The Questions of How and Why

[Vladimir]

Since many threads were recently locked due to normal bashing, trolling, I'd like to take a different approach. I’d like to address the questions of How and Why. This has to do with the fundamental nature if the issue itself; the How and Why of religion. Someone else can address a specific religion in a separate thread.

I am a firm believer in spirituality, religion, and ritual. I see the development of religion, next to eating meat, as the most important development in our history. Religion resulted from the development of the questions How and Why.

As early man became more cognizant of his surroundings, the first question had to be: How did this all come about? This and other questions like “why are we here” created the foundation for religion. Most religions (if not all claim to) seek to know truth. Therefore, the fundamental nature of religion is positive and beneficial to humanity. The greatest danger comes when we stop asking these questions.

Ritual and spirituality are important as well. While I often find repeated rituals or routines boring, most people need them. This is a good thing as it reduces stress and allows us to focus our energies. Spirituality is important as well. Believing in a higher power and that there are things more important than ourselves is a good thing. Forgetting that leads to selfishness and base corruption.

I say that those who don’t have a religion, aren’t spiritual, and criticize those who are represent a step backwards. They live out of fear, based on precedent, that those who believe will attempt to assert those values on them. Yet instead of resisting those efforts they revert to their baser instincts and attack the individual; again, a regression. If believers stop asking How and Why, they deserve criticism. However, those who refuse to ask, and believe, and rely on others to provide the answers are no better.

[Beskar]

I apologise, but I don't like how you opened up. Simply because it is completely different to your own conclusion. Also, I dislike how you ended it.

If people are being small minded, then obviously they are at fault, regardless of religion (or lack off), however, not only this, you mention "However, those who refuse to ask, and believe, and rely on others to provide the answers are no better." which completely destorys religion and destroys any co-operative exploration and enlightenment in any form of community, basically tasking the reader to do basically the impossible.

Small-minded comes from Ignorance of information and of facts. As we have seen from many posts recently, you see questions such as "I believe God created everything, prove me wrong!", the whole assertation is incorrect and constantly rediculed by many non-believers with reductio ad absurdum constructs such as Russell's Teapot and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The burden of proof does not lie with the skeptic to disprove unfalsifiable claims.

For the second point, you assert that everyone has to go themselves to find and create all the facts without others. This completely dissembles everything from Religion (the bible was written by others, cannot be used as you would be relying on it) to Science (Work out E=MC2 by yourself, without relying on others), to everything.

[Vladimir]

You're right. Edited. Too inflammatory.

I'll work on your post now.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I apologise, but I don't like how you opened up. Simply because it is completely different to your own conclusion. Also, I dislike how you ended it.

If people are being small minded, then obviously they are at fault, regardless of religion (or lack off), however, not only this, you mention "However, those who refuse to ask, and believe, and rely on others to provide the answers are no better." which completely destorys religion and destroys any co-operative exploration and enlightenment in any form of community, basically tasking the reader to do basically the impossible.

Small-minded comes from Ignorance of information and of facts. As we have seen from many posts recently, you see questions such as "I believe God created everything, prove me wrong!", the whole assertation is incorrect and constantly rediculed by many non-believers with reductio ad absurdum constructs such as Russell's Teapot and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The burden of proof does not lie with the skeptic to disprove unfalsifiable claims.

For the second point, you assert that everyone has to go themselves to find and create all the facts without others. This completely dissembles everything from Religion (the bible was written by others, cannot be used as you would be relying on it) to Science (Work out E=MC2 by yourself, without relying on others), to everything.

Wow, um, no.

Someone doesn't have to be ignorant to be small minded. Someone can know the "facts", choose to ignore them, and continue being small minded and petty. They react out of fear and perception and while still part of a community, do little to improve it. Asking the how and why of the results of someone else's exploration is not only possible, but preferred. While it is not necessary to discover everything yourself, you should still question the "facts" presented by others. This is the best way to discover the truth.

[drone]

I see the development of religion, next to eating meat, as the most important development in our history

I thought we had established that Satan gave us meat, so it's one and the same with religion.


