FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Create a religion





truespeed
Apart from Scientology,(That i know of) most religions (popular or otherwise) seem to have been around for a millenium or so,would a new religion be possible to create now,what would it take to make it popular,or accepted,could you create a new religion? What would you call it? Who would be your prophet (would you need one) ? etc etc
Xanatos
Many new religions are created every day. They start as cults. Most just never get enough members to grow into a full blown religion.

As to the question, I would not create any religion at all. I am entirely against the concept of religion.
Bannik
Xanatos wrote:
Many new religions are created every day. They start as cults. Most just never get enough members to grow into a full blown religion.

As to the question, I would not create any religion at all. I am entirely against the concept of religion.


why are you against the concept of religion, the concept itself isnt bad its basically a group of people who believe and fallow a certain set of rules.
Afaceinthematrix
Bannik wrote:
Xanatos wrote:
Many new religions are created every day. They start as cults. Most just never get enough members to grow into a full blown religion.

As to the question, I would not create any religion at all. I am entirely against the concept of religion.


why are you against the concept of religion, the concept itself isnt bad its basically a group of people who believe and fallow a certain set of rules.


He's probably against religion for the same reason that I am against religion. It promotes dogmatism and prevents people from thinking for themselves. It has also promoted violence and ignorance.
deanhills
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
Bannik wrote:
Xanatos wrote:
Many new religions are created every day. They start as cults. Most just never get enough members to grow into a full blown religion.

As to the question, I would not create any religion at all. I am entirely against the concept of religion.


why are you against the concept of religion, the concept itself isnt bad its basically a group of people who believe and fallow a certain set of rules.


He's probably against religion for the same reason that I am against religion. It promotes dogmatism and prevents people from thinking for themselves. It has also promoted violence and ignorance.
Last count shows almost 6.7 billion people in the world in total. I would imagine that all of them come with a variety of opinions of how they arrived on mother earth and where they are heading once they have passed on. If it makes them happy, why worry about it. All of us are going to die anyway. Whether we are enlightened or not. And who knows, maybe at the moment of dying we may find that that was just a matter of opinion.
Afaceinthematrix
deanhills wrote:
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
Bannik wrote:
Xanatos wrote:
Many new religions are created every day. They start as cults. Most just never get enough members to grow into a full blown religion.

As to the question, I would not create any religion at all. I am entirely against the concept of religion.


why are you against the concept of religion, the concept itself isnt bad its basically a group of people who believe and fallow a certain set of rules.


He's probably against religion for the same reason that I am against religion. It promotes dogmatism and prevents people from thinking for themselves. It has also promoted violence and ignorance.
Last count shows almost 6.7 billion people in the world in total. I would imagine that all of them come with a variety of opinions of how they arrived on mother earth and where they are heading once they have passed on. If it makes them happy, why worry about it. All of us are going to die anyway. Whether we are enlightened or not. And who knows, maybe at the moment of dying we may find that that was just a matter of opinion.


Why worry about it? Didn't you read what I said? Religion has promoted violence and ignorance. Excuse me for not wanting to live in a world where scientific development is ceased because of someone's religion or where people (maybe even me - what if I had worked in the world trade center?) die because of someone else's religion.
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
Last count shows almost 6.7 billion people in the world in total.
That sounds about right
Quote:
I would imagine that all of them come with a variety of opinions of how they arrived on mother earth and where they are heading once they have passed on.
So what? Unless they have some rational basis for their beliefs then why would anyone take them seriously? There seems to be a post-modernist tendency in modern society to take the attitude that all views and beliefs are equally valid and there is no 'true picture'. It is a depraved kind of relativism and I deplore it.
Quote:
If it makes them happy, why worry about it. All of us are going to die anyway. Whether we are enlightened or not. And who knows, maybe at the moment of dying we may find that that was just a matter of opinion.
If it were that simple then there would be no problem. Unfortunately it isn't. Organised religions of various kinds have a huge influence in the world. If it were just a case of a few loonies singing hymns and chanting prayers then I would be quite happy for them to get on with it. It isn't like that - many religions preach that conversion of the 'heathen' is a sacred duty, that their religiously inspired view of the world is the only correct one, and that their view should prevail in wider society. That has a direct impact on MY freedoms and I certainly will speak up loudly and often against it.
Fortunately, here in the West, the influence of religion is waning. It is still deep and pervasive however, and I, for one, will not be happy until the cancer of religion in state organs (education, judiciary etc) is finally cured.
Xanatos
Well it appears I have got here too late to give my reasons. I agree with everything that Bikerman has stated.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
There seems to be a post-modernist tendency in modern society to take the attitude that all views and beliefs are equally valid and there is no 'true picture'. It is a depraved kind of relativism and I deplore it.
I don't believe that all views and beliefs are equally valid. I doubt that is what I said. What I did say is that once you die that it would only be reduced to an opinion and may not matter that much to you in the moment that you take your last breath. Reality would have taken an enormous shift in a different direction.

Bikerman wrote:
If it were that simple then there would be no problem. Unfortunately it isn't. Organised religions of various kinds have a huge influence in the world. If it were just a case of a few loonies singing hymns and chanting prayers then I would be quite happy for them to get on with it. It isn't like that - many religions preach that conversion of the 'heathen' is a sacred duty, that their religiously inspired view of the world is the only correct one, and that their view should prevail in wider society. That has a direct impact on MY freedoms and I certainly will speak up loudly and often against it.
Fortunately, here in the West, the influence of religion is waning. It is still deep and pervasive however, and I, for one, will not be happy until the cancer of religion in state organs (education, judiciary etc) is finally cured.
I can see your point to a certain extent, but as your point of view. There are zealots around and not only in religions and some of them happen to be politicians too. But then there are people of religion who are genuine and sincere in their beliefs. If they have found their peace, all I can say is I'm happy for them. The only ones I object to are the ones who have taken it upon themselves to point fingers and judge others.
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
I can see your point to a certain extent, but as your point of view. There are zealots around and not only in religions and some of them happen to be politicians too. But then there are people of religion who are genuine and sincere in their beliefs. If they have found their peace, all I can say is I'm happy for them. The only ones I object to are the ones who have taken it upon themselves to point fingers and judge others.
Of course there are zealots of all kinds - that was not my point. My point was that organised religions have undue influence on the educational, judicial and legislative process - certainly that is true here in the UK. Organised religions are allowed to run schools - we do not let other 'belief based' organisations do that. Our legislative 2nd chamber (the House of Lords) has people whose only qualification to sit is the fact that they are a cleric. This is wrong - we do not have designated seats for atheists, for example..
We still have a law of blasphemy and, believe it or not, it only applies to the Church of England. This is ridiculous and should be (and, hopefully will be) abolished.
I could go on and cite many examples of where organised religions (particularly Christian sects) have institutionalised power in our society.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
deanhills wrote:
I can see your point to a certain extent, but as your point of view. There are zealots around and not only in religions and some of them happen to be politicians too. But then there are people of religion who are genuine and sincere in their beliefs. If they have found their peace, all I can say is I'm happy for them. The only ones I object to are the ones who have taken it upon themselves to point fingers and judge others.
Of course there are zealots of all kinds - that was not my point. My point was that organised religions have undue influence on the educational, judicial and legislative process - certainly that is true here in the UK. Organised religions are allowed to run schools - we do not let other 'belief based' organisations do that. Our legislative 2nd chamber (the House of Lords) has people whose only qualification to sit is the fact that they are a cleric. This is wrong - we do not have designated seats for atheists, for example..
We still have a law of blasphemy and, believe it or not, it only applies to the Church of England. This is ridiculous and should be (and, hopefully will be) abolished.
I could go on and cite many examples of where organised religions (particularly Christian sects) have institutionalised power in our society.
I remember they had schools like that in South Africa too. I just Googled it and there are still a number of religious schools. They used to be sought after during the time I was at school as they had above average standards of teaching:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_High_Schools_in_South_Africa

But then there is a choice whether to attend a religious school, a private school or a public school. There is that freedom. Wouldn't it be imposing on people's freedom not to allow them to go to a religious school when that is their preference?
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
But then there is a choice whether to attend a religious school, a private school or a public school. There is that freedom. Wouldn't it be imposing on people's freedom not to allow them to go to a religious school when that is their preference?
So do we apply the same principle for those who wish their children to be given a racist upbringing? Maybe we should have schools run by the British National Party? Do we have Marxist schools?
As a society we have decided that our children should be educated by the state. We have decided on a national curriculum that should be delivered to all children. We have designated qualifications and professional experience which teachers must have.
Parents are free to give their children whatever training or indoctrination they wish, but the school system is not the place for that.
medesignz
Build the religion of...

1) Computer / Internet Nerds - Then the arguments of the Mac vs Windows vs Google will be holy wars

or

2) THE HUMAN RACE - Everyone is a member... WE ALL WIN!
Magion
I follow my own beliefs based on what I learned from the Bible, experiences, and from pieces of Wicca.
I love the Wiccan philosophy and rituals. I also like the christianity beliefs. So why not combine the two? Some may argue points based off what they read from the Bible, but is the Bible really accurate? It has been translated over and over again before reaching the modern english language. Things may have been added and removed from the original texts. Meanings may have been distorted. Yet, in Revelations, it states that one should not alter the Bible or read an altered Bible.

One rule i strongly stand by from Wicca point of view is Do as you wish as long as it hurts no one.
A friend once stated that that goes against the ten commandments and therefore I am going to hell. Look at the commandments carefully. This rule I go by seems to summarize the commandments. If you break a commandment, you are hurting someone.

I worship God, the same God from the Bible, but with different beliefs that is quite similar to Christianity beliefs except that I celebrate Samhain night and perform Magick and Rituals. Combining religions gives interesting results...
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
deanhills wrote:
But then there is a choice whether to attend a religious school, a private school or a public school. There is that freedom. Wouldn't it be imposing on people's freedom not to allow them to go to a religious school when that is their preference?
So do we apply the same principle for those who wish their children to be given a racist upbringing? Maybe we should have schools run by the British National Party? Do we have Marxist schools?
As a society we have decided that our children should be educated by the state. We have decided on a national curriculum that should be delivered to all children. We have designated qualifications and professional experience which teachers must have.
Parents are free to give their children whatever training or indoctrination they wish, but the school system is not the place for that.
Surely a ruling like that can only be appropriate for public schools? Or are you saying that ALL schools, even private schools have to be decreed to be non-religious in their teaching? Surely that is taking away from people's freedom to have their children taught the way they wish them to be taught?
Solon_Poledourus
Don't we need a deity first? I may be mistaken, but I thought that the only common thread among the world's religions was that they all have some form of god.
deanhills
Solon_Poledourus wrote:
Don't we need a deity first? I may be mistaken, but I thought that the only common thread among the world's religions was that they all have some form of god.
How about reviving Ra? At least you can see him every day ... Smile
http://www.crystalinks.com/ra.html
Wonder whether they had a god for the moon as well?
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
deanhills wrote:
But then there is a choice whether to attend a religious school, a private school or a public school. There is that freedom. Wouldn't it be imposing on people's freedom not to allow them to go to a religious school when that is their preference?
So do we apply the same principle for those who wish their children to be given a racist upbringing? Maybe we should have schools run by the British National Party? Do we have Marxist schools?
As a society we have decided that our children should be educated by the state. We have decided on a national curriculum that should be delivered to all children. We have designated qualifications and professional experience which teachers must have.
Parents are free to give their children whatever training or indoctrination they wish, but the school system is not the place for that.
Surely a ruling like that can only be appropriate for public schools? Or are you saying that ALL schools, even private schools have to be decreed to be non-religious in their teaching? Surely that is taking away from people's freedom to have their children taught the way they wish them to be taught?
I don't think that there is a fundamental right for parents to decree how their children will be taught. A child does not 'belong' to the parent and the education system is setup to teach children, not to pander to the wishes of parents. Any parent can choose to withdraw their child from the state system but the child has a fundamental right to an education. Here in the UK we allow private schools (though they are still subject to the requirements of the National Curriculum). Faith based schools get large amounts of funding from the state - this, I believe, is wrong. In the case of private schools that are not funded by the state - my own opinion is that there should be no such schools, but the middle-class lobby is sufficiently powerful that I doubt they will ever disappear. Private education disadvantages the majority. Teachers are trained, partly at public expense, to teach in the state sector. These same teachers are then employed by private schools, which can pay more and offer better conditions of service. This naturally attracts many of the best teachers who would otherwise work in the state sector.
Private education also entrenches social disadvantage - children are educated according to their parents wallets not according to their ability.
Finally, most private schools are also registered as charities, which means they pay little or no tax. This means that the majority subsidise the priviledged minority.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
I don't think that there is a fundamental right for parents to decree how their children will be taught. A child does not 'belong' to the parent and the education system is setup to teach children, not to pander to the wishes of parents. Any parent can choose to withdraw their child from the state system but the child has a fundamental right to an education. Here in the UK we allow private schools (though they are still subject to the requirements of the National Curriculum). Faith based schools get large amounts of funding from the state - this, I believe, is wrong. In the case of private schools that are not funded by the state - my own opinion is that there should be no such schools, but the middle-class lobby is sufficiently powerful that I doubt they will ever disappear. Private education disadvantages the majority. Teachers are trained, partly at public expense, to teach in the state sector. These same teachers are then employed by private schools, which can pay more and offer better conditions of service. This naturally attracts many of the best teachers who would otherwise work in the state sector.
Private education also entrenches social disadvantage - children are educated according to their parents wallets not according to their ability.
Finally, most private schools are also registered as charities, which means they pay little or no tax. This means that the majority subsidise the priviledged minority.
I don't agree. That would compromise freedom of choice and it almost sounds like something you would find in Hitler's National Socialism. I do agree that the children should sit for the exact same exams as everyone else, but that in general if parents should feel strongly about their children attending a school where their particular religion is practised that they should be allowed to do so. Or if they would like their children to attend exclusive and expensive schools, that is also their prerogative. For example, if parents can choose for their children to stay at home, i.e. do home-based schooling, what difference would there be to spend a lot of money and send them to expensive private schools?
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
I don't agree. That would compromise freedom of choice and it almost sounds like something you would find in Hitler's National Socialism.
Nothing of the sort. This notion of 'freedom of choice' is a myth perpetrated by the government in order to satisfy their middle-class supporters. In reality such choice does not exist for the vast majority and is only available to the comparitively wealthy - at a cost to everyone else.
Quote:
I do agree that the children should sit for the exact same exams as everyone else, but that in general if parents should feel strongly about their children attending a school where their particular religion is practised that they should be allowed to do so.
So you do think that racist schools, marxist schools and any other 'belief based' school should be permitted? If you are allowing complete freedom of choice then this logically follows, since why should religion be a special case?
As a matter of information - one of the things you notice in many areas of the world in conflict is that the education system is often at least partly to blame for prolonging and deepening the conflict.
You see this most clearly in Northern Ireland where generations of parents have 'chosen' to educate their children in sectarian schools - be it Catholic or Protestant. If you truly take the line that religions should be able to run their own schools then why not other special interest groups?
Personally I am against faith based schools on principle, because they are, as I said, socially divisive.
Quote:
Or if they would like their children to attend exclusive and expensive schools, that is also their prerogative. For example, if parents can choose for their children to stay at home, i.e. do home-based schooling, what difference would there be to spend a lot of money and send them to expensive private schools?
Parents who opt for home schooling have to provide suitable education (ie they must either be teachers or employ them). Expensive private schools, as I said above, are socially divisive and lead to the majority subsidising a priviledged minority. Why should the average person pay taxes to subsidise private education for the elite?

