So, Religion...

[Sven]

... "Religious faith represents so uncompromising a misuse of the power of our minds that it forms a kind of perverse, cultural singularity - a vanishing point beyond which rational discourse proves impossible." - Sam Harris, The End of Faith

"God is good, God is great, God is wonderful." - Erik, shoutlife.com

Discuss.

[Spinal]

... "Religious faith represents so uncompromising a misuse of the power of our minds that it forms a kind of perverse, cultural singularity - a vanishing point beyond which rational discourse proves impossible." - Sam Harris, The End of Faith

True!



"God is good, God is great, God is wonderful." - Erik, shoutlife.com

Questionable!



Discuss.

I'm done.

[Derek]

http://drunkenmormon.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/jesusexpand.jpg

Discuss.

[Sven]

I'm done.

Yeah, I'm reading The End of Faith at the moment and the paragraph that the pulled quote is from struck me as particularly wonderful. Thought I'd start a thread for no other reason than I was feelin' the equivalent of "the spirit" through Harris's text. I expect it to go nowhere.


"Our past is not sacred for being past, and there is much that is behind us that we are struggling to keep behind us, and to which, it is to be hoped, we could never return with a clear conscience: the divine right of kings, feudalism, the caste system, slavery, political executions, forced castration, vivisection, bearbaiting, honorable duels, chastity belts, trial by ordeal, child labor, human and animal sacrifice, the stoning of heretics, cannibalism, sodomy laws, taboos against contraception, human radiation experiments--the list is nearly endless, and if it were extended indefinitely, the proportion of abuses for which religion could be found directly responsible is likely to remain undiminished."

[Sven]

Love those Jesus dino pics. Get me every time.

[D_Davis]

... "Religious faith represents so uncompromising a misuse of the power of our minds that it forms a kind of perverse, cultural singularity - a vanishing point beyond which rational discourse proves impossible." - Sam Harris, The End of Faith

Totally false!


"God is good, God is great, God is wonderful." - Erik, shoutlife.com

Which God? There is a lot more to it than that, dude!


Discuss.

And I am done.

[Spinal]

Which God? There is a lot more to it than that, dude!


How dare you doubt Erik of shoutlife.com! :eek:

[Sven]

True!


Totally false!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v350/iosos/matchcut%20misc/james_dean_police_station.jpg

[D_Davis]

How dare you doubt Erik of shoutlife.com! :eek:

I'm sorry Erik of shoutlife.com!

Speaking of which, you know iosos, since you picked a quote by one of the respected head pastors of the religion of New Atheism to support one side, you could have balanced it with a quote by one of the respected head pastors of Christianity, like C.S. Lewis, Paul Tillich, Allister McGrath, Thomas Merton, or someone, rather than some jackass no one has ever heard of who sounds kind of like a fool.

Just a thought.

:)

[Spinal]

How does Erik sound like a fool? He's just saying he's down with G.O.D.

[Raiders]

What's the point of this? We have threads that discuss this. We don't need one that pokes fun at the idea from the first post.

[Ezee E]

Without religion, we'd never have the movie Seven. Or Christmas. Or The Crusades. Or jellybeans.

[D_Davis]

How does Erik sound like a fool? He's just saying he's down with G.O.D.

You down with G-O-D?

yeah you know me!

Thich Nhat Hanh on religion.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week703/interview.html




Q: Can a person be both a Buddhist and a Christian?

A: Sure. There are many, many Christians who practice Buddhism, and they become better and better Christians all the time. In my retreats over in Europe and America, there have been Catholic priests [and] Protestant ministers receiving the teaching and practice formally. They even receive the Three Refuges and the Five Precepts, and they don't see any conflict between the teaching of the Buddha and the teaching of Jesus.
Q: But Christians believe in a personal God and in the divinity of Jesus. How do those beliefs fit with Buddhism?

A: There are many levels of Christianity. There are many notions about God. To believe that God is a person is just one of the notions of God that you can find in Christianity. So, we should not say that there is one Christianity. There are many Christianities.

Q: Are all religions true? Is one religion truer than the others?

Well, if we are to speak about cooking traditions, we can see that there are good things in every tradition of cooking, but there are a lot of differences. A tradition may become corrupt, and we should try to heal the corruption. We should try to dig in order to restore the best values of that tradition. And this must be done in every tradition, including Buddhism. Buddhism can get corrupted, and the true values of Buddhism could be corrupted by the wrong practice, the wrong teaching. And that is why there should be always effort to free Buddhism from these wrong teaching and practices in order to develop, to unearth, to restore the true values. And this should be true in other traditions, as well.

Thomas Merton


Some people never reveal any of the good that is hidden within them until we give them some of the good, that is to say, some of the charity, that is in ourselves. We are so much the children of God that by loving others we can make them good and lovable, in spite of themselves.