So basically, having a closed mind (one way or another) is bad. This I can agree with. Being told how to believe spiritually or think scientifically without questioning is dangerous.

[Vladimir]

Ahh, yes. Gorebag and Navaros.

Yea, that's a good summary.

[Beskar]

No problem. Your opening now is far better.

Just another point, you mention this:

Believing in a higher power and that there are things more important than ourselves is a good thing. Forgetting that leads to selfishness and base corruption.

I partly agree with this. However, if you reworded it to:

Believing in that there are things more important than ourselves is a good thing. Forgetting that leads to selfishness and base corruption.

I completely agree with this statement. Mainly because of the definitions of "Higher Power" and the fact, you don't actually need to believe in a "Higher Power" to realise there are many important things, and argubly, in many cases where people do believe in a higher power, they can cause and create great selfishness and base corruption intentionally, invoking that "Higher Power" 's name.

(Also as a note as it was mentioned above, Higher Power could imply: Satan, 'God', Cthulu, etc)

[Vladimir]

No problem. Your opening now is far better.

Just another point, you mention this:


I partly agree with this. However, if you reworded it to:


I completely agree with this statement. Mainly because of the definitions of "Higher Power" and the fact, you don't actually need to believe in a "Higher Power" to realise there are many important things, and argubly, in many cases where people do believe in a higher power, they can cause and create great selfishness and base corruption intentionally, invoking that "Higher Power" 's name.

(Also as a note as it was mentioned above, Higher Power could imply: Satan, 'God', Cthulu, etc)

Well my interpretation of "higher power" is broad. Much like by belief in a "universal order." Now, according to quantum physics, the norm is disorder which, to me, is the order of things.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I don't think you should link spirituality, religion, and ritual together like that.

The ritualistic elements of religion are IMO simply due to the human nature that makes people substitute these things in place of a more direct relationship with God. Like when people say they feel close to God because they went to visit some relic on display... well that's most likely just them getting a buzz from the atmosphere, they could get the same effect without their religious beliefs. in fact, I would say ritualistic worship is very much destructive to faith, and contrary to basic Christian principles.

Also not sure on the spirituality bit. People that know me say they are really surprised that I coud be religious and have a 'spiritual' element, because my thought processes in everyday life tend to be very logical and I generally come across as if I am autistic or something. But I don't see it as being spiritual, since I just talk to God like I would talk to anyone else. It's not spiritualism if I'm talking to something that's real. Same with my rather fatalistic outlook on things... I don't see that as spiritualism, since God intervenes as directly in my life as surely as he did for David or Solomon or the prophets, or when he parted the Red Sea (if you believe that, of couse). It's not seeking some sort of otherwordly spirituality, for me God's just part of the everyday reality.

[Meneldil]

Believing in a higher power and that there are things more important than ourselves is a good thing. Forgetting that leads to selfishness and base corruption.

Since when do we need a religion for this? Furthermore, it's not as if all churches and religions weren't hit by corruption scandals every once in a while.

Most people believe in something. The equation "lack of beliefs = corruption" is simplistic. Some people use corruption while trying to achieve a "higher goal", just like some people kill for the greater good, and actually believe they're doing good. Believers are concerned by corruption and selfishness, whether they are christians, muslims, communists, liberals and what not.

And don't go around comparing communism with religion.

[Vladimir]

I didn't state that belief makes one immune to corruption but that without it, corruption will occur.

Communism eh? We'll it's not so much a belief system as a form of government, no? Although it does require a great leap of faith.

[LittleGrizzly]

I didn't state that belief makes one immune to corruption but that without it, corruption will occur.

Without any religious or spiritual belief corruption is a certainty ?