The state provides education in return for taxation. If wealthy parents wish to opt out then, yes, I think there is an ethical case for them to be able to do so. BUT that should not be subsidised by the majority via tax breaks (as it currently is) and any private education system should not be allowed to compete directly for staff who have been trained at the expense of the state (as it currently does).
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
Nothing of the sort. This notion of 'freedom of choice' is a myth perpetrated by the government in order to satisfy their middle-class supporters. In reality such choice does not exist for the vast majority and is only available to the comparitively wealthy - at a cost to everyone else.
How is it a cost to everyone else?

Bikerman wrote:
So you do think that racist schools, marxist schools and any other 'belief based' school should be permitted? If you are allowing complete freedom of choice then this logically follows, since why should religion be a special case?

Perhaps this is an absurd suggestion. Racist schools would be outlawed, so would marxist schools if they were against the law. I'm sure you know what I mean and are being argumentative now. Smile
Bikerman wrote:
As a matter of information - one of the things you notice in many areas of the world in conflict is that the education system is often at least partly to blame for prolonging and deepening the conflict.
You see this most clearly in Northern Ireland where generations of parents have 'chosen' to educate their children in sectarian schools - be it Catholic or Protestant. If you truly take the line that religions should be able to run their own schools then why not other special interest groups?
Why not? Perhaps to a certain extent the wealthy private schools do serve special interest groups, not all private schools are equal, some may serve different interests?
Bikerman wrote:
Expensive private schools, as I said above, are socially divisive and lead to the majority subsidising a priviledged minority. Why should the average person pay taxes to subsidise private education for the elite?
I can't imagine the wealthy schools receiving more subsidies than the public schools do. Since the wealthy are also tax payers, it would be fair for the private schools to receive the same tax breaks as public schools do.

Bikerman wrote:
and any private education system should not be allowed to compete directly for staff who have been trained at the expense of the state (as it currently does).
Why not? Teachers are underpaid by the Government. One would expect the private schools to get better teachers than the average, so why not present them with the opportunity to earn more if they are better qualified. Again, the wealthy are also paying taxes, the same taxes that are used to train teachers, so I imagine it is quite fair that the wealthy should have access to those teachers too, and if they are willing to pay more for the better teachers, I don't see anything wrong with that.
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
How is it a cost to everyone else?
If a private school does not pay tax then it is essentially subsidised by the tax payer (ie everyone else). Since most private schools have charitable status then that is exactly what happens.
Quote:
Perhaps this is an absurd suggestion. Racist schools would be outlawed, so would marxist schools if they were against the law. I'm sure you know what I mean and are being argumentative now. Smile
No. Neither racism nor Marxism are illegal and they were not chosen as 'absurd' examples. Many religions are profoundly homophobic in their teachings yet you are happy for these religions to run schools. Why is it OK for a Catholic school to teach that homosexuality is evil and that non-Catholics will burn in hell, but not OK for a racist school to teach their particular type of nastiness?
Quote:
I can't imagine the wealthy schools receiving more subsidies than the public schools do. Since the wealthy are also tax payers, it would be fair for the private schools to receive the same tax breaks as public schools do.
But they don't. Private schools are, as I have repeatedly said, mostly registered as charities - this gives them a tax advantage.
Quote:
Why not? Teachers are underpaid by the Government. One would expect the private schools to get better teachers than the average, so why not present them with the opportunity to earn more if they are better qualified. Again, the wealthy are also paying taxes, the same taxes that are used to train teachers, so I imagine it is quite fair that the wealthy should have access to those teachers too, and if they are willing to pay more for the better teachers, I don't see anything wrong with that.
So you think it is fair that everyone pays to train teachers that only the wealthy then can make use of? State education is available to everyone and is paid for by everyone. Private education takes resources that have been paid for by everyone and makes them only available to those who can pay again.
As I said before, it is perfectly possible to make an ethical case for private schools. A capitalist perspective would be that every parent should have the right to select the school for their children and that those schools should then be free to compete in an open market for students. That is not what happens - the market is rigged because state schools do not have the ability to change terms and conditions for teaching staff. The logic of this is that either:
a) You take a free-market position with regard to education and remove state control over schools completely. There are some that advocate this - personally I think it would be disastrous.
b) You take a socialist position with regard to education where the state provides schooling for all.*
c) You do what happens now - a mixed system with a rigged-market, providing educational advantage for the wealthy subsidised by all.

* It will be no surprise that this is my own position. Education is not comparable with other goods and services for several reasons - chief amongst them being that the 'customer' is the child, not the parent. Bigotry of all kinds is best combated by education. If you allow bigots or special interest groups to set-up their own schools and educate their children in that atmosphere of bigotry, then you are failing in the duty to properly educate the child, and, by the way, storing up massive problems for society as a whole. That is why I would be against racist schools and why I AM against religious schools.

Anyway - this is seriously sidetracking the OP so I suggest that this discussion be abandoned here - though I would be happy to continue it in a separate thread.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
deanhills wrote:
How is it a cost to everyone else?
If a private school does not pay tax then it is essentially subsidised by the tax payer (ie everyone else). Since most private schools have charitable status then that is exactly what happens.
Quote:
Perhaps this is an absurd suggestion. Racist schools would be outlawed, so would marxist schools if they were against the law. I'm sure you know what I mean and are being argumentative now. Smile
No. Neither racism nor Marxism are illegal and they were not chosen as 'absurd' examples. Many religions are profoundly homophobic in their teachings yet you are happy for these religions to run schools. Why is it OK for a Catholic school to teach that homosexuality is evil and that non-Catholics will burn in hell, but not OK for a racist school to teach their particular type of nastiness?
Quote:
I can't imagine the wealthy schools receiving more subsidies than the public schools do. Since the wealthy are also tax payers, it would be fair for the private schools to receive the same tax breaks as public schools do.
But they don't. Private schools are, as I have repeatedly said, mostly registered as charities - this gives them a tax advantage.
Quote:
Why not? Teachers are underpaid by the Government. One would expect the private schools to get better teachers than the average, so why not present them with the opportunity to earn more if they are better qualified. Again, the wealthy are also paying taxes, the same taxes that are used to train teachers, so I imagine it is quite fair that the wealthy should have access to those teachers too, and if they are willing to pay more for the better teachers, I don't see anything wrong with that.
So you think it is fair that everyone pays to train teachers that only the wealthy then can make use of? State education is available to everyone and is paid for by everyone. Private education takes resources that have been paid for by everyone and makes them only available to those who can pay again.
As I said before, it is perfectly possible to make an ethical case for private schools. A capitalist perspective would be that every parent should have the right to select the school for their children and that those schools should then be free to compete in an open market for students. That is not what happens - the market is rigged because state schools do not have the ability to change terms and conditions for teaching staff. The logic of this is that either:
a) You take a free-market position with regard to education and remove state control over schools completely. There are some that advocate this - personally I think it would be disastrous.
b) You take a socialist position with regard to education where the state provides schooling for all.*
c) You do what happens now - a mixed system with a rigged-market, providing educational advantage for the wealthy subsidised by all.

* It will be no surprise that this is my own position. Education is not comparable with other goods and services for several reasons - chief amongst them being that the 'customer' is the child, not the parent. Bigotry of all kinds is best combated by education. If you allow bigots or special interest groups to set-up their own schools and educate their children in that atmosphere of bigotry, then you are failing in the duty to properly educate the child, and, by the way, storing up massive problems for society as a whole. That is why I would be against racist schools and why I AM against religious schools.

Anyway - this is seriously sidetracking the OP so I suggest that this discussion be abandoned here - though I would be happy to continue it in a separate thread.
Agreed. I have created a separate thread for the discussion: http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-107292.html
icecool
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
Bannik wrote:
Xanatos wrote:
Many new religions are created every day. They start as cults. Most just never get enough members to grow into a full blown religion.

As to the question, I would not create any religion at all. I am entirely against the concept of religion.


why are you against the concept of religion, the concept itself isnt bad its basically a group of people who believe and fallow a certain set of rules.


He's probably against religion for the same reason that I am against religion. It promotes dogmatism and prevents people from thinking for themselves. It has also promoted violence and ignorance.


i agree.

i think alot of people confuse faith with religion. we all believe in something - not secessarily being symbolised by a "diety" as in most religions.

to have faith is great. once 2 people get together and try to bring their individual faiths onto a common denominator - you have a religion.
in my mind it's totally unnecessary - like saying take a great product - faith - and wrap it up in a bad marketing campaign to make it more appealing to as many people as possible.
bollocks
liljp617
Somehow, I don't think this thread turned out how it was supposed to Very Happy
icecool
liljp617 wrote:
Somehow, I don't think this thread turned out how it was supposed to Very Happy


what DO YOU think how the thread was supposed to turn out?
liljp617
To me, it seemed like a sort of bland "creative thinking" project, not one that was really supposed to be taken seriously. More of a "forum game" where people thought up new crazy religions just for the sake of it/entertainment.
truespeed
liljp617 wrote:
To me, it seemed like a sort of bland "creative thinking" project, not one that was really supposed to be taken seriously. More of a "forum game" where people thought up new crazy religions just for the sake of it/entertainment.


It was kind of that,at the same time i was hoping for some discussion on wether or not a new religion could be established today,as any new religion/concept could involve science,and so avoid the obvious pit falls of the bible. (obviously when it was written they had no idea about dinosaurs and evolution ect).

But yes i was also hoping for some mad made up ones too,maybe revolving around some celebrity,or as bannik would have it,indi.
peaceupnorth
icecool wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
Somehow, I don't think this thread turned out how it was supposed to Very Happy


what DO YOU think how the thread was supposed to turn out?

It is about creating a new religion! I don't think we need to have religion of blind faith at all. We don't need deities, or dogmatism, or institutionalization. I think Bikerman has made his point that we still have a long way to go to get out of the crusty problems of old belief systems.

I'd like to broadly define "religion" as a social movement, or shared set of ethics. The humanist movement calls itself a "life stance" ... that's a pretty good set of words.

So my dream religion would be a shared sense of respect, support, fellowship. It would embrace people in all their diversity. It would be spread not through wars but through friends. It wouldn't be institutionalized, and its places of worship would be street corners, offices and in the homes, everywhere really. It would be a religion of non-violence, even to the animals ("For as long as men massacre animals, they will kill each other. Indeed, he who sows the seed of murder and pain cannot reap joy and love." --Pythagoras). It would be about contentment and simplicity, because currently the world is drowning in greed and ego. It would first and foremost be about mutual love and service. Love is the glue that keeps people together and keeps them from falling through the cracks.

Anybody want to join this religion? It's free. No paperwork required. You can baptize yourself (if you want). And keep your beliefs. Just be nice.
deanhills
truespeed wrote:
But yes i was also hoping for some mad made up ones too,maybe revolving around some celebrity,or as bannik would have it,indi.
Laughing I really am curious about Bannik's Indi. Still hoping that he will come forward and give a complete explanation of his religion. And yes, that could possibly be a completely new religion. Laughing (Sorry, maybe I should not laugh here, perhaps it is very serious business for Bannik and he is a devout Indieist Laughing ).
Libby
I have a friend who is trying to revive the heretical Adamite sect of yore as a "cult". (Although I'm not sure you can have an anti-authoritarian, non-heirarchical cult.) I think he's just in it for the love feasts though...
truespeed
deanhills
Libby wrote:
I have a friend who is trying to revive the heretical Adamite sect of yore as a "cult". (Although I'm not sure you can have an anti-authoritarian, non-heirarchical cult.) I think he's just in it for the love feasts though...
Is this the one? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_love Could not find "heretical Adamite sect of yore" on the Internet. Sounds interesting though, almost like the flower children (hippies) of the sixties? Smile

truespeed wrote:
Good one Laughing Laughing Laughing
Libby
No, no, no. Waaaaaaaay "of yore". Like 100 AD or so.

http://www.angelfire.com/weird2/obscure2/adam.html
Bannik
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
Bannik wrote:
Xanatos wrote:
Many new religions are created every day. They start as cults. Most just never get enough members to grow into a full blown religion.

As to the question, I would not create any religion at all. I am entirely against the concept of religion.


why are you against the concept of religion, the concept itself isnt bad its basically a group of people who believe and fallow a certain set of rules.


He's probably against religion for the same reason that I am against religion. It promotes dogmatism and prevents people from thinking for themselves. It has also promoted violence and ignorance.
Last count shows almost 6.7 billion people in the world in total. I would imagine that all of them come with a variety of opinions of how they arrived on mother earth and where they are heading once they have passed on. If it makes them happy, why worry about it. All of us are going to die anyway. Whether we are enlightened or not. And who knows, maybe at the moment of dying we may find that that was just a matter of opinion.