A little more interesting than Erik from shoutlife.com!

:)

[D_Davis]

Annie Dillard


It is ironic that the one thing that all religions recognize as separating us from our creator -- our very self-consciousness -- is also the one thing that divides us from our fellow creatures. It was a bitter birthday present from evolution.

[Spinal]

A little more interesting than Erik from shoutlife.com!


Erik's stuff was better before he started sniffing glue.

[D_Davis]

Erik's stuff was better before he started sniffing glue.

Yeah - he totally sold out.

You used to have an edge.

He went from "God fucking RoXoRs!111!!" to "God is good."

He's milquetoast.

[megladon8]

I still think that science and religion shouldn't be mutually exclusive.

[Sven]

I still think that science and religion shouldn't be mutually exclusive.

In what? In beliefs? In school? What's "shouldn't be"?

I'd have a hard time finding a scientist willing to tackle the birth and resurrection of Jesus from a scientific standpoint.

[Sven]

It's this idea that nearly every single religion has a fundamental tenet that IT is the ONE true path. Thich Nhat Hahn, much as I admire his message of peace, is not making a lot of sense when he speaks of "many Christianities", because there's only ONE Bible, and that ONE Bible is plenty clear in its instructions to its followers. To embrace the philosophy of many Christianities is to undue the scriptures that emphasize God's singularity.

Otherwise it's all a bunch of abstract New Agey rigmarole. Go listen to Enya, hippies.

[Duncan]

Annie Dillard
"It is ironic that the one thing that all religions recognize as separating us from our creator -- our very self-consciousness -- is also the one thing that divides us from our fellow creatures. It was a bitter birthday present from evolution."


One of the things I find strange about Christianity is its insistence that all animals are not self-conscious. I have no idea why someone would believe that.

[Sven]

What's the point of this? We have threads that discuss this. We don't need one that pokes fun at the idea from the first post.

Perhaps I am tired with the reverential treatment of religion. Why shouldn't I let my bias be known in my first post?

[megladon8]

One of the things I find strange about Christianity is its insistence that all animals are not self-conscious. I have no idea why someone would believe that.


I don't either.

Anyone who's owned a dog knows that they have just as much personality as people.

Hell, my dogs have more personality than most of my relatives.

[Spinal]

I still think that science and religion shouldn't be mutually exclusive.

If you said 'science and spirituality', I would agree.

[megladon8]

In what? In beliefs? In school? What's "shouldn't be"?

I'm not sure where it's from (a book, movie, song, TV show, I have no idea) but someone said that "both science and religion are, fundamentally, the pursuit of truth".

Science attempts to quantify and rationalize the secrets of the universe, while religion attempts to explain them through spirituality, and more "supernatural" occurrences.

But I don't know why these two seem unable to co-exist.

I don't think everything in the universe is quantifiable, or able to be explained by through rational methods. I think we may get close to explaining many things, but there will still be "anomolies".

Similarly, religion is needlessly obtuse when it comes to many things that are explained perfectly by science, and we have proof of their existence/workings.

In the end, I probably lean more towards your side, iosos. I've never found that religion provides me with answers in my life, and I found being educated in a Catholic school system to be somewhat disturbing.

[Spinal]

I'm not sure where it's from (a book, movie, song, TV show, I have no idea) but someone said that "both science and religion are, fundamentally, the pursuit of truth".


Not really. Religion is generally the pursuit of justifications and rationalizations for a guess that was made in an age before science.

[Sven]

I don't think everything in the universe is quantifiable, or able to be explained by through rational methods. I think we may get close to explaining many things, but there will still be "anomolies".

This I agree with, but I don't think that partaking of bread and wine, giving 10% of your income to the church, listening to tales of serpents and trees that bear the fruit of knowledge, or giving your nightly thanks to an invisible man is going to explain ANYTHING about the universe. Frankly, I do not know what you expect it to explain.

I couldn't disagree more with this unified science/religion model. I get flustered whenever anyone brings up the "Science is 'How', religion is 'Why'" schtick, because science ALSO explains why, and does so a whole hell of a lot more thoroughly and satisfactorily than stories about immaculate conception or multi-armed elephant men.

[megladon8]

Not really. Religion is generally the pursuit of justifications and rationalizations for a guess that was made in an age before science.


But aren't religion and science both searching for the truth/reason behind our existence?

[Spinal]

I couldn't disagree more with this unified science/religion model. I get flustered whenever anyone brings up the "Science is 'How', religion is 'Why'" schtick, because science ALSO explains why, and does so a whole hell of a lot more thoroughly and satisfactorily than stories about immaculate conception or multi-armed elephant men.

Now you sound like Richard Dawkins. :)

[Spinal]

But aren't religion and science both searching for the truth/reason behind our existence?

