Tweet
Originally posted by rado
Originally posted by Mr incredible
-
I appologize.
I thought that maybe I could answer his calling. I figured I would take the place of the person that people yell at and call a "tool" and what not, and maybe get the debate going like he wanted. Sorry to be inappropriate. However, I as well would like to see some more discussion of opinions and maybe a little friendly arguing going on. Again, sorry for taking the serious edge away from the thread. -
Any "big bangers" out there?Comment
-
Probably most of the people on this board I suspect. Unless I've missed my suspicions badly, I would think most are Evolutionists and not Creationists. Of course, there may be a few Raelians, (like me), or perhaps several Panspermians, (my second choice). I prefer not to discuss religious preferences, each to their own and welcome to their beliefs. The only thing I WILL say about religions is, more people have, throughout past history, AND will be killed in the future because of their differences in religions, than anything else. The only thing that will cause more deaths will be a "planet killing" asteroid. BBOriginally posted by PWoodyComment
-
You are so right. It's funny how it ends up like that, when most all religions were created with hopes of maintaining peace and order, so to speak. But, I suppose it's human nature to take your opinion over someone else's and kill them for being an individual and having their own different beliefs...Originally posted by bonebreakerComment
-
Well, the discussion wasn't going to be about prefrences. More what different religions believe, how they conflict with each other, how they fit into today's world... Foghat said he took some classes/studied about different religions, or something like that, and I was interested in hearing what he has learned (and anyone else who has examined other religions than there own).Originally posted by bonebreakerComment
-
I think that in order to understand the importance of such differences between various religions, it would be prudent to understand the similarities first.
Each of the organized religions have several things in common and those are:
a) The Product- We are in essence consumers buying a product from a manufacturer. The product is religion (absolution, peace, life eternal, etc...) They market their wares for us to sample. If we like the product or more likely, if our parents liked the product, we then become the consumer. Like salespersons in commercial business enterprises, each religion also have spokespersons out there attempting to create the interest in the product and draw in new prospects. Generate interest (eternal happiness). Create a demand (absolution from sin). Offer the product (religious ideology). Follow up with service contracts - aka masses or prayer assemblies of some type for the believers to maintain a repeat client business. Simply put, organized religions seek to sell their product to those who do not yet have it. If you don't have it, then you need it. If you are already buying from a different vendor then you need to try it from their own vendor. This is the theory behind religious conversion.
b) Exclusivity- Only members in good standing of the recruiting religion will find a great reward at the end of their lives. In general, all other religions (although they may be respected to a certain degree) are false religions and those nonbelievers will not experience a great reward, as only members of the recruiting religion will be allowed to enjoy.
c) The Carrot and the Stick Approach - Good religious practictioners -aka true believers- will go to heaven (or some sort of other worldly nirvana) and nonbelievers will suffer an eternity in hell (or again, some otherworldly contemptuous place) if they either do not ascribe to said religion or if they chose to not actively follow its religious doctrine or precepts.
d) Give US Money- Most organized religions readily solicit monetary donations from their participants in order to either grow the financial power or properties of that religion's actual financial holdings or to promote the spread of such religious ideologies.
e) Owner's Manual- There is usually some sort of "official" text (bible, Koran, Dianetics, etc) that encapsulates the ideologies of that religion like some sort of manual or directive. Many times, such original texts are updated or revised to reflect the ideologies of those who may have succeeded the originators in order to promote a political agenda of the governing body or current leader or a possibly a new direction of the religion in order to recruit more believers or to increase financial revenues.
f) The Big Payoff- Inevitably, there must be some reward for diligently practicing one's religious precepts otherwise no one would follow such a religion. That would be the "carrot" described above again. However, this entire premise is a sort of shell game in a sense because the big payoff (usually heaven, nirvana or perhaps self-enlightenment) is always promised to be achieved AFTER one's death. In other words, you are supposed to trust that what you have been told is true IS true and you will get your reward when you die. The problem is that no one can come back and inform the rest of us that this might not be true and perhaps it's a scam. So you must TRUST what you were told to be true. Often that term is called "faith" and we have no actual way of knowing whether or not the religious ideals that we may have practiced and promoted during the course of our lives was all bunk. For the respective religions, this is a win-win situation because that way they won't have a customer come back and tell the rest of their clients that there is no such reward after their mortal lives have extinguished, since that person would already be dead. It is one of the highest forms of a confidence game. The end prospect never has to be delivered and no one is left to complain about it. It is a 100% money back guarantee that is proposed but no one alive can collect upon. Brilliant stuff.