Why worry about it? Didn't you read what I said? Religion has promoted violence and ignorance. Excuse me for not wanting to live in a world where scientific development is ceased because of someone's religion or where people (maybe even me - what if I had worked in the world trade center?) die because of someone else's religion.


VERY late reply, sry, but you are wrong religion doesnt promote ignorance, some of the greatest thinkers were religious because even with all their scientific knowledge when looking at the grand scheme of things we are but a spec of dust in a huge fraggin desert...

just because people have killed and lied in the name of GOD and religion doesnt mean there werent good people, mother teresa was a saint she has done so many good things in the name of god, sometimes the same free thinkers and scientist like René Descartes, Robert Boyle and of course Indi the founder/god of Indism.....are religious and used religion as a reason too study and learn...
Bannik
Bikerman
Bannik wrote:
VERY late reply, sry, but you are wrong religion doesnt promote ignorance, some of the greatest thinkers were religious because even with all their scientific knowledge when looking at the grand scheme of things we are but a spec of dust in a huge fraggin desert...
Err..religion DOES ACTIVELY promote ignorance.
Here's one example - I'll give another in response to your second para.
In Africa the Catholic Church has been active in spreading lies and disinformation about condoms and their role in preventing HIV infection. This is a blatant case of spreading ignorance - in fact it is a FATAL case.
http://www.condoms4life.org/facts/condomPolicy.htm
Quote:
just because people have killed and lied in the name of GOD and religion doesnt mean there werent good people, mother teresa was a saint she has done so many good things in the name of god, sometimes the same free thinkers and scientist like René Descartes, Robert Boyle and of course Indi the founder/god of Indism.....are religious and used religion as a reason too study and learn...
OK - now with regard to Mother Teresa - there are indeed many people who see the woman as a saint. I disagree. She actively promoted ignorance. Given the choice between opening medical facilities in Calcutta - using proper doctors and nurses - she chose instead to use nuns and religious staff. She saw the suffering of the poor as 'noble' and her charity missions have been criticised by many people for not providing proper medical care. Personally I think she was a malign influence rather than a saint.
Quote:
Mother Teresa did not focus donated money on alleviating poverty or improving the conditions of her hospices, but on opening new convents and increasing missionary work.

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

Of course many great thinkers were religious - there was no real choice because pretty much everyone was religious. Being religious a couple of centuries ago was not a choice, like it is now, it was a necessity.
deanhills
Libby wrote:
No, no, no. Waaaaaaaay "of yore". Like 100 AD or so.

http://www.angelfire.com/weird2/obscure2/adam.html
I can't think of any worse religion where one is called an Adamite! Sounds one sided too. What did Eve think of this? Maybe they should have been called Adevites? Smile
Bannik
Bikerman wrote:
Bannik wrote:
VERY late reply, sry, but you are wrong religion doesnt promote ignorance, some of the greatest thinkers were religious because even with all their scientific knowledge when looking at the grand scheme of things we are but a spec of dust in a huge fraggin desert...
Err..religion DOES ACTIVELY promote ignorance.
Here's one example - I'll give another in response to your second para.
In Africa the Catholic Church has been active in spreading lies and disinformation about condoms and their role in preventing HIV infection. This is a blatant case of spreading ignorance - in fact it is a FATAL case.
http://www.condoms4life.org/facts/condomPolicy.htm
Quote:
just because people have killed and lied in the name of GOD and religion doesnt mean there werent good people, mother teresa was a saint she has done so many good things in the name of god, sometimes the same free thinkers and scientist like René Descartes, Robert Boyle and of course Indi the founder/god of Indism.....are religious and used religion as a reason too study and learn...
OK - now with regard to Mother Teresa - there are indeed many people who see the woman as a saint. I disagree. She actively promoted ignorance. Given the choice between opening medical facilities in Calcutta - using proper doctors and nurses - she chose instead to use nuns and religious staff. She saw the suffering of the poor as 'noble' and her charity missions have been criticised by many people for not providing proper medical care. Personally I think she was a malign influence rather than a saint.
Quote:
Mother Teresa did not focus donated money on alleviating poverty or improving the conditions of her hospices, but on opening new convents and increasing missionary work.

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

Of course many great thinkers were religious - there was no real choice because pretty much everyone was religious. Being religious a couple of centuries ago was not a choice, like it is now, it was a necessity.


again we are discussing the concept of religion, not Christianity or some other specific religion. yhe concept of religion is not bad

lets say i make a religion of happines - there is a god but we dont know who or what it is...there are 3 rules, live healthy, help others and dont be a dick.....

would that be a stupid religion....(obviously there is more too it then that) but you get my point, its easily feasible too create a religion that isnt ignorant....remember even now there are still scientist doctors and teachers who are religious (even too much some times) that didnt stop them being who they are....

take the Bahá'í - wiki "A fundamental principle of the Bahá'í Faith is the harmony of religion and science. Bahá'í scripture asserts that true science and true religion can never be in conflict. `Abdu'l-Bahá, the son of the founder of the religion, stated that religion without science is superstition and that science without religion is materialism. He also admonished that true religion must conform to the conclusions of science."
Bikerman
Bannik wrote:
again we are discussing the concept of religion, not Christianity or some other specific religion. yhe concept of religion is not bad
I disagree. I think the concept of religion is bad for a number of reasons. The point I made, however, is that we can point to specific religions and demonstrate specific harm.
Quote:
lets say i make a religion of happines - there is a god but we dont know who or what it is...there are 3 rules, live healthy, help others and dont be a dick.....

would that be a stupid religion....(obviously there is more too it then that) but you get my point, its easily feasible too create a religion that isnt ignorant....remember even now there are still scientist doctors and teachers who are religious (even too much some times) that didnt stop them being who they are....
All religions probably start out with those good intentions. They then quickly become institutions with vested interests and there the problem starts....
Your 3 rules are not a religion - there is no mention of a deity for example - they could be regarded as secular rules for living a good life and I have no problem at all with them.
Yes, there are still scientists who are religious - why would there not be? Science does not exclude religion (in fact it has very little to say about many religious ideas). The point is that now people can choose for themselves, the number of religious scientists has drastically decreased and continues to do so.

People often use the argument that previous scientists were religious - of course they were, they had no choice. Nowadays we DO have a choice (although it is still not entirely a consequence free choice since atheists are still discriminated against) and what do we see? We see that most scientists are now atheists or agnostics - exactly what one would expect I think....
deanhills
Bannik wrote:
lets say i make a religion of happines - there is a god but we dont know who or what it is...there are 3 rules, live healthy, help others and dont be a dick.....

would that be a stupid religion....(obviously there is more too it then that) but you get my point, its easily feasible too create a religion that isnt ignorant....remember even now there are still scientist doctors and teachers who are religious (even too much some times) that didnt stop them being who they are....

take the Bahá'í - wiki "A fundamental principle of the Bahá'í Faith is the harmony of religion and science. Bahá'í scripture asserts that true science and true religion can never be in conflict. `Abdu'l-Bahá, the son of the founder of the religion, stated that religion without science is superstition and that science without religion is materialism. He also admonished that true religion must conform to the conclusions of science."
Bannik, I thought Indi was a female god, so maybe Indi is not Indi? By the way, is the Indi religion one of happiness?
Afaceinthematrix
Bannik wrote:
VERY late reply, sry, but you are wrong religion doesnt promote ignorance, some of the greatest thinkers were religious because even with all their scientific knowledge when looking at the grand scheme of things we are but a spec of dust in a huge fraggin desert...

just because people have killed and lied in the name of GOD and religion doesnt mean there werent good people, mother teresa was a saint she has done so many good things in the name of god, sometimes the same free thinkers and scientist like René Descartes, Robert Boyle and of course Indi the founder/god of Indism.....are religious and used religion as a reason too study and learn...


Get real. Just because religion has inspired some people to do good doesn't mean that it hasn't promoted violence. Just because some smart people are religious doesn't mean that religion still doesn't promote ignorance.

The fact of the matter is that plenty of people have died because of religion. Religion is responsible for more deaths than almost any other factor. Millions of people remain nonviolent perfectly fine without religion so I see no use for it. I wouldn't want to die someday because of someone else's delusion.

The fact of the matter is that religion also promotes extreme ignorance. Not only is religion ignorance almost by definition, but you also have many Creationists (especially in the U.S.) not wanting science taught in schools...
deanhills
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
The fact of the matter is that plenty of people have died because of religion. Religion is responsible for more deaths than almost any other factor.
I would rather put greed and corruption right on top of the list, more often than not religion is only used as a pretext, similar to Bush's invasion of Iraq under the pretext of weapons of mass destruction. Al Qaeda type terrorism is genuinely religion and a good example of religion being used horribly wrong to justify taking of lives, but religion is also used in good ways. Very meaningful where I am in the Middle East, gives people something to live for.
Bannik
Quote:
I disagree. I think the concept of religion is bad for a number of reasons. The point I made, however, is that we can point to specific religions and demonstrate specific harm.


which I don't disagree with but how does RELIGION come into this

lets wikify this baby

"A religion is an organized approach to human spirituality which usually encompasses a set of narratives, symbols, beliefs and practices, often with a supernatural or transcendent quality, that give meaning to the practitioner's experiences of life through reference to a higher power, God or gods, or ultimate truth"

nothing bad about that concept.

Quote:

All religions probably start out with those good intentions. They then quickly become institutions with vested interests and there the problem starts....
Your 3 rules are not a religion - there is no mention of a deity for example - they could be regarded as secular rules for living a good life and I have no problem at all with them.
Yes, there are still scientists who are religious - why would there not be? Science does not exclude religion (in fact it has very little to say about many religious ideas). The point is that now people can choose for themselves, the number of religious scientists has drastically decreased and continues to do so.


that is wrong, firstly religion does not require a deity - like buddhism...

so the problem is not religion its the people who abuse it, you haven't proven too me religion creates ignorance you just proved that religion is controlled by ignorant men. How can it create ignorance...

Quote:
Get real. Just because religion has inspired some people to do good doesn't mean that it hasn't promoted violence. Just because some smart people are religious doesn't mean that religion still doesn't promote ignorance.


so with your logic religion EVEN though it also promotes good will, love and respect doesn't matter but the fact that it has been used too kill is all that matters, kinda hypocritical if you ask me....its like you only care about the bad things...

Quote:
The fact of the matter is that plenty of people have died because of religion. Religion is responsible for more deaths than almost any other factor. Millions of people remain nonviolent perfectly fine without religion so I see no use for it. I wouldn't want to die someday because of someone else's delusion.


and plenty of people have been saved by religion, also wars weren't started by religion, they were started in the name of religion....big difference...as pointed out, people were forced into religion back in ancient times, they were also forced too commit those acts in the name of religion...if the pope today comes out and says "all jews are evil and must be killed on sight" that would make a lot of Catholics attack people, not because religion is doing it but because the are stupid and take the pope too seriously.

Quote:
The fact of the matter is that religion also promotes extreme ignorance. Not only is religion ignorance almost by definition, but you also have many Creationists (especially in the U.S.) not wanting science taught in schools..


yes it does...ALSO is the magic word, it also does good, so you cant condemn it just because of the actions of a few people....





you 2 seemed too have ignored my mentioning of the bahai faith - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bah%C3%A1%27%C3%AD_Faith

seems ok in my eyes...



its not religion that evil and ignorant its the people who wield it...
Afaceinthematrix
Bannik wrote:
so with your logic religion EVEN though it also promotes good will, love and respect doesn't matter but the fact that it has been used too kill is all that matters, kinda hypocritical if you ask me....its like you only care about the bad things...


No. It's not hypocritical, nor are you using my logic. First off, I want to get one thing out of the way... Let's say I start a cult that goes around helping old ladies cross the street or something, ok? Now let's say that we believe that dragon created the world and us with his fiery breath and that this dragon tells us to help old ladies cross the street. Most people wouldn't agree with us... But that's undermining the dragon so we have to kill people who don't agree with us. Look... we murdered innocent people for our beliefs... But wait! We did a lot of good! We helped old ladies cross the street.

So religion may (I'll argue this in my next point) have inspired some people to do good. Well I think that all of the violence that it has caused is much more important and I'd rather have that violence taken away over the little good that it's done.

But... Has religion actually done any good? How many people do good? I have done hundreds of hours of community service and I donate to several charities that I support, and I'm an atheist; I don't have a religion that I do my good for (because unlike many "Christians," I do good because I care about people; not to get a place in Heaven). So is religion really the cause of good? Many atheists are very good people. I think that if religion was taken away, many of these people (Gandhi, Dr. King, Mother Teresa, etc.) would STILL be good people. So if they're still good people, what use is their religion? Well it's useless then (in fact, Indi once started a thread asking the usefulness of religion and many of us couldn't even answer that question because religion is quite useless; religion does NOTHING that secular groups don't also do). Religion does nothing that secular groups don't also do.

So if religion is useless for a society, then how does it impact our lives? Well I already answered that. It has been known to cause violence (as Islam and Christianity were both viciously spread by the sword while wiping out other cultures that actually had cooler - Pagan - holidays) and promote extreme ignorance (Mr. Kent Hovind is a great example) as religious people try to get science taken out of the classrooms.

Quote:
and plenty of people have been saved by religion, also wars weren't started by religion, they were started in the name of religion....big difference...as pointed out, people were forced into religion back in ancient times, they were also forced too commit those acts in the name of religion...if the pope today comes out and says "all jews are evil and must be killed on sight" that would make a lot of Catholics attack people, not because religion is doing it but because the are stupid and take the pope too seriously.


...and religion has that nasty little habit of promoting those awful acts...

Quote:
yes it does...ALSO is the magic word, it also does good, so you cant condemn it just because of the actions of a few people....