No. Religion typically tells us the truth/reason behind our existence. Not a whole lotta searching to it.

Now someone will say, "Well, my version of Christianity involves searching!"

Fine, but that's not the norm. Congrats on your liberalism.

[D_Davis]

One of the things I find strange about Christianity is its insistence that all animals are not self-conscious. I have no idea why someone would believe that.

I don't think this is a "Christian" belief. At least I've never heard it as one.

[megladon8]

This I agree with, but I don't think that partaking of bread and wine, giving 10% of your income to the church, listening to tales of serpents and trees that bear the fruit of knowledge, or giving your nightly thanks to an invisible man is going to explain ANYTHING about the universe. Frankly, I do not know what you expect it to explain.

I don't agree with these parts of religion, either, but I think they are a very small part of what represents religion as a whole.

Plus, those are very Christian beliefs.

What about Buddhism? The idea of continuing existence in other forms.

Like in The Fountain, when it explains death as simply another step in life. That when you die, your body returns to the earth, which then grows plants and trees from the soil created from your remains, and these plants and trees are fed on by other creatures, etc.

It may sound a little hippie-ish, but I find it much easier to digest than the idea that everything I do in life is a running tally that will eventually lead me to an eternity of pain and suffering after I die. Because, honestly, if you follow the Bible hardcore the way that we were taught in high school, no one gets into heaven.



I couldn't disagree more with this unified science/religion model. I get flustered whenever anyone brings up the "Science is 'How', religion is 'Why'" schtick, because science ALSO explains why, and does so a whole hell of a lot more thoroughly and satisfactorily than stories about immaculate conception or multi-armed elephant men.

I'm curious, what do you think of the idea of "karma", or of people having a positive/negative "aura" which can affect their lives greatly?

[D_Davis]

No. Religion typically tells us the truth/reason behind our existence. Not a whole lotta searching to it.


Actually, this is completely false.

Religion is a journey, a spiritual walk, a search for a spiritual truth. Anyone who tells ya different is full of it. There is a ton of inner searching revolved in the world's religions - its the basis for everything.

[megladon8]

I don't think this is a "Christian" belief. At least I've never heard it as one.


Really?

That was preached up the ass all through school.

But this is the same school faculty who kicked a girl out for getting pregnant.

[D_Davis]

It's this idea that nearly every single religion has a fundamental tenet that IT is the ONE true path. Thich Nhat Hahn, much as I admire his message of peace, is not making a lot of sense when he speaks of "many Christianities", because there's only ONE Bible, and that ONE Bible is plenty clear in its instructions to its followers. To embrace the philosophy of many Christianities is to undue the scriptures that emphasize God's singularity.

Otherwise it's all a bunch of abstract New Agey rigmarole. Go listen to Enya, hippies.

This is a very close minded view of religion.

[Spinal]

Actually, this is completely false.



No, I'm pretty sure it's not.

[D_Davis]

Really?

That was preached up the ass all through school.

But this is the same school faculty who kicked a girl out for getting pregnant.

I've been going to church for over 20 years and I've never heard anyone say that animals aren't self-conscious.

What Annie Dilliard - who is a Christian conservationist - was getting at is that humanity has a unique kind of self-consciousness that has caused is to feel divorced from nature - this is a bad thing. At one time, before "the fall" we were one with the creation, but something happened and we became separate from it, and we must strive to reconnect with it. To me, this is what the mythology of Adam and Eve is all about. It is a story about a time in human history (evolution) in which humanity grew apart from the creation.

[D_Davis]

No, I'm pretty sure it's not.

No, it is.

[Sven]

I'm curious, what do you think of the idea of "karma", or of people having a positive/negative "aura" which can affect their lives greatly?

I believe in energy. Not spiritual energy necessarily, but life energy. You can tell when someone is in a bad mood. That's energy. Much if not all of that energy translates through your own powers of observation.

I do not believe in auras. Think when people speak of the aura, they are speaking of energy and personality.

[megladon8]

I've been going to church for over 20 years and I've never heard anyone say that animals aren't self-conscious.


We were always told that dogs don't really "love" you, and feel absolutely nothing.

We interpret their expressions and mannerisms as "love" or, to a lesser extent, "loyalty", because we recognize similar expressions from human beings.

Dogs just want to be fed.

[Sven]

This is a very close minded view of religion.

It's the only understanding of religion that I know. Everything you say sounds like vague spiritualisms--religion is about structured dogma. Christianity is about immaculate conception, resurrection, and a flood wherein Noah had to lead animals, two by two, (every single species in the world, mind you), onto a boat for a fortnight. It is about the stoning of adulterers, forced conversion, and death to those who speak in heresies.

Do you just choose to overlook those parts of the Bible? How do you reconcile this?

