are usually used to point out the way a religion can work, not as an arguement in itself.

Religion can mobilise, but the zeal associated with a Crusade (or Jihad) and the misdeed associated with such actions are the point and arguement. The institute of Holy war is one that allows manipulation on a massive scale ... and not a manipulation that anyone would find likeable.

"Killing infidels is the path to Heaven" ... remember? That is the sort of thing that religion can do, hamper reason ... suddenly we have an exception to the rules of murder ... and the worst, none question it, but rather, like a good little flock, go out and do what religion commands.

So, you see, the Crusades are used an example of what religion is capable of, not an arguement.

EDIT: Katpharktoi, I am from a third-world country, hell, I'm the western neighbour of the Duke of Serbia up there (I'll give you a hint, not Bosnia) ... and yet, the number of people declaring themselves atheist has been in a slow, but steady rise for years ... the numbers of those that are religious have grown greatly, but that was merely a side-effect of democracy, not a revival ... rather, finally a chance for people to express their beliefs, something which had been forbidden. Since then, the numbers have been falling steadily.

DukeofSerbia

08-23-2006, 18:19

Tachikaze

08-23-2006, 18:37

Firstly, I like this quote.

Another Buddhist analogy: The various Gods are like trees in a forest, and the road to Nirvana passes beside the forest. You can visit any tree you like on the way, or none of them, and still reach Nirvana. But you can also get lost in the forest.

And I agree with this one

Honestly, I see no difference between Christianity and Islam.
The differences may seem big to a member of one of those religions, but to me--an outsider who has studied both of them--they have many more similarities than differences. The differences are in the details, not the fundamentals.

As for Christians and Muslims being equally intolerant: I don't see many Christians strapping explosives to themselves and then walking onto crowded city buses. I don't see calls from Christains for the death and destruction of the heathen infidel. Maybe 1000 yrs ago, but gimme a break.
I see Christians creating and using bombs that can flatten entire cities. I see them slowly engulfing the world in their economic, political, and cultural institutions. I hear them call for the destruction of "Godless Communists (Japs, NAZIs, etc.)". Dominant culture doesn't have to resort to bombing buses; they have more effective ways of asserting their power.

Religion, to me, is the gathering of people together for practicing some kind of common belief. This involves ritualized events to bind them together. In this regard, I seem to differ with some other forumers who see it as spiritual belief. It is necessarily a group practice.

Religions have became political institutions, quite divorced from spiritual belief. Religions that haven't yet reached that state are called "cults" or "pagan" by members of relgions.

I favor Buddhism the best example of group spiritual practice. It teaches wisdom as its ethic. I believe Daoism is the most natural personal guide. I do not consider either of these to be religions in the same sense as the monotheistic relgions of the West (the Children of Abraham).

Kanamori

08-23-2006, 18:52

I am disposed to disagree about buddhists... Although the teachings generally lead to improved understanding of self and clarity of thought, I am a little weirded out by people who meditate their way to nirvana by constantly flooding their brains w/ serotonin...

Keba

08-23-2006, 18:58

Hrvatska, zar ne? Pula - 100% sam siguran.

Croatia in English.

I will answer you tomorrow for the rest.

Aha, pozdrav. Nadam se da ne smeta onaj komentar of Trećem Svijetu, al' praktički i može biti.

Sure, I've got time ...

scotchedpommes

08-23-2006, 19:11

I never said that but we saw and still see what happened when atheists come to power (like communists).

As happens when many regimes need to sustain their power. As has already
been pointed out, it was not to further Atheism, and was not unique to Atheists.

I never said that. I know many atheists who are moral.
Moral is not religion. Moral is only one element of religion (as dogma, cult and religious community).

I realise. Just to clarify, regarding both points, I was referring to Ignoramus'
input further back in the thread.

Orb

08-23-2006, 22:29

Keba

08-23-2006, 23:00

Not as blind faith, not exactly faith.

I will continue to disbelieve the existance of a higher being until I have proof ... thus, most atheist simply hold that position because they have no proof, thus, they are right until someone proves them wrong.

Few enough bother to think about it. I am one of those who don't bother overmuch with the existance of higher powers ... but most of the arguements presented here are directed at organized religion (aka church, or whatever), not religion per se. True, there are those who oppose religion both organized and disorganized, some don't.

scotchedpommes

08-23-2006, 23:04

Interestingly, I've met a lot of aetheists who are prepared to attack the religious as blind, unthinking etc.; I have met very few who will give a good reason for that accusation. Most of these aetheists somehow decide that they are automatically right about the non-existence of God/religion.

Would that count as blind faith?

Faith itself is accepting that which you are told is gospel, without there being
any evidence as to its truth. That does not bear comparison to accepting the
evidence presented by science, for example, as to our origins. The difference
between that and those who refuse to acknowledge the possibility of evolution
seems clear. Accepting that theory as holding more truth [than something we
might be told to accept as it is said it has been written by those who repeat the
word of God] is not blind faith.

AntiochusIII

08-24-2006, 00:50

Gee, ye Christian cutters 're jumpy 'his peak, 'h?

Whatever, take my word as offense, then it is offense. I couldn't care less, for I had not meant offense.

Interestingly, I've met a lot of aetheists who are prepared to attack the religious as blind, unthinking etc.; I have met very few who will give a good reason for that accusation. Most of these aetheists somehow decide that they are automatically right about the non-existence of God/religion.

Would that count as blind faith?That would not be faith, but blind bigotry, it might.

I'm sure, though, that your point has already been reiterated enough in this thread right from the first page. As if...that is the only potent counter-attack against our conspiracy? ~;)

Like Keba graciously pointed out, most atheists don't care; few are militant, extreme. Of course, the term "agnostic" has been shoved in lately to try to mix these indifferent atheists with true agnostics, causing confusion where it was already confusing, which I digress. While the lack of proof does not immediately exclude the possibility, it would be reasonable to assume that such a lack of proof does not present a plausible case of the possibility; and such, the preachings of religious nature that puts forward unsupported claims as facts...are often looked down and mocked by us.

I favor Buddhism the best example of group spiritual practice. It teaches wisdom as its ethic. I believe Daoism is the most natural personal guide. I do not consider either of these to be religions in the same sense as the monotheistic relgions of the West (the Children of Abraham).Be careful, though. Such a view tends to fail to recognize the bad points of the Eastern religions. As I've said earlier, to view them purely as exotic and superior, blissfully absent of limiting traditions, is to turn a blind eye upon some of the baser natures of "group spiritual experience," aka religion in its traditional, non-newage "personal," sense.

The Eastern spiritual practices could be considered in a similar mode to Islam's sufism, anyway: a relative materialization of what usually would be purely spiritual and personal. I'm sure Christianity have such practices too. Indeed, one could consider the Great Awakenings, in a way, as such.