So... what good does religion do? All I see it doing is bad, and like I said, even if it did do good, it does it at a heavy price...
Bannik
Quote:
No. It's not hypocritical, nor are you using my logic. First off, I want to get one thing out of the way... Let's say I start a cult that goes around helping old ladies cross the street or something, ok? Now let's say that we believe that dragon created the world and us with his fiery breath and that this dragon tells us to help old ladies cross the street. Most people wouldn't agree with us... But that's undermining the dragon so we have to kill people who don't agree with us. Look... we murdered innocent people for our beliefs... But wait! We did a lot of good! We helped old ladies cross the street.


lol wow cause that's what religion does if you don't agree they kill, what if instead of killing you talked too them and argued with them about the merits if the religion, you seem too think that religion promotes the killing on non believers.

show me a single religion that says KILL INNOCENT non believers, none, didn't Jesus say turn the other cheek.....just because people abuse religion doesn't mean RELIGION is bad.

show me a point in history where religion (not someone using religion like the pope or a mad priest) has actively sought out too kill innocents....

did Jesus ever say "yea guys when you start exploring more you should convert the natives if they don't you can kill them in my name"..

no i don't think so.

religion didn't kill them the people did, they used religion as an excuse....


Quote:
So religion may (I'll argue this in my next point) have inspired some people to do good. Well I think that all of the violence that it has caused is much more important and I'd rather have that violence taken away over the little good that it's done.


you still haven't shown me how RELIGION by itself causes the violence...you have shown how different groups of religion used its own beliefs too commit the people too violent acts...like previously stated.....in ancient times people were superstitious, if i told them i was god and did a magic trick or used science from modern era they would most probably think i am a witch of believe me and do what i say....so making them do evil isn't that hard.

Quote:
But... Has religion actually done any good? How many people do good? I have done hundreds of hours of community service and I donate to several charities that I support, and I'm an atheist; I don't have a religion that I do my good for (because unlike many "Christians," I do good because I care about people; not to get a place in Heaven). So is religion really the cause of good? Many atheists are very good people. I think that if religion was taken away, many of these people (Gandhi, Dr. King, Mother Teresa, etc.) would STILL be good people. So if they're still good people, what use is their religion? Well it's useless then (in fact, Indi once started a thread asking the usefulness of religion and many of us couldn't even answer that question because religion is quite useless; religion does NOTHING that secular groups don't also do). Religion does nothing that secular groups don't also do.


those same people you mentioned are educated too the highest standard and yet still with such knowledge and living in the modern world they still believed in god and the good he does, why?


Quote:
So if religion is useless for a society, then how does it impact our lives? Well I already answered that. It has been known to cause violence (as Islam and Christianity were both viciously spread by the sword while wiping out other cultures that actually had cooler - Pagan - holidays) and promote extreme ignorance (Mr. Kent Hovind is a great example) as religious people try to get science taken out of the classrooms.


do you understand the concept of PEOPLE TELLING OTHERS TOO DO THINGS and religion telling things, those acts were all done because the pope or some other religious figure said it was the will of god.......and in ancient time the religious figure where just as powerful as kings...even more so.

none not a single religion actively promotes violence against innocents....its just wrong...

Quote:

...and religion has that nasty little habit of promoting those awful acts...


really religion does this - cause the bahai faith doesn't....that's a religion....."Three core principles establish a basis for Bahá'í teachings and doctrine: the unity of God, the unity of religion, and the unity of humankind." sound like pure evil too me....

I am sure Buddhism is just as evil....i read somewhere Buddhist don't like foreigners...and kill

Quote:

So... what good does religion do? All I see it doing is bad, and like I said, even if it did do good, it does it at a heavy price...


lets say I go out and kill someone in the name of Indi - does that mean INDI is too blame? or lets say i go out and kill people and say GHANDI is telling me too do it, should ghandi be blamed?

ps - i am an athiest


also here are a few things i think you should look into...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Dei - trying too make a better world

Mary Ann Glendon and Jacques Maritain & Universal Declaration of Human Rights - wikify them




the same things you said about religion i could say about politics

look at how much evil the governments have done......
liljp617
deanhills wrote:
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
The fact of the matter is that plenty of people have died because of religion. Religion is responsible for more deaths than almost any other factor.
I would rather put greed and corruption right on top of the list, more often than not religion is only used as a pretext, similar to Bush's invasion of Iraq under the pretext of weapons of mass destruction. Al Qaeda type terrorism is genuinely religion and a good example of religion being used horribly wrong to justify taking of lives, but religion is also used in good ways. Very meaningful where I am in the Middle East, gives people something to live for.


But you see, the thing there is that people do not promote greed and corruption. I've never met a single person who adamantly defends greed and corruption. I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who holds a positive view of greed or corruption...and certainly not millions upon millions who have such a view. Greed and corruption, as you say, are probably on the top of that list and are obviously responsible for a huge number of deaths/injuries throughout history. But so is religion.

The difference being that nobody views greed and corruption as these inherently good, positive qualities as they do with religion (in the US at least). In the US, if someone finds out you're a Christian, the vast majority of the time you're immediately "bumped up a level" in their eyes. If they were to find out you were greedy and corrupt, you would probably "move down a level" in their eyes.

I know this is kind of off topic from your post. I just hear the argument sometimes that "secular motives" (greed, corruption, etc.), if you wish to call them that, are just as responsible as religion for war and murder throughout history. I agree. But as I said above, people do not promote greed, corruption, etc., and people do actively promote religion. People do not defend greed, corruption, etc., and they do defend religion. If something is so often a root cause or encouragement of war and the like, why is it still promoted? All the other things that are often associated with causing war are seen in a negative light. Religion is still on a pedestal.
Bannik
I swear people need too understand the differences between what religion does and what people do in the name of religion, they are very different things......

still no one has answered how religion in itself causes violence....you people need too get your heads out of your high and mighty arses and realize that you cant blame something like hate and war on religion


you all talk about how religion has done this and that......so has EVERYTHING else...
you think only religion does evil things...okay what about science

how many have died in the name of science (animal research, human testing, nuclear bombs, missiles, chemicals that kill etc etc) - who invented heroine...was it a religious monk or a scientist?

OIL - it was great when it first came out, now its slowly destroying us

how many have died in the name of politics (Nazi Germany was all about politics...look how much good they did, japan and china - heck there was no religious hate between them it was all politics)

so stop it guys....

prove too me religion by itself causes all those things you mentioned and not the actions of mankind, if anything hate mankind and not religion
Afaceinthematrix
Really? I have my head up my ass? I sure as hell cannot figure out how it would have gotten up there - I'm not that flexible.

Anyways... You first start off by criticizing science in how it has also caused violence and bad things yet you're using a computer which was created by science. As a matter of fact, we all rape the hard work of geniuses that have come before us on a daily basis. For you to truly criticize science, you would have to give up everything that you use everyday to make your life better.

Science alone hasn't caused violence. Science pursues knowledge. Besides, science has made all of our lives better while religion is useless and has done nothing but make many people lives worse... I already explained that religion is pretty damn useless.

Since you're having a problem accepting that religion has caused problems, I'll help you out. You claimed that nobody has every successfully answered how religion has caused violence. I honestly didn't think I needed to do that. I thought it was pretty obvious... But here it goes.

I'll first start off by providing a link to an article where someone explains very well how religion causes violence (that way if you don't like my explanation, you can read another)...

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/christian/blfaq_viol_index.htm

Religion causes violence directly by the religious text. I'm going to use Christianity as an example because I'm against Christianity even more than any other religion.

God wiped everyone out in the world except one family in a giant flood. God ruthlessly murdered the first born child of every Egyptian. God zapped down the cities of Soddam and Gamorrah. God killed Lot's wife, etc. Christianity is a religion based on violence (and bigotry, sexism, racism, and the rest of the crap in the Old Testament). Just read the Old Testament; it's horrible. Plenty of people have killed because of their religion. Witch burnings? The puritans were pretty horrible. It's hard to not have a history of violence when your religion is based off of violence. Did you ever read about the Crusades?

You can argue that religion has many times just been used as an excuse, but the fact of the matter is that it also has been the reason many times in history - especially Christianity. Furthermore, in my opinion, just being a Christian is immoral because you're endorsing a god who's an open homophobic, racist, sexist, mass-murdering bigot.
liljp617
Bannik wrote:
I swear people need too understand the differences between what religion does and what people do in the name of religion, they are very different things......

still no one has answered how religion in itself causes violence....you people need too get your heads out of your high and mighty arses and realize that you cant blame something like hate and war on religion


you all talk about how religion has done this and that......so has EVERYTHING else...
you think only religion does evil things...okay what about science

how many have died in the name of science (animal research, human testing, nuclear bombs, missiles, chemicals that kill etc etc) - who invented heroine...was it a religious monk or a scientist?

OIL - it was great when it first came out, now its slowly destroying us

how many have died in the name of politics (Nazi Germany was all about politics...look how much good they did, japan and china - heck there was no religious hate between them it was all politics)

so stop it guys....

prove too me religion by itself causes all those things you mentioned and not the actions of mankind, if anything hate mankind and not religion


Religion is responsible for what religion has done. That's the message most people here are promoting. Plain and simple. What you're doing is the so often wonderful job of trying to find a loophole to relieve religion of all the negatives things that it's responsible for (and it has plenty...take off the rose colored glasses).

I don't think anybody on these forums has said religion is the only aspect of mankind and society that leads to "evil" actions. Perhaps you could show some examples of people saying this? Religion is often the focal point of discussion.....because this is a religion & philosophy forum?
Bannik
liljp617 wrote:
Bannik wrote:
I swear people need too understand the differences between what religion does and what people do in the name of religion, they are very different things......

still no one has answered how religion in itself causes violence....you people need too get your heads out of your high and mighty arses and realize that you cant blame something like hate and war on religion


you all talk about how religion has done this and that......so has EVERYTHING else...
you think only religion does evil things...okay what about science

how many have died in the name of science (animal research, human testing, nuclear bombs, missiles, chemicals that kill etc etc) - who invented heroine...was it a religious monk or a scientist?

OIL - it was great when it first came out, now its slowly destroying us

how many have died in the name of politics (Nazi Germany was all about politics...look how much good they did, japan and china - heck there was no religious hate between them it was all politics)

so stop it guys....

prove too me religion by itself causes all those things you mentioned and not the actions of mankind, if anything hate mankind and not religion


Religion is responsible for what religion has done. That's the message most people here are promoting. Plain and simple. What you're doing is the so often wonderful job of trying to find a loophole to relieve religion of all the negatives things that it's responsible for (and it has plenty...take off the rose colored glasses).

I don't think anybody on these forums has said religion is the only aspect of mankind and society that leads to "evil" actions. Perhaps you could show some examples of people saying this? Religion is often the focal point of discussion.....because this is a religion & philosophy forum?


no what i am saying is not that everyone is blaming religion what i am saying is that RELIGION is not at fault by the actions of men.

like i said you cant blame what has been done in the name of religion soley on religion, its like blaming the war on Iraq on the whole of america, i.e americas existance caused the war.....thats stupid you cant do that. it was the action of a few in the name of AMERICA....simple

and no i am not trying too find a loophole, if there was one someone who knows more about religion would have mentioned it. all i am trying too do is show to you the difference between acts done in the name of religion and acts that religion has done..

RELIGION has by itself has given us LAWS (back in the old days there was no means as too show authority, no one would care about the laws what people wanted too do why should they, if I stole and escaped wha twould happen to me, nothing but when religion came along it gave them an excuse too fallow certain laws, some were benefitial some werent, because if they didnt god would knock em out now in modern times sure religion is not needed for laws and morals but it did lay the fundations for laws and morals....)

The pope has killed people in the name of religion (he used his power and influence too start wars in the name of Christianity....) doesnt mean christianity did it...it was the pope using christianity, if a nicer pope existed in those times and emphisezed love and acceptance of all othet cultures, you really think there would be crusades? (religious not political ones).

I undestand no one is saying religion is the sole purpose but i havent either suggested it, all i said is that you cant blame a simple concept with the troubles people have caused....


also a lot of what religion or what people believe religion has done like crusades werent actually caused by religion it was all to do with politics, the king of such and such named the people of such and such heretics, so the pope agrees (gets paid a lot of money) bamf all christians consider those people heretics...

simple


money is evil, we should all trade.....




INDI I NEED YOU SAVE ME or PUNISH ME, do your will
icecool
you guys treat "religion" like some conscious, independent living thing thats is able to "do" things.

surely religion is a concept. it's a name given to something - whatever you wanna put into it.

but it's NOT a force from within.

it's the PEOPLE who invented it.
it's the PEOPLE who use it - and yes also abuse it.
it's the PEOPLE who DO things in the name of religion.

and people do good or bad things.

in the NAME not only of reliigion but other concepts as well - national security, profit, ego, greed, racism, science - lots of different excuses are used by PEOPLE to justify their actions.

"religion" as a concept has one advantage over most others when it comes to justifying whatever people do - be they good or bad. there is the final get-out clause of NOT having to explain things like motives or reasons by referring the questioner to whichever GOD they claim to serve.

now THAT is unique and a rather clever thing.
it's also the ultimate cowards way of justifying any atrocities to serve their own porposes.

for me THAT is the most dangerous aspect of religion.
Afaceinthematrix
Bannik wrote:
no what i am saying is not that everyone is blaming religion what i am saying is that RELIGION is not at fault by the actions of men.


Did you even read my above response to what you said or did you just skip that over?

Quote:
like i said you cant blame what has been done in the name of religion soley on religion, its like blaming the war on Iraq on the whole of america, i.e americas existance caused the war.....thats stupid you cant do that. it was the action of a few in the name of AMERICA....simple

and no i am not trying too find a loophole, if there was one someone who knows more about religion would have mentioned it. all i am trying too do is show to you the difference between acts done in the name of religion and acts that religion has done..


It seems like you are trying to find a loophole because you are skipping over all the bad that religion has done and just saying "it's not all religion!" Well no one ever said that religion was the sole reason for bad things but it sure as hell is an accomplice.

Quote:
RELIGION has by itself has given us LAWS (back in the old days there was no means as too show authority, no one would care about the laws what people wanted too do why should they, if I stole and escaped wha twould happen to me, nothing but when religion came along it gave them an excuse too fallow certain laws, some were benefitial some werent, because if they didnt god would knock em out now in modern times sure religion is not needed for laws and morals but it did lay the fundations for laws and morals....)


Dude, you act like people are just going to start killing folks without their religion. Guess what? Chimpanzees can't swim but have been observed drowning while trying to save others from drowning. Are you implying that they must worship a chimp god to have their basis of morality because they obvious do have some sense of morality. Human beings are just apes and morality is observed with other ape species and all throughout the animal kingdom.