[D_Davis]

We were always told that dogs don't really "love" you, and feel absolutely nothing.

We interpret their expressions and mannerisms as "love" or, to a lesser extent, "loyalty", because we recognize similar expressions from human beings.

Dogs just want to be fed.

Well - in some ways this is true. Humans do project emotions onto animals and things.

We use our words for "happy" or "sad" to simulate what we think an animal might be feeling. This doesn't mean that they are, or are not, nor does suggesting this mean that they are incapable of displaying real emotions.

To be taught that animals feel nothing is absurd, and it is definitely not a Christian belief - at least it's not part of any Christian belief I've ever been taught or experienced.

[megladon8]

I believe in energy. Not spiritual energy necessarily, but life energy. You can tell when someone is in a bad mood. That's energy. Much if not all of that energy translates through your own powers of observation.

I do not believe in auras. Think when people speak of the aura, they are speaking of energy and personality.


But do you think this "energy" could be explained solely through scientific means?

Is it the combination of scents that people let off through their glands, which we are unaware of but in fact our brains are greatly affected by? Change in bodily temperature?

Or do you think it's possible that there's something else going on there beyond the quantifiable? Perhaps the idea of a "soul"?

[Sven]

But do you think this "energy" could be explained solely through scientific means?

Hmmm... yeah.


Or do you think it's possible that there's something else going on there beyond the quantifiable? Perhaps the idea of a "soul"?

Hmmm... nah.

[D_Davis]

Do you just choose to overlook those parts of the Bible? How do you reconcile this?

The Bible was written by specific people, during a specific point in time, for a specific group of people. The Bible is a tool to use for a spiritual journey. Think of a spiritual journey as a mountain climbing exhibition. We need certain things to reach the top. The Bible may be a rope or something. While it is an important tool, it is not the only tool, and to rely on it solely can lead to much trouble.

We have to look at the message behind everything. The Bible was not written by God. It was written by people, and people, as we all know, are fallible.

I think that many stories in the Bible are not to be taken literally, or as historical fact. They are, instead, stories written about how these people interpreted the God they were searching for. The God of the universe. I believe that this God revealed itself in certain ways to these people, and the Bible is how they filtered it all.

God also revealed itself to other people, in other countries, during other times, and thus different religions.

To me, the Bible is an inspiration. It also contains the stories that I identify with most strongly, thus the reasons why I consider myself a Christian. However, I also find aspects of Buddhism to be beneficial, and I would also like to explore some of my Native American roots at some points.

This is my spiritual journey - and it has been a very positive one.


religion is about structured dogma.

No. Religion is about relationship with God. Everything else is baggage.

[Sven]

While it is an important tool, it is not the only tool, and to rely on it solely can lead to much trouble.

I don't get this idea of picking and choosing what to believe and what not to believe in a religious tome, particularly that one, despite being written by the fallible, purports to be the true and inspired word of God. You consider yourself a Christian? Do you believe in the immaculate conception?


God also revealed itself to other people, in other countries, during other times, and thus different religions.

Don't you think that a reasonable God would not have given the impression to each of these peoples that THEIR religion would be the one infallible religion? Sounds like a pretty stupid thing to do, if you ask me.


This is my spiritual journey - and it has been a very positive one.

You're a cool dude, and I'm glad you're having a wonderful journey and I can tell that you're not irrationally minded. However, I contest that religion promotes irrationality far more than it inspires open-minded living. There isn't enough in common between religions for their to be a perfect reconcilement as you suggest is possible. Most Christians believe that if one is not baptised a Christian, one is not going to be allowed into heaven. How does your all-inclusive religiousness explain Muslim-justified terrorism? Do you think that's a corruption? Because I would think that rationale is closer to the religion's pre-rationalistic, pre-scientific inception, thereby being nearer its "divine" beginning.

[megladon8]

How about the "Chariots of the Gods" idea that our view of "God" was actually an alien visitor?

Also touched upon in Indy IV.

[D_Davis]

I don't get this idea of picking and choosing what to believe and what not to believe in a religious tome, particularly that one, despite being written by the fallible, purports to be the true and inspired word of God. You consider yourself a Christian? Do you believe in the immaculate conception?

I believe that God used, and continues to use, miraculous and mundane ways to reveal himself (I am just going to say himself, even though I do not believe that God is male or female, it just sounds better than itself) to people. One of these ways may have been the immaculate conception, and the virgin birth of JC.

As a Christian, yes, I believe that this was the unique way in which God revealed himself to these people.


Don't you think that a reasonable God would not have given the impression to each of these peoples that THEIR religion would be the one infallible religion? Sounds like a pretty stupid thing to do, if you ask me.