Moreover, the historical, political, and social function -- much of which have been brought up as examples of atrocities in the West -- that the Judeo-Christian-Islamic faiths serve, the Eastern religions also serve. Confucianism, while something of an ancestral cult of no particular shining Godly One, maintained the social fabric of the Chinese civilization the same way as Catholicism did in Europe, including the suppressing the more innovatively dissenting minds role. Buddhism and Hinduism had -- still have, perhaps -- formidable influences upon the everyday life of the people in regions where such religions are a vast majority of, quite similar to the function the Big Three used to serve in the West (and some Europeans would argue still do in the US ~;) ). That, of course, includes the likes of the promotion of comformity, the belittling, even antagonizing, demonizing, of dissent, the codes of morality for society to uphold, the political influence of the religious leaders, the simplified superstition on the base population that hails as the same religion as the complex philosophical one that the scholars tirelessly wrote treatises of, etc.Traditions of royalty and figureheads holding religious importance (the Most Christian King, the Most Moral King, whatever, the Emperor, Earth's Vizier of God, the Pope) exist as much in the East as in the West. If anything, Japan's Emperor is the Sun's offspring.

Oh, and I mentioned earlier that Nirvana is such a hacked-up concept. I suspect to many in the West it probably sounds like you could reach it by getting on drugs or something. Not that I claim monopoly on understanding this word, either, as I don't. Like I said, Nirvana's heaven in China&Japan, relatively, and a thousand other things somewhere else.

Just mentioning that things aren't that rosy for the Oriental deities, either.

Tachikaze

08-24-2006, 07:51

It will be difficult to address all AntiochusIII said about Eastern religions.

I don't favor all Eastern beliefs. Indeed, there are people who fall into the Daoist category that are animistic and pray to all sorts of gods. This is very alien to my concept of Daoism. Theravada Buddhism has characteristics that distinguish it profoundly from the Mahayana that I am most involved with. It is sometimes used in the manipulative way you described.

The Japanese emperor is not an aspect of Buddhism but Shintoism.

The Buddhism I know best, in fact the two I know best, Jodo Shinshu and Chan (Zen), are extremely unlimiting. You can follow them with discipline, but it is self-imposed and even discouraged by many of the prominant Buddhist sages.

Nirvana is enlightenment, a complete knowledge of the Dao. It doesn't even matter if it is attainable. The importance is the advice given by the sages (and most importantly our own intuition and experiences) that bring us closer to the Dao. A complete understanding of the Dao may not be possible, but the closer one lives to the Dao, the better one's life will be. Additionally, the less one will impact the world around them, which is a Daoist virtue.

kataphraktoi

08-24-2006, 07:54

@Keba,

I had in mind Southern American and Africa, not so much Croatia. :2thumbsup:

AntiochusIII

08-24-2006, 09:00

It will be difficult to address all AntiochusIII said about Eastern religions.I apologize. :bow: My rumblings were indeed rather unorganized.

I don't favor all Eastern beliefs. Indeed, there are people who fall into the Daoist category that are animistic and pray to all sorts of gods. This is very alien to my concept of Daoism. Theravada Buddhism has characteristics that distinguish it profoundly from the Mahayana that I am most involved with. It is sometimes used in the manipulative way you described.I grew up with Theravada Buddhism (SE Asia -- long lost from the true faith though, yet another America's fault ~:) ), though I'm aware that the Buddhism that actually comes in real contact with the Western world arrives through Japan mainly, and China also; as such, they are of the Mahayana sects. However, the usual Theravada point of view would point out the entire Mahayana side of Buddhism as something of a distortion of the Buddha's words: I presume it to be the same on the other side, too, as is usual in religions. Nonetheless, it ought to be taken into account that the spiritualism of the Mahayana has its own merits, and, from a theological point of view, faults.

Here's my view: the Mahayana generally puts the Buddha to a level of divinity, or at least semi-divine; that which the Teacher was never meant to be. Nonetheless, the mixture of Buddhism from India with local divine figures do result in an interesting philosophy of it own. And while Theravada Buddhism generally are less guilty of this make-the-Man-the-God aspect in their core theology, the interpretations of it result in the same consequence. I agree with you that it takes more of the role the JCI (ahem, Judaism-Christianity-Islam) used to take in Western-Middle Eastern societies. In fact, I'd argue that the followers of Theravada Buddhism are worse in this "Worship Buddha" aspect because their theology wasn't meant for him to be worshipped. If one but look at the Theravada-majority (Thailand, for example of a locale of such nature, without the assorted risks of being unfortunately a victim of the Military Government of Burma -- pardon, *Myanmar* -- or the smugglers of Cambodia) there are statues of Buddha everywhere, and just about everyone pray for him. If he's supposed to reach this version of Nirvana, then he's supposed to not exist anymore, much less to care for your lottery cries!

And there is hell, and probably even heavens, adopted as they do from Brahman myths. What the hell?

The Japanese emperor is not an aspect of Buddhism but Shintoism.True, but the integration and mutual influence over the thousand years have mixed the two almost inseperably.

The Buddhism I know best, in fact the two I know best, Jodo Shinshu and Chan (Zen), are extremely unlimiting. You can follow them with discipline, but it is self-imposed and even discouraged by many of the prominant Buddhist sages.Ah, Zen Buddhism. Group-based spiritualism in its full swing. Though I don't doubt your true faith in your religion, I couldn't help but note that Mainstream America (tm) has also adopted Zen Buddhism in its own peculiar way, like, say, Xiaolin Showdown (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xiaolin_showdown). :smile:

Nirvana is enlightenment, a complete knowledge of the Dao. It doesn't even matter if it is attainable. The importance is the advice given by the sages (and most importantly our own intuition and experiences) that bring us closer to the Dao. A complete understanding of the Dao may not be possible, but the closer one lives to the Dao, the better one's life will be. Additionally, the less one will impact the world around them, which is a Daoist virtue.Nirvana has not been interpreted so by many other Buddhist sects, especially considering that the mixture of Daoism and Buddhism had been a process of more than a thousand years almost exclusive to China. Daoism was born independently of Buddhism, a more spiritual, natural counter of the time's popular, rigid, social, but spiritually unsatisfying Confucianism.

Come to think of it, I have never gotten an answer from any of the many thousands monks while I was in Thailand. Probably neither in, say, Sri Lanka; and one sect in China would tell me a different interpretation than the next. Alas, a shame.

They do have something in common, though, that the experience is personal, and that it isn't (mostly, for most sects) guided by a divine being. Oh, and that it is desirable -- good or absolute neutral depends, again, on the sect.