Besides, morality cannot come from religion. Let's just pretend for a second that morality does come from religion (and let's use the Christian religion because as a kid I was forced to go to church about three times a week and I'm related to several pastors so it's the religion that I know most about). Then our laws would come directly from there. That means that we'd have to follow all of the laws in the Bible. Now let's see... The Bible says not to shave. Well our society is pretty much the opposite. Not shaving is seen as unnacceptable (especially in business and such). I used to have an extremely long beard, so I would know. In fact, as a teenager my parents forced me to shave (yet they're Christian?). The Bible also says to sell all of your possessions and spread the "good news." Who does that?

Now what does that mean if we claim to get our morality from a religion and then don't follow all of the rules? Well that means that we don't find all of the rules practical or necessary. So how do we choose which rules to follow? Well we cannot make that basis on the Bible obviously because then we'd follow all of the rules! That means that we must have to actually choose our morality based on another basis... that being secularism!

Quote:
The pope has killed people in the name of religion (he used his power and influence too start wars in the name of Christianity....) doesnt mean christianity did it...it was the pope using christianity, if a nicer pope existed in those times and emphisezed love and acceptance of all othet cultures, you really think there would be crusades? (religious not political ones).

I undestand no one is saying religion is the sole purpose but i havent either suggested it, all i said is that you cant blame a simple concept with the troubles people have caused....


also a lot of what religion or what people believe religion has done like crusades werent actually caused by religion it was all to do with politics, the king of such and such named the people of such and such heretics, so the pope agrees (gets paid a lot of money) bamf all christians consider those people heretics...

simple


money is evil, we should all trade.....




INDI I NEED YOU SAVE ME or PUNISH ME, do your will


I already covered the rest in my previous post...
liljp617
Bannik wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
Bannik wrote:
I swear people need too understand the differences between what religion does and what people do in the name of religion, they are very different things......

still no one has answered how religion in itself causes violence....you people need too get your heads out of your high and mighty arses and realize that you cant blame something like hate and war on religion


you all talk about how religion has done this and that......so has EVERYTHING else...
you think only religion does evil things...okay what about science

how many have died in the name of science (animal research, human testing, nuclear bombs, missiles, chemicals that kill etc etc) - who invented heroine...was it a religious monk or a scientist?

OIL - it was great when it first came out, now its slowly destroying us

how many have died in the name of politics (Nazi Germany was all about politics...look how much good they did, japan and china - heck there was no religious hate between them it was all politics)

so stop it guys....

prove too me religion by itself causes all those things you mentioned and not the actions of mankind, if anything hate mankind and not religion


Religion is responsible for what religion has done. That's the message most people here are promoting. Plain and simple. What you're doing is the so often wonderful job of trying to find a loophole to relieve religion of all the negatives things that it's responsible for (and it has plenty...take off the rose colored glasses).

I don't think anybody on these forums has said religion is the only aspect of mankind and society that leads to "evil" actions. Perhaps you could show some examples of people saying this? Religion is often the focal point of discussion.....because this is a religion & philosophy forum?


no what i am saying is not that everyone is blaming religion what i am saying is that RELIGION is not at fault by the actions of men.

like i said you cant blame what has been done in the name of religion soley on religion, its like blaming the war on Iraq on the whole of america, i.e americas existance caused the war.....thats stupid you cant do that. it was the action of a few in the name of AMERICA....simple

and no i am not trying too find a loophole, if there was one someone who knows more about religion would have mentioned it. all i am trying too do is show to you the difference between acts done in the name of religion and acts that religion has done..

RELIGION has by itself has given us LAWS (back in the old days there was no means as too show authority, no one would care about the laws what people wanted too do why should they, if I stole and escaped wha twould happen to me, nothing but when religion came along it gave them an excuse too fallow certain laws, some were benefitial some werent, because if they didnt god would knock em out now in modern times sure religion is not needed for laws and morals but it did lay the fundations for laws and morals....)

The pope has killed people in the name of religion (he used his power and influence too start wars in the name of Christianity....) doesnt mean christianity did it...it was the pope using christianity, if a nicer pope existed in those times and emphisezed love and acceptance of all othet cultures, you really think there would be crusades? (religious not political ones).

I undestand no one is saying religion is the sole purpose but i havent either suggested it, all i said is that you cant blame a simple concept with the troubles people have caused....


also a lot of what religion or what people believe religion has done like crusades werent actually caused by religion it was all to do with politics, the king of such and such named the people of such and such heretics, so the pope agrees (gets paid a lot of money) bamf all christians consider those people heretics...

simple


money is evil, we should all trade.....




INDI I NEED YOU SAVE ME or PUNISH ME, do your will



Well frankly you're not doing such a great job of showing the difference between in the name of religion and by religion. Religion, just by being what it is, DOES promote ignorance and often promotes intolerance and bigotry. Religion, just by being what it is, DOES give some people the motivation, the justification, and sometimes the sole reasoning to commit heinous actions.

As was discussed above, there are numerous qualities of mankind that do these things (greed, prejudice, corruption, etc.). But few people defend those qualities and they're almost always portrayed in a negative light among society. They're deemed "bad" qualities to have in society the vast majority of the time. Are you promoting the idea that we shouldn't show disdain towards greed, prejudice, and corruption, but should rather show disdain toward mankind as a whole (this is what you promoted above with regards to religion)?

I don't really even see the difference between "in the name of" and "by" religion. Both include religion and religion is often the catalyst and used as the justification in both cases. What's the difference? Why shouldn't something that has been used time after time after time throughout history to justify brutality and motivate others to carry out violent actions be held responsible at all? Regardless of whether or not it was done "in the name of" or "by" religion (which seem pretty much one in the same to me).


On to other things...

The foundations of laws and morals were pretty well handled by Mother Nature. Religion is not the foundation. I can't believe people are still arguing this =/ I don't really even have the patience to deal with it again. Countless threads on these forums have discussed the subject/claim in depth...no need to repeat.

Your example of the Pope using Christianity to motivate people to go to war or justify aggressive actions just kind of blows my mind. You're saying that the Pope utilized religion as the sole method to motivate people and to get people to go to war with him, but that religion has ZERO responsibility in that? How does that work? How is Christianity, in that instance, completely relieved of ALL responsibility? Do you think the Pope would have been capable or even remotely as successful in deluding enough people to fight over a piece of land if he hadn't used the excuse of it being some divine land given by God?

Do you think nearly as many people would be strapping bombs on themselves and blowing up in a marketplace if they weren't deluded into thinking they'd have dozens of virgins and immediate salvation with their heavenly father? Is religion not responsible at all for these suicide bombings? How? It gives them reasoning, it gives them justification, it gives them motivation to carry out these actions. But religion has nothing to do with it?

I'm just baffled. I can't wrap my head around the idea that something can be a root motivator and justification for people's actions, but that root motivator and justification bears zero responsibility.
deanhills
Bannik wrote:

no what i am saying is not that everyone is blaming religion what i am saying is that RELIGION is not at fault by the actions of men.
I agree with this completely. Was it Roeder who murdered Tiller, or was it anti-abortion? Is it a gun that kills, or the person who pulls the trigger? Men would likely use religion as a prop in order to justify killing. If religion does not work for them, they will find something else to justify their actions.

I also like Icecool's point of view. That is very true:
Quote:
icecool wrote:
you guys treat "religion" like some conscious, independent living thing thats is able to "do" things.

surely religion is a concept. it's a name given to something - whatever you wanna put into it.

but it's NOT a force from within.

it's the PEOPLE who invented it.
it's the PEOPLE who use it - and yes also abuse it.
it's the PEOPLE who DO things in the name of religion.

and people do good or bad things.

in the NAME not only of reliigion but other concepts as well - national security, profit, ego, greed, racism, science - lots of different excuses are used by PEOPLE to justify their actions.

"religion" as a concept has one advantage over most others when it comes to justifying whatever people do - be they good or bad. there is the final get-out clause of NOT having to explain things like motives or reasons by referring the questioner to whichever GOD they claim to serve.

now THAT is unique and a rather clever thing.
it's also the ultimate cowards way of justifying any atrocities to serve their own porposes.

for me THAT is the most dangerous aspect of religion.
deanhills
liljp617 wrote:
I know this is kind of off topic from your post. I just hear the argument sometimes that "secular motives" (greed, corruption, etc.), if you wish to call them that, are just as responsible as religion for war and murder throughout history. I agree. But as I said above, people do not promote greed, corruption, etc., and people do actively promote religion. People do not defend greed, corruption, etc., and they do defend religion. If something is so often a root cause or encouragement of war and the like, why is it still promoted? All the other things that are often associated with causing war are seen in a negative light. Religion is still on a pedestal.
Greed and corruption are personal qualities of people that get promoted indirectly. For example, one could argue that the system of capitalism with heavy competition to earn big bucks thrive on greed and corruption, they seem to be bed fellows. It is usually very greedy people who make it to the top. Perhaps one can argue in that way that greed and corruption are more actively promoted in the negative sense by the system we are living in. Religion may be a cover up for those who are greedy and corrupt and who use it as a means to an end.
Bannik
deanhills - I love you man, i should really stop posting when i get so high...
deanhills
Bannik wrote:
deanhills - I love you man, i should really stop posting when i get so high...
Thanks for the compliment man. I can however only think you must have been on a super high ...... hope you enjoyed the high ... Laughing
Afaceinthematrix
deanhills wrote:
Bannik wrote:
deanhills - I love you man, i should really stop posting when i get so high...
Thanks for the compliment man. I can however only think you must have been on a super high ...... hope you enjoyed the high ... :lol:


I wouldn't take that as a complement when it comes from someone who keeps insisting that everyone is wrong, and when they make their points he just comes out and says "I love Deanhills" and then says that he's high instead of responding, or at least acknowledging, their points.
Bannik
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Bannik wrote:
deanhills - I love you man, i should really stop posting when i get so high...
Thanks for the compliment man. I can however only think you must have been on a super high ...... hope you enjoyed the high ... Laughing


I wouldn't take that as a complement when it comes from someone who keeps insisting that everyone is wrong, and when they make their points he just comes out and says "I love Deanhills" and then says that he's high instead of responding, or at least acknowledging, their points.



you make your points.....mate seriously

lets look at your previous post


Quote:

Anyways... You first start off by criticizing science in how it has also caused violence and bad things yet you're using a computer which was created by science. As a matter of fact, we all rape the hard work of geniuses that have come before us on a daily basis. For you to truly criticize science, you would have to give up everything that you use everyday to make your life better.


OMG you stupid...thats not even a good point, all you did here is attack me...you didnt disprove that sicence hasnt caused bad things all you said is "well if it does why are you using it?" like a bloody five year old..

if you think science is all pure and amazing then you should go back in time and have a chat with ZE GERMAN NAZIs who performed human experiments because they claimed "it would help science"

now fallowing your logic with religion (if someone does something bad and is religios then its religions fault)(yes thats exactly how you think) then science is just as bad.....

when a scientist designs a missle he isnt designing it too save live...its full purpose is too kill.

Quote:


Science alone hasn't caused violence. Science pursues knowledge. Besides, science has made all of our lives better while religion is useless and has done nothing but make many people lives worse... I already explained that religion is pretty damn useless.


OMG but religion has...so religion for some magical reason ALONE caused grief and violence but science doesnt? why, science has done some horrible things my friend.....

I like how you are ignoring everything you said about religion and how the actions of religios men is the actions of religion itself and yet the actions of scientist is not the action of science...great logic...



Quote:
Since you're having a problem accepting that religion has caused problems, I'll help you out. You claimed that nobody has every successfully answered how religion has caused violence. I honestly didn't think I needed to do that. I thought it was pretty obvious... But here it goes.

I'll first start off by providing a link to an article where someone explains very well how religion causes violence (that way if you don't like my explanation, you can read another)...

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/christian/blfaq_viol_index.htm


Dr. Josef Mengele - google him...he did amazing things in the name of science...

Quote:
Religion causes violence directly by the religious text. I'm going to use Christianity as an example because I'm against Christianity even more than any other religion.


but you cant just use christianity as an example since we are talking about RELIGION as a whole, the concept of it....you are basically saying

"no difference in religion, all relgion is the same" buddhism, islam, bahai, shamans etc all the same....no mate they arent you cant do that.....sure there are some pretty stupid ideas and laws in certain religions....but you cant just keep pointing out the stupidity of 1 religion and claim it justifys the hate of all religions.
deanhills
Reminds me of that movie "Fat Man and the Little Boy" with Paul Newman when they were making the Nuclear Bomb for destroying Japan. The result was quite violent, devastating, destructive, lethal, awful, and definitely can't be blamed on religion. The guys involved were scientists.

Quite a number of equivalent scientists were involved in the design of lethal missiles and bombs in Germany that were dished out over Europe, England, Africa, Far East .... and so on ....
Afaceinthematrix
Bannik wrote:
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Bannik wrote:
deanhills - I love you man, i should really stop posting when i get so high...
Thanks for the compliment man. I can however only think you must have been on a super high ...... hope you enjoyed the high ... :lol:


I wouldn't take that as a complement when it comes from someone who keeps insisting that everyone is wrong, and when they make their points he just comes out and says "I love Deanhills" and then says that he's high instead of responding, or at least acknowledging, their points.



you make your points.....mate seriously

lets look at your previous post


Quote:

Anyways... You first start off by criticizing science in how it has also caused violence and bad things yet you're using a computer which was created by science. As a matter of fact, we all rape the hard work of geniuses that have come before us on a daily basis. For you to truly criticize science, you would have to give up everything that you use everyday to make your life better.


OMG you stupid...thats not even a good point, all you did here is attack me...you didnt disprove that sicence hasnt caused bad things all you said is "well if it does why are you using it?" like a bloody five year old..

if you think science is all pure and amazing then you should go back in time and have a chat with ZE GERMAN NAZIs who performed human experiments because they claimed "it would help science"

now fallowing your logic with religion (if someone does something bad and is religios then its religions fault)(yes thats exactly how you think) then science is just as bad.....

when a scientist designs a missle he isnt designing it too save live...its full purpose is too kill.

Quote:


Science alone hasn't caused violence. Science pursues knowledge. Besides, science has made all of our lives better while religion is useless and has done nothing but make many people lives worse... I already explained that religion is pretty damn useless.