We have free will - we have the ability to act right, and to act wrong. This is what is unique about a divine creation (please note that by "creation" I do not mean that everything was made in 7 days). This is where the journey comes in. Because someone acts wrong is not the fault of God, it is a byproduct of our free will.



Most Christians believe that if one is not baptised a Christian, one is not going to be allowed into heaven.

Blanket statement. Baptism has nothing to do with the relationship between a human and God. The choice to get baptized within a certain church is a person choice, and it is more of a statement of belonging than anything.

You speak of dogma, and again, dogma is just baggage. Dogma destroys relationship with God.


How does your all-inclusive religiousness explain Muslim-justified terrorism?

It's simply acting wrong, against the will of God, and, what's more, misinterpreting the will of God - confusing it with the selfish desires of man.

If a man jumps off a building and kills himself, do you blame the building for being tall, or the street for being hard?

[megladon8]

Can a good person who has rejected religion still get into heaven?

[Watashi]

I'm 100% sure God exists.

I'm pretty sure I saw him win an Oscar for Ratatouille last year.

[D_Davis]

Can a good person who has rejected religion still get into heaven?

I don't know, and anyone who says that they do is full of it.

noone really knows what happens after death.

Here is what I believe.

Look at heaven, earth, and hell, not as up in the sky, on the ground, beneath the ground, but as positions relative to God's presence.

Heaven represents being completely in the presence of God. This is good. I believe this is what all of creation strives for, or should strive for, whether believed in or not.

Hell is the complete absence of God. It is being in a place that is totally divorced from even a smidgen of God's love. I believe that, as beings, we need God - there is a missing part of ourselves that only God can fill.

On earth, we are kind of in the presence of God. We are in a state where we can go either way. However, we can never go all the way in one direction.

Once we die we go somewhere else - perhaps. If we chose to embrace God throughout our lives, we go to a place that is totally in his presence. If we chose to reject God, we go to a place divorced from his presence. This "hell" is not fire and torture, but it might feel like this because it is a place of no goodness.

However, maybe we are reborn, reincarnated? Why should being born twice, or three times, or four times, be any more absurd than being born once?

Or maybe we just die - the end.

I don't know these answers, and I will never pretend to know them. All I can do is walk in the way that I think is right, and have faith that my right actions on this earth will lead me to a good place after I die.

[Sven]

It's simply acting wrong, against the will of God, and, what's more, misinterpreting the will of God - confusing it with the selfish desires of man.

Here it sounds like your judging "The Will of God" on your own terms. Do you really know the word of the Muslim God? Are you saying that their God wants the same thing as YOUR God, it being the "same" God? Sounds like you're calling for religious homogeneity. You're just going to be passive and feel-goody about it.

[D_Davis]

However, I contest that religion promotes irrationality far more than it inspires open-minded living.

This is a strange thing for me to conceive. I think this notion comes from the fact that many people live their lives as if there is a divide between the spirit and the body, between the physical and the metaphysical, and between the spiritual and the secular.

Everything that I do is a direct reflection of who I am.

Part of who I am is a spiritual being.

This spiritual being is tied to everything.

All of creation.

To believe in the metaphysical is not only NOT irrational, it is simply the only way I know how to believe. There is no separation in my mind, and by believing this way it becomes evident that everything I do is praise, and thus I should strive to live like this.

It's hard.

Dogma, or man made rules and regulations can easily lead to irrational thought, but again, dogma is baggage, and religion is not dogma, although many people see it this way.

[Sven]

Dogma, or man made rules and regulations can easily lead to irrational thought, but again, dogma is baggage, and religion is not dogma, although many people see it this way.

Now you're just dicing words. Religion IS dogma. It's spirituality with rules. That is how it is traditionally and conventionally understood. Catholicism is a religion, Hinduism is a religion, Mormonism is a religion, Islam is a religion, Judaism is a religion. All require spirituality, all require adherence to laws and rules set forth in their respective scriptures. If you don't follow the scriptures, you are either a heretic or a non-believer.

[D_Davis]

Here it sounds like your judging "The Will of God" on your own terms. Do you really know the word of the Muslim God? Are you saying that their God wants the same thing as YOUR God, it being the "same" God? Sounds like you're calling for religious homogeneity. You're just going to be passive and feel-goody about it.

Yes, I am filtering my views of God through my own experiences and beliefs. It's the only way I know how.

So maybe I am wrong. There may be many things I am wrong about.

I believe that we are to treat others the way we want to be treated, and to act differently is in direct violation of God's will. I believe, as Jesus said, to love your enemies, and, to paraphrase Tony Campolo, when Jesus said this he meant, "Don't kill them!"

And yes, I am very passive and feel-goody. I should have been a hippie, only I like having money and buying stuff and taking showers and not smelling and I don't like the Grateful Dead.