You seem rather intolerant of those without belief

[Tribesman]

I think the main problem is not religion or relgious people, neither is it people of no religion. The problem seems to arise most when we get people making very contentious posts and displaying that they have very little understanding of the subject they are introducing and no understanding at all of the position they are taking on the subject.
The recent examples demonstrate it well, we have someone that used to post very contraversial topics and claim to be a religious person of what can only be described as an extremist fundamentalist flavour yet displayed an almost total ignorance of the religion they claimed they had. After a long absence from the backroom forum they are again posting the same stuff and still displaying that they have no knowledge of the religion they claim to have.
If you look at the wealth of topics there have been on religion and religious issues they are normally not only very informative but also very civil.
So it seems the problem really lies with those who like to shout out about their "religion" in an inappropriate manner while displaying total ignorance of their own religion.

I suppose one case that doesn't quite fit there would be Navaros.
He went from fundamentalist King James Version is the only translation person to a torah submissive, then a gnostic with a touch of anti canonical , then threw in a bit of kabbala before coming onto being a Muslim, then he left us after getting a real taste for the fundamentalist wahhibi flavour.

[Rhyfelwyr]

You talking about me tribesey?

I suppose one case that doesn't quite fit there would be Navaros.
He went from fundamentalist King James Version is the only translation person to a torah submissive, then a gnostic with a touch of anti canonical , then threw in a bit of kabbala before coming onto being a Muslim, then he left us after getting a real taste for the fundamentalist wahhibi flavour.

Navaros became a Muslim? Am I the only person that still knows little of this legendary/mythical character? I remember him once talking about fruit flies, but that's the only time I've seen him.

[Viking]

Believing in a higher power and that there are things more important than ourselves is a good thing. Forgetting that leads to selfishness and base corruption.

This has nothing to with faith/spirituality. The greater good may be perceived as nothing else than social interaction - social versus anti-social behaviour. Successful social interaction is rewarding and is thus sought for - which is kind of logic, given the social specie that humans are.

There's also the wonderful relativity. Hitler might have been true to his principles; but if the principles are rotten, then what is a measure of corruption worth? Furthermore, mr. Hitler did without a doubt believe in something greater than himself; something which we see implies nearly nothing at all about ethics. Lastly, we should not forget the gods whom require human blood.

[Tribesman]

You talking about me tribesey?

Do you have a persecution complex?

Navaros became a Muslim?

he appeared to work his way through the various Christian and Jewish texts then seemed to settle with the Islamic texts and expressed his approval of the more extreme fundamentalist interpretations.
Perhaps he has got new taste now , maybe he is a fundamentalist mormon or has embraced the full pirate regalia version of Pastafari

[Rhyfelwyr]

Do you have a persecution complex?

Haha, I think I do.

[LittleGrizzly]

Navaros was a legend, I think Tribesy nominated a few times for the backroom (or it might have been funniest member) award. Would have never thought he would have converted!

[Vladimir]

I think the main problem is not religion or relgious people, neither is it people of no religion. The problem seems to arise most when we get people making very contentious posts and displaying that they have very little understanding of the subject they are introducing and no understanding at all of the position they are taking on the subject.
The recent examples demonstrate it well, we have someone that used to post very contraversial topics and claim to be a religious person of what can only be described as an extremist fundamentalist flavour yet displayed an almost total ignorance of the religion they claimed they had. After a long absence from the backroom forum they are again posting the same stuff and still displaying that they have no knowledge of the religion they claim to have.
If you look at the wealth of topics there have been on religion and religious issues they are normally not only very informative but also very civil.
So it seems the problem really lies with those who like to shout out about their "religion" in an inappropriate manner while displaying total ignorance of their own religion.

I suppose one case that doesn't quite fit there would be Navaros.
He went from fundamentalist King James Version is the only translation person to a torah submissive, then a gnostic with a touch of anti canonical , then threw in a bit of kabbala before coming onto being a Muslim, then he left us after getting a real taste for the fundamentalist wahhibi flavour.

Wow. I feel kinda honored by getting a response like this from Tribesman.

Navaros became a Muslim? Am I the only person that still knows little of this legendary/mythical character? I remember him once talking about fruit flies, but that's the only time I've seen him.

He is truly a legend. There is a theory that he is the backroomer (shroomer?) with an almost divinely developed sense of humor.