OMG but religion has...so religion for some magical reason ALONE caused grief and violence but science doesnt? why, science has done some horrible things my friend.....

I like how you are ignoring everything you said about religion and how the actions of religios men is the actions of religion itself and yet the actions of scientist is not the action of science...great logic...



Quote:
Since you're having a problem accepting that religion has caused problems, I'll help you out. You claimed that nobody has every successfully answered how religion has caused violence. I honestly didn't think I needed to do that. I thought it was pretty obvious... But here it goes.

I'll first start off by providing a link to an article where someone explains very well how religion causes violence (that way if you don't like my explanation, you can read another)...

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/christian/blfaq_viol_index.htm


Dr. Josef Mengele - google him...he did amazing things in the name of science...

Quote:
Religion causes violence directly by the religious text. I'm going to use Christianity as an example because I'm against Christianity even more than any other religion.


but you cant just use christianity as an example since we are talking about RELIGION as a whole, the concept of it....you are basically saying

"no difference in religion, all relgion is the same" buddhism, islam, bahai, shamans etc all the same....no mate they arent you cant do that.....sure there are some pretty stupid ideas and laws in certain religions....but you cant just keep pointing out the stupidity of 1 religion and claim it justifys the hate of all religions.



First off, why didn't you respond to the damn posts to begin with rather than just worshiping Indi and saying that you love Deanhills? It really slashes any of your credibility. The rest of your credibility is slashed by the jaw-dropping stupidity that you are displaying in your posts.

Second off, you keep arguing that religion hasn't caused violence which is simply laughable. I gave you examples. You criticized me for using Christianity for all religion - well I mentioned that I was using Christianity because that's a huge religion and it's the religion that I am most familiar with.

Third off, you keep blaming science and told me that I did nothing but attack you. I have not attacked you until this post (well actually the last post to Deanhills). Maybe if you actually read my entire posts you would understand what I am telling you. Religion HAS caused violence (as several people here have pointed out - and provided evidence for.) Some religions, like Christianity, actively have promoted violence and even encourage it in their holy books. How in the Hell can you argue that a religion has not caused violence when their own book encourages it? The fact of the matter is that if you endorse these religions then I think you're immoral. The fact of that matter is also that if you think science is bad, then you should not reap the benefits of it. I feel the same about people who are against stem cell research - they do not deserve the medical benefits that come from it.
deanhills
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Bannik wrote:
deanhills - I love you man, i should really stop posting when i get so high...
Thanks for the compliment man. I can however only think you must have been on a super high ...... hope you enjoyed the high ... Laughing


I wouldn't take that as a complement when it comes from someone who keeps insisting that everyone is wrong, and when they make their points he just comes out and says "I love Deanhills" and then says that he's high instead of responding, or at least acknowledging, their points.
It was said and meant in a light hearted way, on both sides. By the way you probably know there is a difference between compliment and complement. Wink
Bannik
Quote:


First off, why didn't you respond to the damn posts to begin with rather than just worshiping Indi and saying that you love Deanhills? It really slashes any of your credibility. The rest of your credibility is slashed by the jaw-dropping stupidity that you are displaying in your posts.


Yes you are right my credibility on the internet is no longer any good, I must do something, maybe give too charity.

Quote:


Second off, you keep arguing that religion hasn't caused violence which is simply laughable. I gave you examples. You criticized me for using Christianity for all religion - well I mentioned that I was using Christianity because that's a huge religion and it's the religion that I am most familiar with.



mate religion hastn done this, what made the violence were the specific religions.....you cannot blame a concept of relgion on the actions of some of its members....for example can you say the same thing about christianity as you would for lets say buddhism or Taoism - which are very peaceful.....
no i dont think you can, but you still place them in the same criteria.

remember i am an athiest...i dont believe in god but i do not blame religion as it does nothing wrong, the conept itself is not wrong or bad its the actual specifit relgion that do evil doings....

and those religions are made by MAN, that means that if someone wanted too make a peaceful religion it can happen EASILY, its those that abuse that cause the violence.

Quote:
Third off, you keep blaming science and told me that I did nothing but attack you. I have not attacked you until this post (well actually the last post to Deanhills). Maybe if you actually read my entire posts you would understand what I am telling you. Religion HAS caused violence (as several people here have pointed out - and provided evidence for.) Some religions, like Christianity, actively have promoted violence and even encourage it in their holy books. How in the Hell can you argue that a religion has not caused violence when their own book encourages it? The fact of the matter is that if you endorse these religions then I think you're immoral. The fact of that matter is also that if you think science is bad, then you should not reap the benefits of it. I feel the same about people who are against stem cell research - they do not deserve the medical benefits that come from it.


DID I say science is bad, remember i love too argue my whole being here is arguing, nothing more, IAM ATHIEST, i love science it makes sense, what i pointed out is not that science is wrong is that science can just as badly be blamed for violence, death etc that relgion can, so every time you say "religion has caused violence and death, its wrong and immoral" I can say "so has science"

and here http://listverse.com/2007/11/18/top-10-evil-scientists/

some historical and may be false some arent...but read up on all those scientist and what hey have done in the name of science...



LET ME MAKE THIS CLEAR THE CONCEPT OF RELIGON (THAT WHICH WE ARE DISCUSSING) IS NOT WRONG, THE ABUSE OF IT BY MAN HAS CAUSED VIOLENCE AND BLAH BLAH BLAH....



credibility....lol on the internet come one, no one cares....think about it...i could log off, create a new name and just agree with everything you are saying....for all you know I could be deanhills....( i am not, but you get my point)
Bikerman
Let us examine the main point here - some people are contending that religion is responsible for evil (let's use that blanket word for killing and other morally repugnant acts, even though I don't particularly like the word). Others (at least one other) is arguing that, by the same token, science is also responsible for evil.
OK - first point. How do we define 'religion' and 'science'?
Religion has several organised bodies which sometimes speak for that particular sect. Catholicism has the Pope and the Vatican hierarchy. Protestant denominations have various arrangements of their own (the C of E, for example, has the House of Bishops).
Some religions don't have such a controlling body (some varieties of Islam, for example).

Science has various organised bodies which sometimes speak for that particular sub-group of scientists, but no 'controlling' bodies which speak for a whole discipline. That is largely the nature of the enterprise - you cannot dictate what 'physicists' think or say in the same way that you can dictate what Catholics believe. One is a shifting, ever changing model, whereas the other is a dogma.

Now, it is indisputable that some religious bodies have committed great evil. (I refer any doubters to the Malleus Maleficarum to see exactly how evil some Popes have been).
Have scientific bodies been guilty of the same? I await examples.
Certainly individual scientists have done great evils (one can think of Mengele and his colleagues in WW2). To say that scientists at the Manhattan project were guilty of evil is a big stretch however. Certainly some of them thought long and hard afterwards - several of the key physicists later became strong supporters of nuclear disarmament.
I maintain that there is a rather big ethical distance between ordering your minions to arrest, torture and kill innocent women, and designing a devastating weapon to be placed at the disposal of the state. (That is not to say that the scientist is (or should be) divorced from the morality of the possible applications of his/her work - I take the view that they are very much ethically responsible. It IS to say that the morality of designing the nuclear bomb is far from a simple question in ethics).

As for the other main question - is religion inherently a bad thing - I think the answer is yes, but I'll save my reasoning for another posting.
Solon_Poledourus
Bannik wrote:
.for example can you say the same thing about christianity as you would for lets say buddhism or Taoism - which are very peaceful.....
*DEVILS ADVOCATE ALERT*
Siam was a Buddhist country with Buddhist Kings, who waged wars and even offered war elephants to Lincoln during our own Civil War.

Oh... and Sun Tzu was a Taoist.
Afaceinthematrix
Bannik: Have you ever heard that old question, "Do guns kill people or do people kill people?"

You seem to be missing the major point here. People may have used scientific discoveries to improve their killing techniques but science (by definition) does not and cannot endorse killing. Science is a structured (structured using the scientific method) pursuit of knowledge.

You are arguing that religion itself cannot kill people. The difference is that religion does endorse killing people.

There is a big difference. Science doesn't endorse killing; religion has/does endorse it.
Bannik
Quote:
Let us examine the main point here - some people are contending that religion is responsible for evil (let's use that blanket word for killing and other morally repugnant acts, even though I don't particularly like the word). Others (at least one other) is arguing that, by the same token, science is also responsible for evil.


Always alone in this world, the bannik seeks solitude in his obscene mind of overlapping insanity.

Quote:
OK - first point. How do we define 'religion' and 'science'?
Religion has several organised bodies which sometimes speak for that particular sect. Catholicism has the Pope and the Vatican hierarchy. Protestant denominations have various arrangements of their own (the C of E, for example, has the House of Bishops).
Some religions don't have such a controlling body (some varieties of Islam, for example).


You just made religion into an organization for organizations, I wan too ask you then, who speaks for all religion?
If they are several organized bodies who speak for their sect, who speaks for all of religion as it must have a common goal (apparently).

Everyone seems too want too place all of religion into a small tiny jar and say “yep ALL of you are bad”

Quote:
Science has various organised bodies which sometimes speak for that particular sub-group of scientists, but no 'controlling' bodies which speak for a whole discipline. That is largely the nature of the enterprise - you cannot dictate what 'physicists' think or say in the same way that you can dictate what Catholics believe. One is a shifting, ever changing model, whereas the other is a dogma.


Technically speaking science is a tool too acquire knowledge, its not a set of beliefs (yes I know a mistake on my part) but people understand what we mean by science but scientists are individual based they are not like you said dictated too do anything, what they do with what they know is their doing.

That contradicts religion as religion is an organized approach too spirituality, dealing with groups….

Now consider this if the actions of 1 scientist are his own fault why is it that the actions of the group who share a common belief are blamed on all those around them…

You are blaming the actions of certain individual groups on all of religion that is wrong.

Quote:

Now, it is indisputable that some religious bodies have committed great evil. (I refer any doubters to the Malleus Maleficarum to see exactly how evil some Popes have been).


That’s exactly what I mean…..RELIGIOUS BODIES groups of people with common ideals and beliefs have done evil acts, not religion…..RELIGION has not….

You are grouping then together as you would group the actions of 1 scientist too others….




Quote:
As for the other main question - is religion inherently a bad thing - I think the answer is yes, but I'll save my reasoning for another posting.


- yes make another thread i need your wisdom, it feeds me
Bannik
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
Bannik: Have you ever heard that old question, "Do guns kill people or do people kill people?"

You seem to be missing the major point here. People may have used scientific discoveries to improve their killing techniques but science (by definition) does not and cannot endorse killing. Science is a structured (structured using the scientific method) pursuit of knowledge.

You are arguing that religion itself cannot kill people. The difference is that religion does endorse killing people.

There is a big difference. Science doesn't endorse killing; religion has/does endorse it.


really? can I please meet this person who speaks on the behalf of EVERY religion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religions_and_spiritual_traditions
^^^ that is religion....


...and before you continue...yes science is the skill of acquiring knowledge

but religion is not a giant organization its basically an organized approach too spirituality.....its a tool used too get a better spiritual experience...



its kinda funny i was answering bikers post then you popped in....awesome but yes i know the mistake of science but i think we both understood what we meant by science...
Afaceinthematrix
Bannik wrote:
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
Bannik: Have you ever heard that old question, "Do guns kill people or do people kill people?"

You seem to be missing the major point here. People may have used scientific discoveries to improve their killing techniques but science (by definition) does not and cannot endorse killing. Science is a structured (structured using the scientific method) pursuit of knowledge.

You are arguing that religion itself cannot kill people. The difference is that religion does endorse killing people.

There is a big difference. Science doesn't endorse killing; religion has/does endorse it.


really? can I please meet this person who speaks on the behalf of EVERY religion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religions_and_spiritual_traditions
^^^ that is religion....


...and before you continue...yes science is the skill of acquiring knowledge

but religion is not a giant organization its basically an organized approach too spirituality.....its a tool used too get a better spiritual experience...



its kinda funny i was answering bikers post then you popped in....awesome but yes i know the mistake of science but i think we both understood what we meant by science...


What are you talking about? There isn't someone who speaks on the behalf of all religions. That doesn't change the fact that religion has endorsed violence while science has not.
gandalfthegrey
Zorf the prophet has brought the word of the Yungu aliens from the outer nebula of the Milky Way galaxy. The bring warnings about the survivability of our planet if we do not change our ways.

Zorf can be a dog. The aliens can look like Abba band members.
Bannik
Quote:
What are you talking about? There isn't someone who speaks on the behalf of all religions. That doesn't change the fact that religion has endorsed violence while science has not.


how can religion endorse violence when religion is not a single body of thought it is made up of hundreds of different beliefs and ideals.....religions are separate, the Buddhist and Baha'i are not the same, nor is a native American shaman etc....

religion is a concept - when you say "religion is endorsing violence" you claim ALL RELIGION ENDORSES VIOLENCE is that true, ALL RELIGION ENDORSES VIOLENCE..

sure science has not endorsed violence but actively seeking too make better guns and weapons etc is practically the same.


I understand what you are saying but here me out, religion is as said by wiki "A religion is an organized approach to human spirituality which usually encompasses a set of narratives, symbols, beliefs and practices, often with a supernatural or transcendent quality, that give meaning to the practitioner's experiences of life through reference to a higher power, God or gods, or ultimate truth."

does that cause violence, does having an organized approach too human spirituality cause violence?
liljp617
Bannik wrote:
Quote:
What are you talking about? There isn't someone who speaks on the behalf of all religions. That doesn't change the fact that religion has endorsed violence while science has not.


how can religion endorse violence when religion is not a single body of thought it is made up of hundreds of different beliefs and ideals.....religions are separate, the Buddhist and Baha'i are not the same, nor is a native American shaman etc....

religion is a concept - when you say "religion is endorsing violence" you claim ALL RELIGION ENDORSES VIOLENCE is that true, ALL RELIGION ENDORSES VIOLENCE..

sure science has not endorsed violence but actively seeking too make better guns and weapons etc is practically the same.