[/Sorry for a massive OT post. :sweatdrop: ]

Keba

08-24-2006, 09:25

@Keba,

I had in mind Southern American and Africa, not so much Croatia. :2thumbsup:

Heh ... whoops. :embarassed:

Otherwise, I doubt those two areas are a proper example of success, they are regressing technologically, most people don't even recieve basic education, life is bad. And when life is bad and you have little to hope for in your own lifetime, most will turn to the promise of something better afterward. The promise of eternal bliss is attractive when you live like that.

I do suspect that numbers would fall as life improved, however, it is difficult to find examples ... after all, which African country has a sufficently high life standard, excepting maybe South Africa, but even there poverty is a major issue.

Sigurd

08-24-2006, 09:30

I will continue to disbelieve the existance of a higher being until I have proof ... thus, most atheist simply hold that position because they have no proof, thus, they are right until someone proves them wrong. Would it be fair to give this position to the believers? i.e. they are right until someone proves them wrong?
But alas you can’t pull Religion i.e. God into a logic dispute because it is nonsensical.

Keba

08-24-2006, 09:35

Banquo's Ghost

08-24-2006, 10:11

You could, yes.

Well, the difference is that atheists won't believe in the existance of God because the have no proof of such a being's existance ... believers will, uh believe, that there is a higher being despite the absence of evidence.

Essentially, I might say that while both group start in the same position (absence of evidence) they take their beliefs to the opposite ends of the spectrum (namely, the existance or non-existance of a higher being).

Of course, like you said, logic and religion don't mix.

Quite right. They are different paradigms entirely, which is why either side applying their methodology to convince the other is doomed only to post in religious threads in the Backroom (Dante missed this malbowge of Hell because his broadband was down at the time).

However, within the paradigm, one can apply principles of logic to religion - Jesuit thinking is particularly robust for example, once one accepts the basic premise of God's existence. To people of faith, this is a revealed truth, not an observable one. You cannot come to it by deduction, only by God's grace. Thus people who share the revelation of faith can debate logically and productively between themselves, but those who do not share the revelation will be immediately stuck on this starting point.

I will repeat this however, for it is a central tenet of good science and something that Professor Dawkins and other scientists who go out of their way to lambast religious feeling would do well to remember:

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

scotchedpommes

08-24-2006, 10:44

I will repeat this however, for it is a central tenet of good science and something that Professor Dawkins and other scientists who go out of their way to lambast religious feeling would do well to remember:

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

That being the case, I do not see it as reason for them not to be critical of that religious feeling and those who would do their best to further the cause of organised religion. And yes, despite the fact that such a line of discussion is now confirmed as pointless, I feel that it would not be complete without shameless inclusion of Russell's teapot analogy:

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

Development by Dawkins can also be seen here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot), although I
realise the flying spaghetti monster is perhaps more pleasing.

DukeofSerbia

08-24-2006, 11:31

And yet you use the term survive. I will ask, how many of those with religion are religious because their parents were? There are few converts these days ... most of the faithful are from families of such beliefs, thus, inertia ... I do because my parents did it, and taught me that way when I was growing up, therefore, I will teach my child while growing up. It is also because most of the non-religious tend not to care, and if their mate places enough importance on religion, they will allow it. How do I know this? Experience, first-hand.

Survive = ne odumirati I used wrong phrase.

From my experience I know many atheist parents who prohibited their children to go into Church… Few converts you say? What about the whole Communist block in Eastern and Southeastern Europe (except Czech R. and Estonia)?

I'm not saying that the dogma has changed, although I will say it most certainly has, nothing lasts forever unchanged, but what I'm saying is that the explanations have ... there is no religious proof, there is only belief ... and when faced with the advancement of science, that explanation has moved, always beyond the reach of science. While Christians still worship the same God as before, the explanation for him has changed ... like I said, he is no longer in the cloudes, but beyond, everywhere and nowehere ... notice the difference between the explanations?

I’m glad that you accepted fact that dogma hadn’t changed.
There are no religious proofs? What that means? I will talk about Christianity. Many dogmas can be proved but some are impossible.
Teaching about God in Christianity (I speak for Orthodox Church) is still the same. This teaching never said that God lived in clouds. God is in the Heaven.
And philosophy and science advanced, so theology uses the new arguments (dokaze i objašnjenja) for proving dogma in Christianity.

There I merely said that religion makes a bad protective mechanism, too easy to manipulate ... we all have our own ... how do atheists survive with no protective mechanism, they don't, they merely find a different one, whether that is science, a belief in humanity or even a belief in the self, but all find a mechanism. What I'm saying is that religion is no longer necessary in a world where such a high accent is put upon the individual, rather than the group.

“Bad protective mechanism?! Religion is no longer necessary in a world such a high accent is put upon the individual, rather than the group?!” Christianity is based on personality. There is no group salvation - only a personal salvation in Christianity.

And if somebody is not religious then he/she need some kind of surrogate for religion. That’s why there are in secular countries all those feasts like Day of work, women, one minute of silence for death, bla, bla, bla… Not to mention what was in Communist countries like we celebrated in Yugoslavia birthday of Tito (štafete i sletovi) and similar stupidity.

Atheists don’t exist and I explained that in one of the previous posts.

I'm not saying that they are not religious, but that most of them used explanations or beliefs that organized religion would have frowned upon. Darwin believed he was discovering the way God created man, and yet, the Bible says exactly how God created man ... so, if he were a good faithful member of the flock, he wouldn't have gone out and did what he did. Religious, but not fitting the mold, and thus, in a way, not since they do not operate dogmatically.

What I wrote? I don’t care how they interpret religion. Some of them believed as Roman Catholics, some like Protestant, some like Orthodox, some like Jews (Einstein), some weren’t familiar with organized religion.

Very well, since I tend to move around academic circles a bit, I will tell you this, most of the people I have met are either Ahteist, Agnostic or, if religious, so outside the mold one cannot consider them such. Although I would most be interested in the statistics, I do not have them.

I can also say that I move around academic circles (I study economy) and I know many students and professors who are religious as I saw them in Church in Liturgy when are great feasts. And know what?
Because you don’t have statistics there are no proofs of what are you said (rekla-kazala).

By religious I mean as a dogmatic follower of a certain organized religion, thus, very few (if any) scientists are such even in the first place ... it only stands to reason that, since even the common people with barely any understanding of the moves made to refute God's existance, that those who actually perform such research are less likely to be that way. Not to mention that every openly religious scientist I've heard of was a hack.

Religious doesn’t mean dogmatic follower and if you don’t understand this that’s not my problem.

Religion is spiritual relation between man and Divine/God.