Here is one instance of religious doctrine that sees a particular religious ideology taking precedent over the welfare of a population:
The Roman Catholic Church knows and understands fully the risks of AIDS and other STDs in Africa. However, the Pope and the Vatican Consul repeatedly refuse to endorse any form of contraception, including condoms even though it may save millions of lives over the course of decades. Why? You see, even though people are dying from AIDS there in huge numbers, the church doesn't have any REAL concern about those people that it seeks to become Catholics. Birth control would directly and negatively affect the birth rate there (as well as other places) and the church KNOWS that abstinence is highly unlikely. This is especially true in poor and underdeveloped third world nations. As a result, more births = more catholics. Get it? To a certain degree the same holds true for people in the most developed nations such as the US. Although AIDS is less of a threat here, the point is that if "good catholics" adhere to church policy, then eventually, they will have children- planned or not- and therefore, propagate the religion, which is the whole point of any organized religion- propagation.
It is like some sort of race in which all religions try to outpace each other to become the largest and most powerful religion. It is a reflection of man in essence. Grab all the customers that one can while the getting is good and play it up for as long as one can until it all falls apart. Then, start up a new religion to replace the void left by the former ones. Basically, it's Marketing 101.Comment
-
personally I consider myself christian but I'm no regular church attender. I believe that there is something after death and ultimately I believe that there is some greater presence/spirit/being. To call it god in most minds conjures up and old man with a silver beard who's head appear every other century over the white clouds. I don't quite see it like that and I certainly wouldn't call it a man because to do so would make 'him' mortal and I say him only because its a convenient old english term.
Ultimately and before any religion I have respect for every other human being on the planet and I don't jusge others by anything other than their actions. Also ultimatey I don't need to be in fear of some superior judge mortal or not to know instinctively that you should treat others how you'd like to be treat. So I suppose my respect for mankind comes before any religion.
I have no problem with other peoples beliefs only I do have a problem with how people treat others. I do find myself making observations about group phsychology whether that group be a religion, race, supporters/fan clubs of a sports team etc etc, but I try not to let that influence my attitude towards the individual.
thats me done really unless we are to get more specific on thoughts on particular religious concepts or put our opinions forward on how particular followers of religions behave?Comment
-
Shibby -
I'm truly sorry for not giving this anymore attention than I have - I think my biggest frustration with this concept is that I have been reading PI's threads on 9.11 and the ignorance that I see posted there aggravates me which honestly makes me just a little hesitant to really get into anything (note: not PI or Babyblues notes - or anyone else with a decent contribution to the discussion - just the folks who want to throw in their 2 cents without actually contributing - btw - thank you Shibby and BLM for making those particular threads much better than they would be if people were free to junk them up). I am NOT an expert on this topic like many people here might like to believe of themselves or who may actually be, however...
IMO - religion is something very similar to what PI just posted above. ALL religions stemmed from mankind - we can compare religious differences all day long and the fact still remains that they ALL come back to some man/woman somewhere conjuring up an idea either to attempt to explain "origin myths" or to exert power/order over a group of people. Study the earliest forms of mankind and you'll see that their religions/beliefs simply stemmed from an ignorance about the world around them or at least an attempt to explain the world around them without the knowledge we currently have. Every group of zealots who believe the have found the "truth" are simply fooling themselves into an idea that they have an original idea when in fact ALL human beings are "conditioned" even before birth to believe only what they perceive as fact - and as a result the more limited the scope of your knowledge the more inclined you are to believe whatever is either purposefully or inherently spoon fed to you from birth to death....
Discussions can be had about how certain religions stemmed from earlier/similar religions, how certain religions evolved into what they are now simply because it made their "marketing tactics" much easier for the masses to accept if these religions adapted with the times (just for one example look at how Celtic religion has been so cleverly adopted into the Christian concepts of modern day beliefs/holidays etc), how some religions seem so far fetched in comparison to most modern religious beliefs yet if the people of these religions were exposed to some of the more modern "superpowers" beliefs then they would think WE were crazy (see Mayan beliefs in the "Tree System" for order in their world, how the Hawaiians thought that the natural process of death was their "gods" eating the sacrificial humans they believed to be offering on altars, how certain African tribes believe in a "Great Reed Bed" that their "God of Life" was born in (from "nothing" but a reed bed mind you) and then made the world as we know it before retiring and turning things over to the other gods who came after him, how certain Japanese beliefs came from a dead Goddess consuming her partner (another God) in a cave and when she came out into the light mankind was born (Japanese being the first race and of course the supreme race in this "story") and hence the term "Land of the Rising Sun" was coined from this event thousands of years ago, and don't even get me started on how Christianity came about in the world (once perceived as a "cult" - that comment is just for those of you who view Scientology as a "cult")......Comment
-
What are the thoughts on people who can't handle, not knowing what's beyond this life? Part of religions is that there is something more in the after life to work for. Could this people enjoy life more, less, differently if they just focused more on now and not how now effects there after life?Comment
-
Originally posted by Shibby
If religion makes a person feel comfort in times of need or their religious ideals prompts them to say, give food to the local food bank, then it can be a great thing. However, anything and everything can have an antithesis or a dark equal. People such as Jim Jones in Guyana used religion as a control instrument and to make himself powerful and wealthy through deceitful tactics and lies. The end result was people murdering their children and committing suicide - in God's name.