[Dead & Messed Up]

It's the only understanding of religion that I know. Everything you say sounds like vague spiritualisms--religion is about structured dogma. Christianity is about immaculate conception, resurrection, and a flood wherein Noah had to lead animals, two by two, (every single species in the world, mind you), onto a boat for a fortnight. It is about the stoning of adulterers, forced conversion, and death to those who speak in heresies.

Do you just choose to overlook those parts of the Bible? How do you reconcile this?

I ascribe to the Campbellian understanding of religion: useful up to a point, as far as justifying morality and coming to some understanding of our spiritual lives.


Here it sounds like your judging "The Will of God" on your own terms. Do you really know the word of the Muslim God? Are you saying that their God wants the same thing as YOUR God, it being the "same" God? Sounds like you're calling for religious homogeneity. You're just going to be passive and feel-goody about it.

Passive and feel-goody is one step above confrontational and close-minded. Of course, above both (a ways above both) is recognizing religion as something many people need, and a possible gateway to something very worthwhile: the human quest for the transcendant.

[Sven]

So maybe I am wrong. There may be many things I am wrong about.

Well, at least you're open to the idea. A rarity amongst the religious.

[Sven]

... a possible gateway to something very worthwhile: the human quest for the transcendant.

Transcend into what?

[D_Davis]

Now you're just dicing words. Religion IS dogma.

No. Religion is relationship. Dogma is the crap man made to make himself feel good (or bad) about the particular religion he chose to follow.

I believe that religion is to seek relationship with God.

I have no time for the way that mankind has defined the word.

God existed before dogmatic law, and religion is alway changing. The only thing that doesn't change is that people are searching for a relationship with God.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Transcend into what?

Exactly.

[Sven]

Exactly.

That's useless.

[Dead & Messed Up]

That's useless.

To some. Not to all.

[D_Davis]

Well, at least you're open to the idea. A rarity amongst the religious.

Again, a blanket statement.

Your views of religion seem to be defined more on some preconceived notion that all are close minded.

I know of many religious people who will say that they really don't know for sure.

We can't possibly know for sure. All we can do is strive to learn.

There is absolutely no one living on this Earth that knows what happens to us when we are dead. No one.

[Sven]

Dogma is the crap man made to make himself feel good (or bad) about the particular religion he chose to follow.

Here you use "religion" as a term for a group ascribing to a certain category of religious belief. Make up your mind, man!

Seriously, if we're going to be talking here, we've got to be using the same effing word. If not, I will let you to your helpful vagueries, trust that you will not think ill of me or condemn me to hellfire, and wish you a good night.

[Sven]

To some. Not to all.

The idea is whether or not it is ultimately more bad than good. More useless than useful. This nondescript "transcendence" you speak of can be more usefully quested for in terms of reality that we can gauge. If nobody knows what they're looking to transcend into, that means nobody's done it. But plenty of people have transcended selfishness, poverty, hatred, etc. All of those things are entirely secular.

[Sven]

Your views of religion seem to be defined more on some preconceived notion that all are close minded.

Not that all are, but that religions promote it. No religion that I know of preaches the truth of other religions. Only their own.

[D_Davis]

Religion is seeking relationship with God.

There are different ways to seek this relationship.

However, much of the dogma that man has used to define religion is not from God, but from man.

Jesus never said to his followers that they had to dress or look a certain way. However, some Christian sects have taken it upon themselves to write dogmatic law that states that their members should. Now, all righteous Christian sects are striving for the same thing - relationship with God - but some have incorporated silly rules (actually, I shouldn't say silly, as this sounds condescending). These rules are often put into practice to distinguish one sect from another, but they are clearly man made, and do not come from any teachings of Christ, and therefor I have no use for them. Some may - for some, having this kind of structure is a good thing.

It's just semantics, and arguing about semantics is more often pointless than not.

[D_Davis]

Not that all are, but that religions promote it. No religion that I know of preaches the truth of other religions. Only their own.

Going to a specific church, and thus subscribing to a particular set of beliefs, often serves more of a secular purpose than a spiritual one. Going to a church is like joining a club, it is a community of people on which one can depend. A church body often helps out at times of need and offers support. It's like a message board, IRL.

Often time, these people are searching for answers, and the pastor is offering them the answers in the best way that he or she knows how. They are offering the truth as it is revealed to them.

Hopefully, the pastor is not leading his church astray.

I quit going to a church once because they preached against Mormons. I got up and told the pastor that he should follow the teachings of Christ and not condemn others, but, rather, preach about love and compassion.

I never went back.

The church I went to after never did this once in over 15 years.

[Sven]

Well, I offer you a hearty good luck and a brotherly pat on the back. I may not understand you, and I may even think it's silly that you look for fulfillment in something I find as fictional as Star Trek, but I like that you're peaceful. I like to think that I am as well, despite the occasional confrontational statement and use of the exclamation mark. Perhaps during the Great and Final Holy War, we can fall on the same side. :)

[D_Davis]

I can tell that you're not irrationally minded.