DukeofSerbia

08-24-2006, 11:34

EDIT: Katpharktoi, I am from a third-world country, hell, I'm the western neighbour of the Duke of Serbia up there (I'll give you a hint, not Bosnia) ... and yet, the number of people declaring themselves atheist has been in a slow, but steady rise for years ... the numbers of those that are religious have grown greatly, but that was merely a side-effect of democracy, not a revival ... rather, finally a chance for people to express their beliefs, something which had been forbidden. Since then, the numbers have been falling steadily.

I didn’t know that Croatia is third-world country?! http://smiles.zy.cz/174.gif Croatia is not a third-world country and neither is Serbia. You are EU candidate and we will be also.
The most developed countries (Western Europe and North America) have still very high percentage of religious people. It’s true that they don’t go in Church as was in past. Religion just became more personal thing. If they don’t go in Church it doesn’t mean that they are not religious. St. Augustine said well: “God have many which Church doesn’t have and Church has many of them which God don’t have.” Religion just changes the form!

DukeofSerbia

08-24-2006, 11:37

Banquo's Ghost

08-24-2006, 12:02

That being the case, I do not see it as reason for them not to be critical of that religious feeling and those who would do their best to further the cause of organised religion. And yes, despite the fact that such a line of discussion is now confirmed as pointless, I feel that it would not be complete without shameless inclusion of Russell's teapot analogy:.

Yes, I'm aware of Russell's teapot (and I like the Flying Spaghetti Monster better because of its correlative graph, which is good for many things apart from religion).

The point here is two-fold. Firstly,

Russell's teapot was an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell, to refute the idea that the onus lies somehow upon the sceptic to disprove the unfalsifiable claims of religion.

It is quite legitimate for philosophers to reject the idea presented by religionists that they 'disprove' their god's existence. Thus the teapot is a useful device. Just because God is revealed to X though faith, doesn't mean the default position is that God exists. Without the revelation, Y can only go by observable criteria. If they share the revelation, they might usefully debate whether the teapot has a handle and to what degree of eccentricity its orbit inclines - and use the methods and language of reason to do so.

Secondly, Dawkin's makes a good point when he limits himself to this (last clause exempted):

The reason organized religion merits outright hostility is that, unlike belief in Russell's teapot, religion is powerful, influential, tax-exempt and systematically passed on to children too young to defend themselves.

The existence or otherwise of the teapot should be a matter of supreme indifference to me if I don't believe in it or cannot measure it. If other people's belief in it impacts me in a negative way, I should resent that.

However, he then goes on to make the error some posters are making, in demonising all organised religion with the mistakes of some of its members. Crimes have been committed in the name of religion, but I would argue more have been committed in the name of greed. Should we then demonise economics (which, with due respect to any economists, is also largely unprovable witch-doctory)?

The last clause of the quote above betrays his hysterical anti-religious stance. (I should add I have a great respect for Prof. Dawkins as a biologist and wish he would shut up on the religion front). All children are brought up by their parents with a moral framework. 'Children too young to defend themselves' are all subject to a training before they can think for themselves. If this is a humanist moral framework or a religiously based framework, surely the main thing is that it is a postive and societal one - which the vast majority of of religions are. What does he propose - simply letting children free to behave as they will until they reach the age of reason?

We influence our children one way or another. If his concern was valid, few to no children would, when they grow up, stray from the faith they were born into. That is patently not an experience of most religious parents, much to their chagrin.

The truth is that religion provides a good and workable paradigm for people to live moral lives and gain spiritual refreshment and solace during those lives. We should applaud that and support it without giving it the special breaks or influence over those who do not share its understandings. Whereas many opponents list the myriad failings of religion, they should look to the many blessings it has brought to individuals and societies - not least, the education system that allows so many to question intelligently.

BDC

08-24-2006, 12:11

I think I must be the only person to turn the tables and destroy my parents' faith as a child. I just always associated a god with Father Christmas or the Easter Bunny. Nice stories for children, some sort of moral hidden under there, but fantasy. It was a bit of a shock to discover intelligent grown ups took it seriously too, heh.

But whatever makes people happy. Some choose hard work, the gym, running, bike riding, helping people, whatever. Others choose religion. I quite like people trying to convert me, it's fun. Only time it's not good is when it gets muddled up with real life, you end up with Creationists and suicide bombers and stuff.

Keba

08-24-2006, 12:28

Survive = ne odumirati I used wrong phrase.

No problem, I guess you meant continues to exist. But survive would fit, since the other version is a mouthful.

From my experience I know many atheist parents who prohibited their children to go into Church… Few converts you say? What about the whole Communist block in Eastern and Southeastern Europe (except Czech R. and Estonia)?

I pointed that out already, it is an artificial inflation of numbers, because it is finally acceptable for people to express their beliefs. For example, my grandfather was an atheist, officially, since he was in the military, and had to be, religion was looked down upon. Since the arrival of democracy he has reclassified himself as Chrisitan, that is the sort of thing I'm saying. His beliefs didn't change, he merely recieved the chance to express them.

I’m glad that you accepted fact that dogma hadn’t changed.
There are no religious proofs? What that means? I will talk about Christianity. Many dogmas can be proved but some are impossible.
Teaching about God in Christianity (I speak for Orthodox Church) is still the same. This teaching never said that God lived in clouds. God is in the Heaven.
And philosophy and science advanced, so theology uses the new arguments (dokaze i objašnjenja) for proving dogma in Christianity.

Actually, religious proofs was a point raised somewhere earlier in this thread. I was not saying teachings said that God lived in the clouds, that hadn't changed, it is how it is explained that has changed. A common image has in the past been that of God or angels floating around on clouds, looking on Earth ... that has been disproven, but the ideas behind have not ... they have moved beyond.

“Bad protective mechanism?! Religion is no longer necessary in a world such a high accent is put upon the individual, rather than the group?!” Christianity is based on personality. There is no group salvation - only a personal salvation in Christianity.

And if somebody is not religious then he/she need some kind of surrogate for religion. That’s why there are in secular countries all those feasts like Day of work, women, one minute of silence for death, bla, bla, bla… Not to mention what was in Communist countries like we celebrated in Yugoslavia birthday of Tito (štafete i sletovi) and similar stupidity.

Atheists don’t exist and I explained that in one of the previous posts.

Well, actually, the feasts were a means to establish a cult of personality, they are common in all totalitarian regimes, whehter they are inherently religious or not. One might look at Iran and still see faces of religious people painted all over the cities.

A surrogate for religion must, indeed, exist, there I agree, I am merely opposed to religion being the mechanism.

Oh, and the there is no group ... all I will say to that is 'flock'.

Atheist here means, essentially, one without god. Although I suppose antitheist might apply in some cases, like me.

What I wrote? I don’t care how they interpret religion. Some of them believed as Roman Catholics, some like Protestant, some like Orthodox, some like Jews (Einstein), some weren’t familiar with organized religion.