When someone forces their religion (any religion) upon others under penalty of punishment, injury or possibly even death, then that person ceases to be adherent to that particular religion. No one wants to be forced to live under Islamic fundamentalism just like no one wants to be forced to live under christian fundamentalism (for our purposes here- evangelism) or scientology, for that matter.
I personally think of organized religion as a sort of security blanket for children and adults alike. Think about when we were all children....we all thought that the entire world revolved around us. Our parents lived solely to serve our every whim. Of course, that's not true and we grew out of that philosophy. But sometimes, it seems comforting to think that there is someone higher up in authority that is looking out for our wellbeing otherwise the alternative is that we are alone in this world. That can be a scary concept for many people. Religion can be a pacifer of sorts or it can be a tool of destruction, depending upon who is wielding it and what their intent may be.
Personally, I feel that humans are inherently good people. They are probably genetically predisposed that way in order for the species to have survived this long. Sure, there are bad people out there but I think that they are more or less products of their environment. I am agnostic, myself. I am comfortable with the thought that maybe there is nothing after this world. So I try to live my life and be as nice as possible to others in the time that I am here. I don't do it for the purposes of an eternal reward after I die. I do it because I SHOULD treat people well. If I can leave this earth in a little bit better shape for others than when I arrived then it was all worth it to me.Comment
-
My question would be: How do you know that treating other people well is a good thing? How do you know how to treat other people well? How do we know what's good and what's not? How do we know what morals and ethics are? Where did this knowledge come from? Because no matter what culture you come from, murder is wrong, rape and incest are wrong, stealing is wrong, lying, cheating, adultery...the list goes on. Who decided all of this? Whether you believe in God or not, if someone came up to you on the street and punched you in the face for no reason, you would probably all agree that wouldn't be right. How do you know that? Because society tells you that? How does society know that's wrong? I just find it impossible to reconcile the thought that another human being[s] established morals and ethics for all of mankind. That would be like inmates making their own rules of conduct in a prison, or school children making their own rules of conduct in a school, or even businessmen making their own rules of conduct in the corporate world. Rules of conduct/morals/ethics can't come from the people they are meant to lead or help. They must come from some source of authority. Because when humans make the rules, it becomes twisted, just like all of the examples you gave and many more besides. Left to ourselves, our rules become self serving.Originally posted by Primal Instinct
I disagree that people are inherently good. I believe that we have an inate knowledge of good, but those of you who have children, did you have to teach your child to lie or to throw a temper tantrum or disobey you? They seem to do that without any example to follow. We need to help children learn how to live a life that's right because it doesn't come to them naturally. They can learn, but it must be taught and modeled for them to see. Environment does play a huge role in how you develop but when you reach adulthood, you are responsible for the way you act. As an adult, you don't have to stay the product of your environment. Now you have the ability to change the behavior created by a destructive environment when you were a child. I don't know about the rest of you, but I know some of the things that are in my heart and mind from time to time. I have become painfully aware of what I'm capable of. Do any of us really understand the depths of depravity that any of us are capable of sinking to? I don't know. But the good news is that we don't have to be all of that. We can do good things. But where does that knowledge of what's good come from?Last edited by babyblues; 08-25-06, 08:09 AM.Comment
-
As a scientist, I have no use for religion as an ecclesiastical enterprise. In fact, the only thing I do is to use abstract Eastern religious philosophy (I am a Hindu by birth) to help me live a virtuous life. I have disdain for organized religion of any kind.
My hero in this regard is Steven Weinberg, the great physicist and professor at UT Austin who won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1979. Here are some of Prof. Weinberg's quotes on religion, opinions that I agree with completely:
1. As you learn more and more about the universe, you find you can understand more and more without any reference to supernatural intervention, so you lose interest in that possibility. Most scientists I know don't care enough about religion even to call themselves atheists. And that, I think, is one of the great things about science -- that it has made it possible for people not to be religious.
2. Good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things. But for good people to do bad things -- that takes religion.
3. I can hope that this long sad story, this progression of priests and ministers and rabbis and ulamas and imams and bonzes and bodhisattvas, will come to an end. I hope this is something to which science can contribute ... it may be the most important contribution that we can make.
4. Science should be taught not in order to support religion and not in order to destroy religion. Science should be taught simply ignoring religion.
5. Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
6. The whole history of the last thousands of years has been a history of religious persecutions and wars, pogroms, jihads, crusades. I find it all very regrettable, to say the least.Comment
-
Originally posted by Scrumhalf
:laughnew: :bravonew:Comment
Comment