I understand what you are saying but here me out, religion is as said by wiki "A religion is an organized approach to human spirituality which usually encompasses a set of narratives, symbols, beliefs and practices, often with a supernatural or transcendent quality, that give meaning to the practitioner's experiences of life through reference to a higher power, God or gods, or ultimate truth."

does that cause violence, does having an organized approach too human spirituality cause violence?


Could you show me a legitimate religion that hasn't?
Solon_Poledourus
My take on it is this:

Religion instills a hierarchy. There is one person, or a council of people, at the top. They are generally considered to have a higher status than those beneath them. I have yet to hear about a religion that doesn't have some sort of hierarchical structure. And any system designed this way has a tendency towards corruption and conflict. This is due to some members having ambitions of attaining a higher status, and the general resistance to change or debate.

This is not true with science. There is no grand poo-bah of the scientific community, or any hierarchical structure. There are some scientists that are more famous than others, but they are not viewed as being inherently more connected to science or smarter than less well known members of the community. People of science also are willing to be proven wrong, and this happens quite often. The basis of science is the scientific method, which anyone can use. The scientific method itself is not destructive, it simply reveals facts by dismantling falsehoods through reasoned questioning and testing.

Both systems can be used for destructive purposes. Surely, science was used to create weapons. But science itself is benign in benign hands, and organized religion instills a social pecking order, an internal hierarchy, and creates states various spiritual/universal absolutes, all while being extremely resistant to change or reason or even questioning. All of these things cause conflict and corruption, and ultimately, violence.

I don't know if I would go so far as to say religion promotes violence, any more than I would say science promotes peace. Religion does, however, promote many things which invariably lead to conflict, corruption and violence. Science only promotes questioning, observation and testing.
deanhills
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
That doesn't change the fact that religion has endorsed violence while science has not.
I'm curious. In which specific instances has religion endorsed violence? Religion is not a live person, in the same way that science is not live. If the argument is that science cannot create violence as it is inanimate, then the same has to be said for religion. If violence is endorsed, then one can say that someone who is of a particular XYZ religion endorsed such and such violent acts in the name of such and such God or chapter and verse. Similarly, one can say that XYZ group used science to create an atomic bomb to kill a few hundred thousand people, maim quite a large number and create birth defects for more than a generation as a result.
Bikerman
Well, if you want specific examples where the leader of a religion has specifically incited murder then there are many, ranging from the Catholic Popes in the 11th, 12th, 13th...etc centuries to cults in the last century, and church leaders inciting murder in the present day - both Muslim and Christian.

Is it enough to say that Pope John XXII or Pope Innocent VIII were personally responsible for telling their followers to kill innocent women, and therefore the Catholic religion itself is blameless? I think not. In fact it cannot be so according to the Catholic's own doctrine. The Pope is the infallible head of the Church on matters of faith and he speaks for Catholicism as the 'Bishop of Rome'.

If the point is that SOME religions have committed atrocity, but not all, then that may be true - though it is interesting that nobody has yet responded to the challenge to name them. Even if that is true, however, then one simply needs to re-word the assertion:
Many/most organised religions have been, and are, responsible for atrocity.
Solon_Poledourus
I'm pretty sure the Brahman sect of Hinduism hasn't incited or endorsed violence.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
Well, if you want specific examples where the leader of a religion has specifically incited murder then there are many, ranging from the Catholic Popes in the 11th, 12th, 13th...etc centuries to cults in the last century, and church leaders inciting murder in the present day - both Muslim and Christian.
You've said it, it was the leader, not the religion who incited murder. Similarly it was the US Government, not science who attacked Japan with nuclear bombs.
Bikerman
Solon_Poledourus wrote:
I'm pretty sure the Brahman sect of Hinduism hasn't incited or endorsed violence.

Sure about that?
http://rupeenews.com/2008/02/03/why-did-buddhism-disappear-from-the-south-asian-subcontinent-summary-of-brahmin-atrocities-that-destroyed-buddhism-in-the-subcontinent/
Solon_Poledourus
Bikerman wrote:
Sure about that?
Actually no. It was just a guess.
Afaceinthematrix
deanhills wrote:
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
That doesn't change the fact that religion has endorsed violence while science has not.
I'm curious. In which specific instances has religion endorsed violence? Religion is not a live person, in the same way that science is not live. If the argument is that science cannot create violence as it is inanimate, then the same has to be said for religion. If violence is endorsed, then one can say that someone who is of a particular XYZ religion endorsed such and such violent acts in the name of such and such God or chapter and verse. Similarly, one can say that XYZ group used science to create an atomic bomb to kill a few hundred thousand people, maim quite a large number and create birth defects for more than a generation as a result.


Bikerman named many cases where actual religious leaders have used their religion to endorse violence. If you want another case, just think about the Christian religion in general. God wiped out the world in a giant flood, God murdered the first born child of every Egyptian, God ruthlessly murdered Lot's wife, God destroyed Soddam and Gammorrah, etc.... That religion in particular is pretty much based off of violence (of course I always hear Christians arguing that you cannot have morality without their religion).
truespeed
I am with bannik on this one,yes the bible is full of violence,and yes the Christian God is a **** ,but bannik isn't talking about Christianity,hes talking about religion in general.

I think there is too much focus on Christianity and using that to make the point that religion promotes violence.

What about other religions,does Scientology for instance promote violence? (If it does then this is a bad example)

The point being that,if a religion based on love and peace,that has a book, (unlike the bible) that promotes only love and peace,how can that particular religion promote violence or be blamed for violence in the name of it?
Afaceinthematrix
truespeed wrote:
I am with bannik on this one,yes the bible is full of violence,and yes the Christian God is a **** ,but bannik isn't talking about Christianity,hes talking about religion in general.

I think there is too much focus on Christianity and using that to make the point that religion promotes violence.

What about other religions,does Scientology for instance promote violence? (If it does then this is a bad example)

The point being that,if a religion based on love and peace,that has a book, (unlike the bible) that promotes only love and peace,how can that particular religion promote violence or be blamed for violence in the name of it?


I keep using Christianity as an example because I am most familiar with it. But the same holds true for many religions. Nobody has yet brought up any good examples of a religion that has never had violence associated with it (Scientology has had some violence associated with it - yet it's very little because the religion is relatively new and relatively small).

And it makes a lot of sense that religions would be associated with violence considering a religion pretty much brainwashes people and allows them to be easily influenced and controlled. What's more evil than that?
liljp617
deanhills wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
Well, if you want specific examples where the leader of a religion has specifically incited murder then there are many, ranging from the Catholic Popes in the 11th, 12th, 13th...etc centuries to cults in the last century, and church leaders inciting murder in the present day - both Muslim and Christian.
You've said it, it was the leader, not the religion who incited murder. Similarly it was the US Government, not science who attacked Japan with nuclear bombs.


The US government and field of science are two very different "entities" however. The US government is not deemed the infallible "spokesperson" of science. The US government does not represent every single field of science, or any field of science really. But the Pope is deemed the infallible "spokesperson" of Catholicism. The Pope represents every facet of the Catholic religion. Bikerman pointed this out and explained how, if a Pope in this instance, endorses or orders something (violence here) in the name of Catholicism, that it makes no sense to completely rid Catholicism itself of all responsibility:

Quote:
Is it enough to say that Pope John XXII or Pope Innocent VIII were personally responsible for telling their followers to kill innocent women, and therefore the Catholic religion itself is blameless? I think not. In fact it cannot be so according to the Catholic's own doctrine. The Pope is the infallible head of the Church on matters of faith and he speaks for Catholicism as the 'Bishop of Rome'.



I don't believe the comparison to be completely legitimate.
liljp617
truespeed wrote:
I am with bannik on this one,yes the bible is full of violence,and yes the Christian God is a **** ,but bannik isn't talking about Christianity,hes talking about religion in general.

I think there is too much focus on Christianity and using that to make the point that religion promotes violence.

What about other religions,does Scientology for instance promote violence? (If it does then this is a bad example)

The point being that,if a religion based on love and peace,that has a book, (unlike the bible) that promotes only love and peace,how can that particular religion promote violence or be blamed for violence in the name of it?


This isn't just about violence. I think that's an important detail to make note of. Although they can speak for themselves, I would assume the people in this thread who have stated they're opposed to the concept of religion itself are doing so for more reasons than just thinking religion is an unnecessary concept that promotes some violence.

For me personally, there's more to it than that. To be very vague, I sincerely think the concept of religion promotes the idea that ignorance is okay, so long as [insert god(s)] is on your side. I do think it's very dangerous in more ways than one to latch onto thousands of year old traditions that have no place in modern society. I think it is arrogant to believe humans are special enough to have an entire universe centered on them, and I think such a level of arrogance leads to negative things in society, be they small or large. I could go on, but I don't think it's needed.

To the rest of your post, Scientology has it's fair share of violence on its hands, and it is basically a brand new religion. So yes, I do believe Scientology is responsible for some violence and I'm almost certain in the future it will be a cause for more violence. A quick Google of "Scientology violence" brings up enough information. There's also more to it than that...the things mentioned above are as much a reason to be opposed to the concept of religion as violence. And Scientology definitely exhibits the negative qualities outlined above.

In response to your last paragraph, I'll ask the same thing I did above: Can you find me one, past or present? Even if you can find just one, as was said, the wording needs a slight change to say, "The vast majority of religions have/do promote some level of violence." Even then, if 99/100 religions were deemed to have endorsed or promoted violence, do you think it's wise to still support the entire concept of religion itself? I personally don't.
Solon_Poledourus
I'm pretty sure that if any major secular organization were as responsible for as much violence, bigotry, oppression, etc. as any given religion, it would be shut down with a quickness.
Bannik
liljp617 wrote:
Bannik wrote:
Quote:
What are you talking about? There isn't someone who speaks on the behalf of all religions. That doesn't change the fact that religion has endorsed violence while science has not.


how can religion endorse violence when religion is not a single body of thought it is made up of hundreds of different beliefs and ideals.....religions are separate, the Buddhist and Baha'i are not the same, nor is a native American shaman etc....

religion is a concept - when you say "religion is endorsing violence" you claim ALL RELIGION ENDORSES VIOLENCE is that true, ALL RELIGION ENDORSES VIOLENCE..

sure science has not endorsed violence but actively seeking too make better guns and weapons etc is practically the same.


I understand what you are saying but here me out, religion is as said by wiki "A religion is an organized approach to human spirituality which usually encompasses a set of narratives, symbols, beliefs and practices, often with a supernatural or transcendent quality, that give meaning to the practitioner's experiences of life through reference to a higher power, God or gods, or ultimate truth."

does that cause violence, does having an organized approach too human spirituality cause violence?


Could you show me a legitimate religion that hasn't?


BAHAI faith
Unitarian Universalism

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

and have a loot at all those traditions and sects....I havent read through all but i am sure there are more...

also IS it possible too make a peaceful religion that contains no violence?
Bikerman
So, I return to my previous formulation of the statement;
"Most religions are/have been responsible for significant atrocities."

The attempted defence that it isn't the fault of the religion - only the followers and leadership - seems very weak indeed to me.

In fact I think religion is a bad thing, not actually because of this (though this could be said to result from my main objection).
The reason I think religion is a bad thing is because it encourages 'faith' - in fact it relies on faith. One can define faith as 'belief without, or in spite of, evidence'. It is not amenable to persuasion by the evidence. That, to my mind, leads to all sorts of problems - including, but not limited to, fundamentalism - in fact you could say that the person who follows their scriptural teachings the most 'accurately' is, by definition, a fundamentalist. Most religious people get around this by conveniently forgetting, or ignoring, many of the central tenets of their faith. Thus Italy, despite being overwhelmingly Catholic, has one of the lowest birth rates in the world - in spite of the Catholic position on birth control.
People tend to be more pragmatic than their faith would teach them to be - for which I am very thankful.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
The reason I think religion is a bad thing is because it encourages 'faith' - in fact it relies on faith. One can define faith as 'belief without, or in spite of, evidence'. It is not amenable to persuasion by the evidence. That, to my mind, leads to all sorts of problems - including, but not limited to, fundamentalism - in fact you could say that the person who follows their scriptural teachings the most 'accurately' is, by definition, a fundamentalist. Most religious people get around this by conveniently forgetting, or ignoring, many of the central tenets of their faith. Thus Italy, despite being overwhelmingly Catholic, has one of the lowest birth rates in the world - in spite of the Catholic position on birth control.
People tend to be more pragmatic than their faith would teach them to be - for which I am very thankful.
I would say that perhaps you have faith in science being the only way to test truth. There is no evidence that science has all the answers, but you still believe in science? There has to be a certain amount of faith in that?

For me if one takes faith away from a person, there is very little left. Faith is what keeps one sane. If you have no faith, what's the use of living? One has to be able to believe in something. Such in your case belief that religion is a bad thing. Belief that only science can have the answers. Belief that the sun will come up tomorrow.
Quote:
Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
The reason I think religion is a bad thing is because it encourages 'faith' - in fact it relies on faith. One can define faith as 'belief without, or in spite of, evidence'. It is not amenable to persuasion by the evidence. That, to my mind, leads to all sorts of problems - including, but not limited to, fundamentalism - in fact you could say that the person who follows their scriptural teachings the most 'accurately' is, by definition, a fundamentalist. Most religious people get around this by conveniently forgetting, or ignoring, many of the central tenets of their faith. Thus Italy, despite being overwhelmingly Catholic, has one of the lowest birth rates in the world - in spite of the Catholic position on birth control.
People tend to be more pragmatic than their faith would teach them to be - for which I am very thankful.
I would say that perhaps you have faith in science being the only way to test truth. There is no evidence that science has all the answers, but you still believe in science? There has to be a certain amount of faith in that?
I don't have 'faith' in that - I have simply seen no evidence that any other system of thought can do any better. If someone can demonstrate to me another way of 'looking at things' which gives models (or, hopefully, a single model) that explains my perceptions, can be tested to make sure it is not a personal delusion, and is logical (or at least self-consistent) then I'll be happy to consider it. In fact we have two such systems - philosophy and science. Let's say science deals with the observable universe, and philosophy deals with the stuff in our heads. Massive oversimplification, of course, but useful I think.
Now, religion claims to deal with both (and more) but the evidence of its utility as a system for either is rather negative. It has some useful things to say on the latter (the stuff in our heads) but nothing that philosophy hasn't already considered. Theology is simply philosophy without the rigour.
Quote:
For me if one takes faith away from a person, there is very little left. Faith is what keeps one sane. If you have no faith, what's the use of living? One has to be able to believe in something. Such in your case belief that religion is a bad thing. Belief that only science can have the answers. Belief that the sun will come up tomorrow.
Quote:
Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true.