I cede your point, they were religious people.

I can also say that I move around academic circles (I study economy) and I know many students and professors who are religious as I saw them in Church in Liturgy when are great feasts. And know what?
Because you don’t have statistics there are no proofs of what are you said (rekla-kazala).

Actually it's more of a personal experience ... I move around the academic circles not by virtue of my being a student, but by being a son of a professor, and most of the ones I met are not quite religious. Some are even anti-religion, but most remain neutral, as in they could care less.

The Church thing ... it is a tradition here as well, but the thing is, I've been to church a few times for those things ... you don't have any idea about me being a religious person, I hope. It is an empty gesture, or perhaps a nod to history, in my case.

Religious doesn’t mean dogmatic follower and if you don’t understand this that’s not my problem.

Religion is spiritual relation between man and Divine/God.

Then we were operating under different terms this whole time ... my definition or religion goes under the heading of 'organized religion' or church ... I really don't care what people practice in private, but the open dominance of a church or even such a thing's importance in society is what annoys me incessantly.

To conclude, it seems that we were mostly misunderstanging each other. You were meaning on religion as spiritual relation, I was meaning religion as organized churches.

It’s true that they don’t go in Church as was in past. Religion just became more personal thing. If they don’t go in Church it doesn’t mean that they are not religious. St. Augustine said well: “God have many which Church doesn’t have and Church has many of them which God don’t have.” Religion just changes the form!

And that is where I would be most happy if it ended up ... belief as a private matter between an individual and his deity (or dwarves, or whatever they happen to believe in :laugh4: ).

Tachikaze

08-24-2006, 19:09

I apologize. :bow: My rumblings were indeed rather unorganized.
I wasn't ciritcizing the length of your message, more the lack of time I had to respond.

I see a divide between what the reverend of "my" Buddhist temple (Jodo Shinshu) says about the Buddha and what (probably) most people perceive. As far as Americans are concerned, I think they have trouble completely divorcing themselves from the idea of a diety. This may be true of SE Asians as well. They seem to see the Buddha as a single human (or even demigod) to worship. An "Eastern Jesus".

In the temple I occasionally attend, it is taught that the Buddha image represents the potential buddha in all of us, i.e. the potential for enlightenment. This is good, because I tend to avoid any organization that has the portrait of someone in the front of their gathering room. In fact, I am uncomfortable attending the temple with the image of the Buddha at the front.

I am not a devout Buddhist, if you can call me by that label at all. But I feel that it is a religion or philosophy that more fills the role I think religions should play in a society and in our personal lives. And, as I have said before, emphasizes wisdom, rather than (or more than, in some cases) obedience.

I personally like how Buddhism is practiced in Japan. Indeed, I think the Japanese approach to religion in general (including the integration of Buddhism and Shinto) is the best I know of.

Claudius the God

08-25-2006, 04:33

religion or faith can be a comfort to many, but not to me, no religions that I know of are even remotely good enough for my standards of ethics and morality.

I am a Secular Humanist.

in religious education and ethics classes in the Education System (of Australia where I am, as well as other countries around the world), neither Humanism nor Secular Humanism are ever mentioned. Because of this, many non-religious people who could rightfully see themselves as Humanists or Secular Humanists don't get to know that Humanism exists and that all types of non-religious people can have the identity of Humanism to describe themselves and be proud of.

Atheists, Antitheists, Agnostics, Enlightenment Thinkers, Freethinkers, Rationalists, and many others who see themselves as non-religious could potentially have a larger sense of group identity through Humanism and/or Secular Humanism.

These are the values that I stand for (the Secular Humanist Declaration):

Amsterdam Declaration 2002

Humanism is the outcome of a long tradition of free thought that has inspired many of the world's great thinkers and creative artists and gave rise to science itself.

The fundamentals of modern Humanism are as follows:

Humanism is ethical. It affirms the worth, dignity and autonomy of the individual and the right of every human being to the greatest possible freedom compatible with the rights of others. Humanists have a duty of care to all of humanity including future generations. Humanists believe that morality is an intrinsic part of human nature based on understanding and a concern for others, needing no external sanction.

Humanism is rational. It seeks to use science creatively, not destructively. Humanists believe that the solutions to the world's problems lie in human thought and action rather than divine intervention. Humanism advocates the application of the methods of science and free inquiry to the problems of human welfare. But Humanists also believe that the application of science and technology must be tempered by human values. Science gives us the means but human values must propose the ends.

Humanism supports democracy and human rights. Humanism aims at the fullest possible development of every human being. It holds that democracy and human development are matters of right. The principles of democracy and human rights can be applied to many human relationships and are not restricted to methods of government.

Humanism insists that personal liberty must be combined with social responsibility. Humanism ventures to build a world on the idea of the free person responsible to society, and recognises our dependence on and responsibility for the natural world. Humanism is undogmatic, imposing no creed upon its adherents. It is thus committed to education free from indoctrination.

Humanism is a response to the widespread demand for an alternative to dogmatic religion. The world's major religions claim to be based on revelations fixed for all time, and many seek to impose their world-views on all of humanity. Humanism recognises that reliable knowledge of the world and ourselves arises through a continuing process. of observation, evaluation and revision.

Humanism values artistic creativity and imagination and recognises the transforming power of art. Humanism affirms the importance of literature, music, and the visual and performing arts for personal development and fulfilment.

Humanism is a lifestance aiming at the maximum possible fulfilment through the cultivation of ethical and creative living and offers an ethical and rational means of addressing the challenges of our times. Humanism can be a way of life for everyone everywhere.
Our primary task is to make human beings aware in the simplest terms of what Humanism can mean to them and what it commits them to. By utilising free inquiry, the power of science and creative imagination for the furtherance of peace and in the service of compassion, we have confidence that we have the means to solve the problems that confront us all. We call upon all who share this conviction to associate themselves with us in this endeavour.

IHEU Congress 2002.

International Humanist and Ethical Union:
http://www.iheu.org/adamdecl.htm

there is a more detailed (but slightly older) declaration here:
http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=main&page=declaration

A Secular Humanist Declaration
Issued In 1980 By The
Council for Democratic and Secular Humanism
(now the Council for Secular Humanism)
...
Secular humanism is a vital force in the contemporary world. It is now under unwarranted and intemperate attack from various quarters. This declaration defends only that form of secular humanism which is explicitly committed to democracy. It is opposed to all varieties of belief that seek supernatural sanction for their values or espouse rule by dictatorship.

