Printable View
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.
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.
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.
Religion: one of the topics with the highest rates of being closed in the tavern.
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by Orb
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by DukeofSerbia
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?
And who said that?Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
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".
Ghengis Khan and religion?! As I know Mongols then were shamanists and they didn't killed in the name of religion. :book:Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
@Keba
I will answer you.
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by DukeofSerbia
Thus he used the age-old excuse for war, persecution and brutality - God told me to do it.
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:
I admit that I heard this the first time.:oops:Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
I don't doubt that it will never be extinct, as some feel the need to cling toQuote:
Originally Posted by DukeofSerbia
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.
I have no God, and yet, strangely I have a sense of morals and rules. WhoQuote:
Originally Posted by Ignoramus
would have thought it possible, Ignoramus?
And I must say I quite like more than a few.Quote:
Originally Posted by Claudius the God
"Faith is one of the world's great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate."
- Richard Dawkins
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....
Nah, we just like to take the mickey out of the credulous. ~;) That's not intolerance, just a sense of humour. :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by ceasar010
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...
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...
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ceasar010
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.
... which obvioulsy proves that you have not read the thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun
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!
Its extremely difficult to argue religion with individuals who are wrapped up in prejudicial bigotry against anything to do with religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blodrast
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
I beg to differ, the distinction is quite clear, imho.Quote:
Originally Posted by SSNeoperestroika
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by SSNeoperestroika
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.
I agree this topic is ambiguous. I believe the starter of this thread had Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism in his mind.
religion is a good thing.
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.
And that is because...?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Spartan
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.