I distinguish between faith and belief. Belief can be based on sound logical principles or sound evidence. I have lots of beliefs - most, not all, based on some logical or evidential basis.

Faith, however, can be 'in spite of' the evidence, not just 'without evidence'. That is the particular definition I am homing in on, and the one which I believe is NEVER a good thing.

Now - we could have a semantic debate about the meaning of the terms 'faith' and 'belief' if you like, but I suspect it would get nowhere...
Solon_Poledourus
Belief - Sitting in a new chair and believing it will not collapse under your weight, based on other chairs you have sat in.

Faith - Never having sat in a chair before, and believing the same thing as above, based on nothing at all.

I have lots of beliefs, most are based upon personal experience, or others' experiences, or information gleaned in other ways. Faith, on the other hand, I have none of.
JessieF
I am pretty sure religions are made up almost every day. You remind me of when I was starting my own. I think I'll go through with it, just for fun. Smile
deanhills
JessieF wrote:
I am pretty sure religions are made up almost every day. You remind me of when I was starting my own. I think I'll go through with it, just for fun. Smile
I can't agree that religions can just be made up in the way you are describing. Richard Dawkins' has a memes theory, which makes greater sense for me. The memes get passed on and evolve from generation to generation. If you should make up a religion, it would be looked upon as "made-up". But if you are chanelled into religion and re-create that which is already there, such as happened over the centuries, perhaps that is different. If you should make up a new religion today, it will be looked upon as a "cult" or "made up".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme
This is a quote from the Wikipedia article:
Quote:
Although evolutionists had previously sought to understand and explain religion in terms of a cultural attribute which might conceivably confer biological advantages to its adherents, Richard Dawkins called for a re-analysis of religion in terms of the evolution of self-replicating ideas apart from any resulting biological advantages they might bestow. He argued that the role of key replicator in cultural evolution belongs not to genes, but to memes replicating thought from person to person by means of imitation. These replicators respond to selective pressures that may or may not affect biological reproduction or survival.
In her book, The Meme Machine, Susan Blackmore regards religions as particularly tenacious memes. Many of the features common to the most widely practiced religions provide built-in advantages in an evolutionary context, she writes. For example, religions that preach of the value of faith-based belief over evidence from everyday experience or reason inoculate societies against many of the most basic tools people commonly use to evaluate their ideas. By linking altruism with religious affiliation, religious memes can proliferate more quickly because people perceive that they can reap societal as well as personal rewards. The longevity of religious memes improves with their documentation in revered religious texts.

Aaron Lynch attributed the robustness of religious memes in human culture to the fact that they incorporate multiple modes of meme transmission. Religious memes pass down the generations from parent to child and across a single generation through proselytism. Most will hold the religion taught them by their parents throughout their life. Many religions feature adversarial elements, punishing apostasy, for instance, or demonizing infidels. In Thought Contagion Lynch identifies the memes of transmission in Christianity as especially powerful in scope. Believers view the conversion of non-believers both as a religious duty and as an act of altruism. The promise of eternity in heaven to believers or hell to non-believers provides a strong incentive to accept and retain Christian faith. Lynch asserts that belief in the crucifixion in Christianity amplifies each of its other replication advantages through the indebtedness believers have to their Savior for sacrifice on the cross. The image of the crucifixion recurs in religious sacraments, and the proliferation of symbols of the cross (itself a meme) in homes and churches potently reinforces the wide array of Christian memes.

ujjwalshrestha
When we needed some way to be in delusion, that's when the religion was created.
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
JessieF wrote:
I am pretty sure religions are made up almost every day. You remind me of when I was starting my own. I think I'll go through with it, just for fun. Smile
I can't agree that religions can just be made up in the way you are describing. Richard Dawkins' has a memes theory, which makes greater sense for me. The memes get passed on and evolve from generation to generation. If you should make up a religion, it would be looked upon as "made-up". But if you are chanelled into religion and re-create that which is already there, such as happened over the centuries, perhaps that is different. If you should make up a new religion today, it will be looked upon as a "cult" or "made up".
Of course religions can be made up. It isn't a matter of debate since we have observational evidence which puts the matter beyond doubt.
Examples?
Name...........................Founder........................Year founded
Mormonism...................Joseph Smith.................1820-3
Christian Scientists.......Mary Baker Eddie..........1876
Sikhism.........................Guru Nanak Dev............15th Century
..
Christianity (Roman).......Paul of Tarsus...............about 40CE

Wiki has a fairly good list of religions, founders and dates below
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_new_religious_movements

Quote:
But if you are chanelled into religion and re-create that which is already there, such as happened over the centuries, perhaps that is different.
But all religions have a 'creation' date. Sure, you can argue about specific events/dates, but we can put fairly precise time constraints on the creation of most religions. Thus we KNOW that the Pauline sect of Christianity (which went on to become the main body) was created sometime after 10 CE and sometime before about 50CE. Likewise, Islam was created sometime in the 7th Century.
deanhills
Wow - that was a LONG time ago! 2009. And I agree. I was wrong. Religions can be made up. Think Ocalhoun proved that too when he described his own religion in progress in his thread below. Wonder how it is progressing:
Symphonism. My religion-in-progress.
Indi
Bikerman wrote:
Examples?
Name...........................Founder........................Year founded
Mormonism...................Joseph Smith.................1820-3
Christian Scientists.......Mary Baker Eddie..........1876
Sikhism.........................Guru Nanak Dev............15th Century
..
Christianity (Roman).......Paul of Tarsus...............about 40CE

i get why you didn't list religions like Scientology or Raëlism - people would dismiss them prejudicially as cults rather than religions, even though there's no real difference. But if you wanted to list a really young religion, you should go with Falun Gong (early 1990s)...

... then just dare someone to say they're not a religion.
Bikerman
Ah hell yes, why didn't I think of that one I wonder?
Actually I keep meaning to read more on Falun Gong - I've only got a very sketchy notion of it from various media sources and never quite got round to doing some proper reading. As far as I can tell it seems to be a mix of Buddhism (same basic objective - to escape the cycle of rebirthand Taoism (using the concept of Tao/Dharma but not sticking the moral overlay on it like the Confuscionists, and much more materialist than most Buddhist sects - or at least much more concerned with the material world and how to live in it).
Indi
Meh, honestly, i don't know much about it either. From what i learned of it firsthand, it strikes me as plain old Buddhism with hint of newage. The only new features, really, are the t'ai chi posing and the explicit embracing of Chinese folk medicine. That, and they have a Chopra-esque way of talking about their beliefs: using lots of sciency-sounding analogies, then making the leap from analogy to fact.

i don't know if i'd characterize them as more materialistic than the standard Buddhist schools. i know what you're talking about when you say that, but it's not quite like that. i'd say their dharma is about connecting - their journey to enlightenment is a group operation, not a private one as it would be for a Buddhist (where the peak of game is the hermit monk). That's why they like to do their t'ai chi dance in big crowds. i wouldn't say they're more interested in the material world, because they're actually expressly forbidden from getting involved in politics and such. Like, Falun Gong people are not supposed to care about climate change, eliminating poverty or providing universal health care. They're only interested in the material world insofar as their beliefs say they have to network to build up their karma score - otherwise it's not really that different from the standard Buddhist tropes.

i'd also say they're very much about a moral aspect to the dharma. Falun Gong to standard Buddhism is like Rasta to standard Judaism (including Christianity): it's the same stuff, really, but made stricter with the details. It's just as moralistic as the source material, but big on making a loud display of your superior morality: no drinking, smoking, killing animals and so on.

Honestly, i don't know all that much because i kinda tuned out when i realized it was the same old shit. They're anti-science (they peddle herbal medicine and crap like that), they're anti-sex (no fornication), they're anti-doing-any-real-good-for-the-world (they think they're better than it all), and they cast judgment on everyone else (they rag on standard Buddhists for straying from the original teachings, and they're anti-homosexual). It's the same crap as your standard religions, only now with slow motion group dancing and acupuncture. And swastikas, too, which always amuses me; gotta love the double takes their logos get in Western countries:
Hello_World
There are cults that have been around since old times too, age doesn't always seem to turn a cult into a religion...

see Exlusive Bretheren 1848 still a cult.

@Indi I always wondered about them too. Thanks.
ocalhoun
Indi wrote:
And swastikas, too, which always amuses me; gotta love the double takes their logos get in Western countries:

I, for one, think it's nice that the swastika is being reclaimed for its original purpose and meaning.

Sure, it'll be awkward for a while, but I think it would be spiffy if in 50 or 100 years, people stopped immediately thinking 'Nazi' when they see a swastika.
Bikerman
Nice summary Indi. Yes, , the latter part sums-up why I couldn't be a buddhist even though it has some parts that seem valid. Of all the 'faiths' Zen is the only one that gave me slight pause. I wouldn't say it was ever a case of 'that might be for me' - more a case of 'hmm, this is not obviously nonsense, I should read more'. Then, of course, when one does read more, one finds the nonsense is still there, it is just better hidden Smile
Indi
Hello_World wrote:
There are cults that have been around since old times too, age doesn't always seem to turn a cult into a religion...

see Exlusive Bretheren 1848 still a cult.

Yeah, well, technically it's not actually age that determines whether a religion is considered a cult or not, but rather mainstream cultural opinion. It just so happens that most religions take a while for the mainstream to warm up to them. A few get picked up really quickly - like Falun Gong. And a few never really break into the mainstream - like those Exclusive Brethren freaks. (Full disclosure, i have a personal beef with them, that actually runs in the family. While i was growing up, we harboured people who left the group and lost everything - like... everything... home, job, families... kids(!) - and roused the active ire of the bastards in charge. Oh, hey, that's at least two religious groups that have a personal hate on for me - them and the fundamentalist Muslims for drawing Muhammad. i should be keeping score.)

Hello_World wrote:
@Indi I always wondered about them too. Thanks.

Bikerman wrote:
Nice summary Indi. Yes, , the latter part sums-up why I couldn't be a buddhist even though it has some parts that seem valid. Of all the 'faiths' Zen is the only one that gave me slight pause. I wouldn't say it was ever a case of 'that might be for me' - more a case of 'hmm, this is not obviously nonsense, I should read more'. Then, of course, when one does read more, one finds the nonsense is still there, it is just better hidden Smile

Well, now, more full disclosure. ^_^; i'm no expert on the subject. A few years back, there was a series of presentations being run by my city on religions. Every week in the library they would have representatives from some religion or another come and give a presentation on what that religion is about. It was a multicultural awareness-raising thing. i went to a whole bunch of them, like Scientology and Raëlism and... Falun Gong.

Their presentation was mostly a waste of time (not to pick on Falun Gong personally - most of the presentations were pretty fatuous); about 2/3 of it was just about the persecution, not the religion itself. But after the presentations, the presenters would generally hang back and mingle with the participants, and chat, and that's where you could score the most info. Naturally, most of my questions were about doctrinal issues... and tolerance. You can see that reflected in what i mentioned above.

Anyway, that's about the limit of my experience with Falun Gong, other than rubbing shoulders with anti-persecution activists who may or may not be Falun Gong (i never asked nor cared).

ocalhoun wrote:
Indi wrote:
And swastikas, too, which always amuses me; gotta love the double takes their logos get in Western countries:

I, for one, think it's nice that the swastika is being reclaimed for its original purpose and meaning.

Sure, it'll be awkward for a while, but I think it would be spiffy if in 50 or 100 years, people stopped immediately thinking 'Nazi' when they see a swastika.

Oh it has never lost its original meaning... in Asia. It's only Western countries where people lose their shit over it. i always roll my eyes at the hysterical panic that breaks out when something from Asia comes over with swastikas on it, like clothing or symbols on toys or cartoon characters. For example, here is a character from a series called 幽☆遊☆白書 (Yu Yu Hakusho, which translates as "Poltergeist Report", but everyone just calls it Yu Yu Hakusho). He's a Buddhist warrior monk who fights the main character, but in a tournament; he's not actually a bad guy. And there's another famous example, from a very popular series called Bleach. When the main character unlocks his super-special-highest-level-awesome power... it looks like this. (Although, technically that's not a Nazi swastika, because it's facing the other way. It's also not really a swastika, but rather the Chinese/Japanese character 卍 (ban or man), from 卍解 (bankai) - the name of the super-special-highest-level-awesome power being released in the image. 解 (kai) means "the solution of an equation", so 卍解 (bankai) means something like... "shakti solution" or "the result when everything is unified and liberated (or enlightened in the Buddhist sense)". In other words, the implication is that releasing this super-special-highest-level-awesome power means the character has achieved nirvana (or anagami, the stage just before - i'm not sure of the details).)

So don't worry about it losing its original meaning - where it matters, in predominantly Buddhist and Hindu countries, they still use it as they always did. It's only in Western cultures where it stirs such wild emotions. Which, of course, provides me with endless amusement when the cultures clash.
loremar
The swastika symbol is called manji in japanese. Neji from Naruto also has it on his forehead.
medesignz
Hitler got his moustache because he was a fan of chaplin
briankid
many religions are being created nowaday but i don't think i can cos creating a new religion means worshipping something new entire apart from allah [i'm a muslim] and it mean i'm kafir [unbeliever] and u know what it means. i value my hereafter much
medesignz
There is an internet cult called Freedomain Radio... How insane is that?

Has anyone had any dealings with FDR?
Related topics
Any pagans in here?
science vs. religion
Evolution, the religion
Is there only ONE God?
A debate of religion, science, and more
Does being pro-war contrast w/ religion (e.g. Christianity)?
If everyone was the same race, and there was no religion,
Can I say I am a (please enter the religion you wish)?
why did "god" create "satan"
Germany to Ban Scientology??
Was Jesus just an inspired person?
Does God discriminate based on religion
Why does God permit sin?
Who created God?
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Philosophy and Religion

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.