Democratic secular humanism has been a powerful force in world culture. Its ideals can be traced to the philosophers, scientists, and poets of classical Greece and Rome, to ancient Chinese Confucian society, to the Carvaka movement of India, and to other distinguished intellectual and moral traditions. Secularism and humanism were eclipsed in Europe during the Dark Ages, when religious piety eroded humankind's confidence in its own powers to solve human problems. They reappeared in force during the Renaissance with the reassertion of secular and humanist values in literature and the arts, again in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries with the development of modern science and a naturalistic view of the universe, and their influence can be found in the eighteenth century in the Age of Reason and the Enlightenment.

Democratic secular humanism has creatively flowered in modern times with the growth of freedom and democracy. Countless millions of thoughtful persons have espoused secular humanist ideals, have lived significant lives, and have contributed to the building of a more humane and democratic world. The modern secular humanist outlook has led to the application of science and technology to the improvement of the human condition. This has had a positive effect on reducing poverty, suffering, and disease in various parts of the world, in extending longevity, on improving transportation and communication, and in making the good life possible for more and more people. It has led to the emancipation of hundreds of millions of people from the exercise of blind faith and fears of superstition and has contributed to their education and the enrichment of their lives.

Secular humanism has provided an impetus for humans to solve their problems with intelligence and perseverance, to conquer geographic and social frontiers, and to extend the range of human exploration and adventure. Regrettably, we are today faced with a variety of antisecularist trends: the reappearance of dogmatic authoritarian religions; fundamentalist, literalist, and doctrinaire Christianity; a rapidly growing and uncompromising Moslem clericalism in the Middle East and Asia; the reassertion of orthodox authority by the Roman Catholic papal hierarchy; nationalistic religious Judaism; and the reversion to obscurantist religions in Asia.

New cults of unreason as well as bizarre paranormal and occult beliefs, such as belief in astrology, reincarnation, and the mysterious power of alleged psychics, are growing in many Western societies. These disturbing developments follow in the wake of the emergence in the earlier part of the twentieth century of intolerant messianic and totalitarian quasi religious movements, such as fascism and communism. These religious activists not only are responsible for much of the terror and violence in the world today but stand in the way of solutions to the world's most serious problems.

Paradoxically, some of the critics of secular humanism maintain that it is a dangerous philosophy. Some assert that it is "morally corrupting" because it is committed to individual freedom, others that it condones "injustice" because it defends democratic due process. We who support democratic secular humanism deny such charges, which are based upon misunderstanding and misinterpretation, and we seek to outline a set of principles that most of us share.

Secular humanism is not a dogma or a creed. There are wide differences of opinion among secular humanists on many issues. Nevertheless, there is a loose consensus with respect to several propositions. We are apprehensive that modern civilization is threatened by forces antithetical to reason, democracy, and freedom. Many religious believers will no doubt share with us a belief in many secular humanist and democratic values, and we welcome their joining with us in the defense of these ideals.

Free Inquiry
The first principle of democratic secular humanism is its commitment to free inquiry. We oppose any tyranny over the mind of man, any efforts by ecclesiastical, political, ideological, or social institutions to shackle free thought. In the past, such tyrannies have been directed by churches and states attempting to enforce the edicts of religious bigots. In the long struggle in the history of ideas, established institutions, both public and private, have attempted to censor inquiry, to impose orthodoxy on beliefs and values, and to excommunicate heretics and extirpate unbelievers. Today, the struggle for free inquiry has assumed new forms. Sectarian ideologies have become the new theologies that use political parties and governments in their mission to crush dissident opinion. Free inquiry entails recognition of civil liberties as integral to its pursuit, that is, a free press, freedom of communication, the right to organize opposition parties and to join voluntary associations, and freedom to cultivate and publish the fruits of scientific, philosophical, artistic, literary, moral and religious freedom. Free inquiry requires that we tolerate diversity of opinion and that we respect the right of individuals to express their beliefs, however unpopular they may be, without social or legal prohibition or fear of sanctions. Though we may tolerate contrasting points of view, this does not mean that they are immune to critical scrutiny. The guiding premise of those who believe in free inquiry is that truth is more likely to be discovered if the opportunity exists for the free exchange of opposing opinions; the process of interchange is frequently as important as the result. This applies not only to science and to everyday life, but to politics, economics, morality, and religion.

Separation Of Church And State
Because of their commitment to freedom, secular humanists believe in the principle of the separation of church and state. The lessons of history are clear: wherever one religion or ideology is established and given a dominant position in the state, minority opinions are in jeopardy. A pluralistic, open democratic society allows all points of view to be heard. Any effort to impose an exclusive conception of Truth, Piety, Virtue, or Justice upon the whole of society is a violation of free inquiry. Clerical authorities should not be permitted to legislate their own parochial views - whether moral, philosophical, political, educational, or social - for the rest of society. Nor should tax revenues be exacted for the benefit or support of sectarian religious institutions. Individuals and voluntary associations should be free to accept or not to accept any belief and to support these convictions with whatever resources they may have, without being compelled by taxation to contribute to those religious faiths with which they do not agree. Similarly, church properties should share in the burden of public revenues and should not be exempt from taxation. Compulsory religious oaths and prayers in public institutions (political or educational) are also a violation of the separation principle. Today, nontheistic as well as theistic religions compete for attention. Regrettably, in communist countries, the power of the state is being used to impose an ideological doctrine on the society, without tolerating the expression of dissenting or heretical views. Here we see a modern secular version of the violation of the separation principle.

The Ideal Of Freedom
There are many forms of totalitarianism in the modern world - secular and nonsecular - all of which we vigorously oppose. As democratic secularists, we consistently defend the ideal of freedom, not only freedom of conscience and belief from those ecclesiastical, political, and economic interests that seek to repress them, but genuine political liberty, democratic decision making based upon majority rule, and respect for minority rights and the rule of law. We stand not only for freedom from religious control but for freedom from jingoistic government control as well. We are for the defense of basic human rights, including the right to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In our view, a free society should also encourage some measure of economic freedom, subject only to such restrictions as are necessary in the public interest. This means that individuals and groups should be able to compete in the marketplace, organize free trade unions, and carry on their occupations and careers without undue interference by centralized political control. The right to private property is a human right without which other rights are nugatory. Where it is necessary to limit any of these rights in a democracy, the limitation should be justified in terms of its consequences in strengthening the entire structure of human rights.