I should address this.

I am totally irrational about a lot of things.

This is part of being a human. We are irrational beings. Emotions are irrational. We do things that make no sense all the freaking time and for no reason whatsoever except that we are irrational.

I believe that this idea of the New Atheist to only focus on logic is a dangerous thing. It denies us part of our humanity.

Do we really want to be like Spock all the time?

We are irrational and emotional beings, this is part of what makes life exciting and worth living.

I do not want to live in a world in which logic is king - boring.

Art is not logical. Creating for the sake of creating is not logical. Much of the music, movies, and books I like are totally absurd, and they often do irrational things and were created by irrational people who did crazy things.

[Sven]

When I re-read that "irrationally minded" comment after posting it, I wished I had not posted it, because I agree with everything you say. I suppose what I meant to say was "close-minded", which your admittance to irrationality proves. Excellent!

[D_Davis]

I may even think it's silly that you look for fulfillment in something I find as fictional as Star Trek, but I like that you're peaceful.

I don't think you're silly for being an atheist. I may not understand atheism - it actually boggles my mind - but it is simply the path you've chosen.

But that's cool.

[Sven]

I don't think you're silly for being an atheist. I may not understand atheism - it actually boggles my mind - but it is simply the path you've chosen.

But that's cool.

Do you think that ultimately you will be more capable of actualization because you're religious and I'm not? Or do you construe this atheism of mine as a "religion" and thereby fine with the idea that it fills the part of me that you suggested only religion could fill?

Also, to what degree does atheism boggle your mind?

[D_Davis]

Do you think that ultimately you will be more capable of actualization because you're religious and I'm not? Or do you construe this atheism of mine as a "religion" and thereby fine with the idea that it fills the part of me that you suggested only religion could fill?

Also, to what degree does atheism boggle your mind?

I believe that every person on this planet needs God (not necessarily the Christian God), and that people search for things beyond God to fill this void. Sometimes the rejection of God is this thing.

So yes, I view atheism as a religion. It is your way of filling that hole.

I do not however know if I am right. I can only know what I know.

Atheism boggles my mind because I cannot imagine a life without God, spirituality, and the metaphysical. I find it extremely limiting to only believe in and find answers in the physical. It's like rejecting 50% of what is out there, and of what is inside me. It's like going to the library and ignoring half the books on the shelves.

People always want proof of my beliefs, and to them I say, "open your eyes." As I look outside my window now I see proof of God's existence everywhere. To me, the fact that I am typing this now is proof. I see everything as proof - everything is part of the cosmic fugue. There is no separation between the physical and the spiritual. The two share a symbiotic existence. I find the notion that this universe spontaneously came into existence without divine purpose too impossible to believe. If you go back far enough, there has to be something, and since something cannot just create itself, it had to be created - it had to be started.

Agnosticism does not boggle my mind. In some ways I find it more honest than theism. I guess, deep down inside, I think we are all agnostic. Because really, how can any of us really know?

[D_Davis]

Good discussion by the way.

[Sven]

Well I think first off, you do a disservice to metaphysics, which are most definitely NOT a religious thing. Metaphysics is simply the study between, like, fact and the value of that fact. It's about how we construct reality, which, as you know I'm a science-fiction fan, is absolutely central to my way of life, to my thought processes. Atheism does not preclude metaphysics. At all. In fact, in some ways, I think it creates a unique perception given atheist focus on the natural.

Secondly, I've never actually been comfortable with the term "atheist" in reference to myself. I've never thought of myself as having a discernible opinion, one way or the other. I think I consider myself more an "apathist", as the concept of God doesn't really affect me one way or the other (barring social phenomena), so I don't really care. "Agnosticism" is even further off the mark, because that suggests active questing. Religion is an interesting subject to me, but I feel it that God has so little bearing on my life that it's a completely outside the box kind of fascination. Am I making sense? I would not consider myself atheist. Or theist. Or agnostic. I consider myself Patrick, and my concerns have to do with me, my mind, my body, my being, your being, my wife's being, my family's being. If God or a spirit is there, it's there and it's letting me do my thing without interruption, for which I am thankful. If it's not there, I still get to do my thing.

[D_Davis]

Add the word "spiritual" to my previous post in addition to the physical and the metaphysical. I was using the term metaphysical to incorporate all that is not physical, simply because I believe that the physical is only part of our existence. I am a body, and a spirit.

[D_Davis]

I would not consider myself atheist. Or theist. Or agnostic. I consider myself Patrick, and my concerns have to do with me, my mind, my body, my being, your being, my wife's being, my family's being. If God or a spirit is there, it's there and it's letting me do my thing without interruption, for which I am thankful. If it's not there, I still get to do my thing.