Ethics Based On Critical Intelligence
The moral views of secular humanism have been subjected to criticism by religious fundamentalist theists. The secular humanist recognizes the central role of morality in human life; indeed, ethics was developed as a branch of human knowledge long before religionists proclaimed their moral systems based upon divine authority. The field of ethics has had a distinguished list of thinkers contributing to its development: from Socrates, Democritus, Aristotle, Epicurus, and Epictetus, to Spinoza, Erasmus, Hume, Voltaire, Kant, Bentham, Mill, G. E. Moore, Bertrand Russell, John Dewey, and others. There is an influential philosophical tradition that maintains that ethics is an autonomous field of inquiry, that ethical judgments can be formulated independently of revealed religion, and that human beings can cultivate practical reason and wisdom and, by its application, achieve lives of virtue and excellence. Moreover, philosophers have emphasized the need to cultivate an appreciation for the requirements of social justice and for an individual's obligations and responsibilities toward others. Thus, secularists deny that morality needs to be deduced from religious belief or that those who do not espouse a religious doctrine are immoral. For secular humanists, ethical conduct is, or should be, judged by critical reason, and their goal is to develop autonomous and responsible individuals, capable of making their own choices in life based upon an understanding of human behavior. Morality that is not God-based need not be antisocial, subjective, or promiscuous, nor need it lead to the breakdown of moral standards. Although we believe in tolerating diverse lifestyles and social manners, we do not think they are immune to criticism. Nor do we believe that any one church should impose its views of moral virtue and sin, sexual conduct, marriage, divorce, birth control, or abortion, or legislate them for the rest of society. As secular humanists we believe in the central importance of the value of human happiness here and now. We are opposed to absolutist morality, yet we maintain that objective standards emerge, and ethical values and principles may be discovered, in the course of ethical deliberation. Secular humanist ethics maintains that it is possible for human beings to lead meaningful and wholesome lives for themselves and in service to their fellow human beings without the need of religious commandments or the benefit of clergy. There have been any number of distinguished secularists and humanists who have demonstrated moral principles in their personal lives and works: Protagoras, Lucretius, Epicurus, Spinoza, Hume, Thomas Paine, Diderot, Mark Twain, George Eliot, John Stuart Mill, Ernest Renan, Charles Darwin, Thomas Edison, Clarence Darrow, Robert Ingersoll, Gilbert Murray, Albert Schweitzer, Albert Einstein, Max Born, Margaret Sanger, and Bertrand Russell, among others.

Moral Education
We believe that moral development should be cultivated in children and young adults. We do not believe that any particular sect can claim important values as their exclusive property; hence it is the duty of public education to deal with these values. Accordingly, we support moral education in the schools that is designed to develop an appreciation for moral virtues, intelligence, and the building of character. We wish to encourage wherever possible the growth of moral awareness and the capacity for free choice and an understanding of the consequences thereof. We do not think it is moral to baptize infants, to confirm adolescents, or to impose a religious creed on young people before they are able to consent. Although children should learn about the history of religious moral practices, these young minds should not be indoctrinated in a faith before they are mature enough to evaluate the merits for themselves. It should be noted that secular humanism is not so much a specific morality as it is a method for the explanation and discovery of rational moral principles.

Religious Skepticism
As secular humanists, we are generally skeptical about supernatural claims. We recognize the importance of religious experience: that experience that redirects and gives meaning to the lives of human beings. We deny, however, that such experiences have anything to do with the supernatural. We are doubtful of traditional views of God and divinity. Symbolic and mythological interpretations of religion often serve as rationalizations for a sophisticated minority, leaving the bulk of mankind to flounder in theological confusion. We consider the universe to be a dynamic scene of natural forces that are most effectively understood by scientific inquiry. We are always open to the discovery of new possibilities and phenomena in nature. However. we find that traditional views of the existence of God either are meaningless, have not yet been demonstrated to be true, or are tyrannically exploitative. Secular humanists may be agnostics, atheists, rationalists, or skeptics, but they find insufficient evidence for the claim that some divine purpose exists for the universe. They reject the idea that God has intervened miraculously in history or revealed himself to a chosen few or that he can save or redeem sinners. They believe that men and women are free and are responsible for their own destinies and that they cannot look toward some transcendent Being for salvation. We reject the divinity of Jesus, the divine mission of Moses, Mohammed, and other latter day prophets and saints of the various sects and denominations. We do not accept as true the literal interpretation of the Old and New Testaments, the Koran, or other allegedly sacred religious documents, however important they may be as literature. Religions are pervasive sociological phenomena, and religious myths have long persisted in human history. In spite of the fact that human beings have found religions to be uplifting and a source of solace, we do not find their theological claims to be true. Religions have made negative as well as positive contributions toward the development of human civilization. Although they have helped to build hospitals and schools and, at their best, have encouraged the spirit of love and charity, many have also caused human suffering by being intolerant of those who did not accept their dogmas or creeds. Some religions have been fanatical and repressive, narrowing human hopes, limiting aspirations, and precipitating religious wars and violence. While religions have no doubt offered comfort to the bereaved and dying by holding forth the promise of an immortal life, they have also aroused morbid fear and dread. We have found no convincing evidence that there is a separable "soul" or that it exists before birth or survives death. We must therefore conclude that the ethical life can be lived without the illusions of immortality or reincarnation. Human beings can develop the self confidence necessary to ameliorate the human condition and to lead meaningful, productive lives.

Reason
We view with concern the current attack by nonsecularists on reason and science. We are committed to the use of the rational methods of inquiry, logic, and evidence in developing knowledge and testing claims to truth. Since human beings are prone to err, we are open to the modification of all principles, including those governing inquiry, believing that they may be in need of constant correction. Although not so naive as to believe that reason and science can easily solve all human problems, we nonetheless contend that they can make a major contribution to human knowledge and can be of benefit to humankind. We know of no better substitute for the cultivation of human intelligence.

Science And Technology
We believe the scientific method, though imperfect, is still the most reliable way of understanding the world. Hence, we look to the natural, biological, social, and behavioral sciences for knowledge of the universe and man's place within it. Modern astronomy and physics have opened up exciting new dimensions of the universe: they have enabled humankind to explore the universe by means of space travel. Biology and the social and behavioral sciences have expanded our understanding of human behavior. We are thus opposed in principle to any efforts to censor or limit scientific research without an overriding reason to do so. While we are aware of, and oppose, the abuses of misapplied technology and its possible harmful consequences for the natural ecology of the human environment, we urge resistance to unthinking efforts to limit technological or scientific advances. We appreciate the great benefits that science and technology (especially basic and applied research) can bring to humankind, but we also recognize the need to balance scientific and technological advances with cultural explorations in art, music, and literature.

Evolution
Today the theory of evolution is again under heavy attack by religious fundamentalists. Although the theory of evolution cannot be said to have reached its final formulation, or to be an infallible principle of science, it is nonetheless supported impressively by the findings of many sciences. There may be some significant differences among scientists concerning the mechanics of evolution; yet the evolution of the species is supported so strongly by the weight of evidence that it is difficult to reject it. Accordingly, we deplore the efforts by fundamentalists (especially in the United States) to invade the science classrooms, requiring that creationist theory be taught to students and requiring that it be included in biology textbooks. This is a serious threat both to academic freedom and to the integrity of the educational process. We believe that creationists surely should have the freedom to express their viewpoint in society. Moreover, we do not deny the value of examining theories of creation in educational courses on religion and the history of ideas; but it is a sham to mask an article of religious faith as a scientific truth and to inflict that doctrine on the scientific curriculum. If successful, creationists may seriously undermine the credibility of science itself.

Education
In our view, education should be the essential method of building humane, free, and democratic societies. The aims of education are many: the transmission of knowledge; training for occupations, careers, and democratic citizenship; and the encouragement of moral growth. Among its vital purposes should also be an attempt to develop the capacity for critical intelligence in both the individual and the community. Unfortunately, the schools are today being increasingly replaced by the mass media as the primary institutions of public information and education. Although the electronic media provide unparalleled opportunities for extending cultural enrichment and enjoyment, and powerful learning opportunities, there has been a serious misdirection of their purposes. In totalitarian societies, the media serve as the vehicle of propaganda and indoctrination. In democratic societies television, radio, films, and mass publishing too often cater to the lowest common denominator and have become banal wastelands. There is a pressing need to elevate standards of taste and appreciation. Of special concern to secularists is the fact that the media (particularly in the United States) are inordinately dominated by a pro religious bias. The views of preachers, faith healers, and religious hucksters go largely unchallenged, and the secular outlook is not given an opportunity for a fair hearing. We believe that television directors and producers have an obligation to redress the balance and revise their programming. Indeed, there is a broader task that all those who believe in democratic secular humanist values will recognize, namely, the need to embark upon a long term program of public education and enlightenment concerning the relevance of the secular outlook to the human condition.

Conclusion

Democratic secular humanism is too important for human civilization to abandon. Reasonable persons will surely recognize its profound contributions to human welfare. We are nevertheless surrounded by doomsday prophets of disaster, always wishing to turn the clock back - they are anti science, anti freedom, anti human. In contrast, the secular humanistic outlook is basically melioristic, looking forward with hope rather than backward with despair. We are committed to extending the ideals of reason, freedom, individual and collective opportunity, and democracy throughout the world community. The problems that humankind will face in the future, as in the past, will no doubt be complex and difficult. However, if it is to prevail, it can only do so by enlisting resourcefulness and courage. Secular humanism places trust in human intelligence rather than in divine guidance. Skeptical of theories of redemption, damnation, and reincarnation, secular humanists attempt to approach the human situation in realistic terms: human beings are responsible for their own destinies. We believe that it is possible to bring about a more humane world, one based upon the methods of reason and the principles of tolerance, compromise, and the negotiations of difference.

We recognize the need for intellectual modesty and the willingness to revise beliefs in the light of criticism. Thus consensus is sometimes attainable. While emotions are important, we need not resort to the panaceas of salvation, to escape through illusion, or to some desperate leap toward passion and violence. We deplore the growth of intolerant sectarian creeds that foster hatred. In a world engulfed by obscurantism and irrationalism it is vital that the ideals of the secular city not be lost.

Ronin

08-25-2006, 09:33

uhm....what is religion to me?....

-on the brighter side of things.....religion is like a blanket....a crutch that helps people make it through tough times in their lives, if gives them a sense of security and confort,(in the past) religion also provided answers to some of life´s great doubts in a time were there just was no other way to get these answers....why do people get sick? what is thunder? etc...etc...
Religion can also lead people to do good works....like caring for the less fortunate in our societies....

-on the darker side of things....religion....specially organized religion...is a form of social and political control over the population......in the beggining of organized religion...maybe it even had a positive effect....in the first civilizations there was no police or army to keep the order...so a mythical boogeyman that punished the wicked and rewarded the good must have been a good way to keep the order in a general way.....but after that....that power was abused obviously....the crusades,the enquisition, muslim extremism....just a couple of simple examples of religion used as a control tool.....and I think we all know were that has led us....:no:

So .....religion...for me? no thanks....too many negative points....as for the positive points....they can be reached by just being an informed and socially-minded person....no need for some made up big brother watching over us.

Sjakihata

08-25-2006, 14:10

What is religion to you?

To me it is entertainment, to the masses it's opium.

Divinus Arma

12-29-2006, 07:49

What is religion to you?

"Religion" is an obsolete term. It should be replaced by Existential Perspective.

Every man and woman with any sort of basic evolution beyond animalistic behavioral motivation holds an existential perspective of some kind. "Believers" and atheists share more similarities than they do differences. For simplicity, I'll use western religion to illustrate my point.

Both have a highly refined system of ethics, the difference is in the origination of that system. Believers name an immortal conscious will as the originator. Atheists name man.

Both have an explanation for the origin of existence, and both aree, in essence, that something was created from nothing. Again, the difference is in the originator, "big bang" vs. "creation".

Both have an explanation for the development of modern thinking man from instinctive animal. The atheist prefers evolution. The believer prefers original sin.

Both have a vision of death. The believer sees eternity. The atheist sees nothing.

The term "religion" is harmful and destructive because it divides people into competing groups based on their existential perspective. We should be seeking for commonality, not differences. Not everyone has a religion, but everyone has a perspective on how and why existence is.

Samurai Waki

12-29-2006, 07:58

All of this is of course coming from a Christian perspective.

I've grown tired of the constant nagging in the back of my mind, that humanity is living on a banished plane of existance. Adam and Eve.

I more fond of the view point, that we are a part of earth, and that our god is everything that humanity is not at all (or that we must try to achieve).

ajaxfetish

12-30-2006, 00:48

Personally, I would say religion is spirituality practiced communally. It can be both positive and negative, as can spirituality.

Spirituality is an individual belief in some external power, beyond the scope of normal human experience. It can be a great comfort if seen as some great force of benevolence, as the mysteries and unknown portions of life lose their sinister and foreboding nature, though it has the potential to interfere with rational explanation of the previously unknown.

Religion makes that spirituality something people can share, with the potential either to strengthen interpersonal relationships and communities, giving people common ground and interests, but also with the power to enforce conformity, inhibit individualism, and establish a level of mind control.

To me, religion, like spirituality, is inherently neither a good nor a bad thing. It all depends on the character of the people who practice it, which is why religions have both committed atrocities and done great services to mankind, and why spiritual people can be jerks or saints.

The question of whether a religion or spiritual perspective is true is based on faith and not something that can be answered through a discussion like this.

Ajax

Murfios

12-30-2006, 05:07

Religion is an idiotic way to explain the unexplainable, things we will never find out. Its the way people seek shelter. All christians are polytheistic. Jesus Christ god son of God. Holy Spirit, the god messenger of God and his god sun.