This makes sense. And just as you are Patrick, I am Daniel.

[Sven]

I'm not so keen on the word "spiritual" or "spirituality" because I have no idea what it means. I frequently associate it with "consciousness" because that to me is what it seems to signify: self-consciousness. Back to the animal issue. Are they aware of themselves? If so, are they spiritual? I have no idea.

[Sven]

And just as you are Patrick, I am Daniel.

'Sup, dude.

[D_Davis]

Atheism does not preclude metaphysics. At all. In fact, in some ways, I think it creates a unique perception given atheist focus on the natural.


Atheism does reject certain aspects of metaphysics.

"Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that investigates principles of reality transcending those of any particular science, traditionally, cosmology and ontology."

The New Atheists (Dawkins et al.) definitely reject anything that cannot be scientifically tested or proven, at least this is what I understand. Am I wrong?

I believe that there are things that exist outside the realm of human understanding, the laws of physics, and the boundaries of the physical universe.

I have no proof - so this belief is an irrational belief.

:)

[D_Davis]

I guess I am using the colloquial definition of the word metaphysics:

"subjects that are beyond the physical world"

I am using the X-files version of the world.

:lol:

[Sven]

"[SIZE=-1]Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that investigates principles of reality transcending those of any particular science, traditionally, cosmology and ontology."

That's a very vague definition. What is "transcending"? That's a qualitative judgment that assumes that if it can't be understood scientifically, it is somehow above it. Mostly I don't agree with this definition. Wiki?

...yeah, that's from Wiki. I think the rest of the article better explains it and I don't see a problem in seeing pretty much the rest of that article in Godless terms. Go down to the "Central questions of Metaphysics" section and peruse the mind/matter, objects/properties, identity/change, space/time, necessity/possibility, determinism/free will, abstract objects/mathematics, and cosmology/cosmogeny blurbs. All that, to me, signifies metaphysics, and religion and theism represent just a tiny tiny portion of it.

[DavidSeven]

No, I'm pretty sure it's not.

No, it is.

...and this is where we will always end up.

[D_Davis]

...and this is where we will always end up.

:lol:

You got that right.

At least we're civil about here, though.

[Sven]

It's not about conversion. It's about processing to a point of understandingness.

[Milky Joe]

here is a poem that is relevant to this discussion. it's one of my very favorite poems.

I am God

-Jack Kerouac

carry on.

[D_Davis]

It's not about conversion. It's about processing to a point of understandingness.

Yes. I am not concerned in converting anyone here to my beliefs.

They are far too advance for you mere mortals.

[D_Davis]

Three hours ago, I said:



And I am done.

I am a liar.

Please forgive me.

[Sven]

Please forgive me.

I could make a joke here. I'm not sure what, though. I am tired. It is bed time. Good night all.

[D_Davis]

Yes I need sleep as well.

Someone mentioned Joseph Campbell earlier. His ideas of mythology and religion really resonate with me.

I believe that God has worn many masks throughout human history. The mask that I most identify with, and recognize, is the mask of Christianity. I identify with this mythology, and with what Jesus taught. It makes sense to me, and it edifies my spirit.

There are however many other masks that other people identify with.

In this way, I believe that there are many righteous roads to God.

I think this sums up my belief system fairly well.

Some may say it is wishy-washy, and feel-goody, but, well, they can bite me.

:)

[Dead & Messed Up]

The idea is whether or not it is ultimately more bad than good. More useless than useful. This nondescript "transcendence" you speak of can be more usefully quested for in terms of reality that we can gauge. If nobody knows what they're looking to transcend into, that means nobody's done it. But plenty of people have transcended selfishness, poverty, hatred, etc. All of those things are entirely secular.

(Sorry this post is a little late.)

This is a very good point, and I should note that I never said that the transcendent quest supersedes the importance of earthly virtue. Far from it. But I do think that the human desire to find something beyond our perception of reality is an empathetic one, and one I find worth exploring.

But not at the risk of selfishness or cruelty.

[Spinal]

...and this is where we will always end up.

Which is why I stopped there.

[Qrazy]

I'm sorry Erik of shoutlife.com!

Speaking of which, you know iosos, since you picked a quote by one of the respected head pastors of the religion of New Atheism to support one side.

I'm an atheist and I don't respect him. I think he's an ass.

[Sven]

I think he's an ass.

Edit: You know what? Forget it. I'm too exhausted.

[Sycophant]

Religion: *½

I looked for a relationship with God, found nothing, decided to focus on what I could find: people. I trust in the arm of flesh.

[D_Davis]

Religion: *½

I looked for a relationship with God, found nothing, decided to focus on what I could find: people. I trust in the arm of flesh.

I see God in people, so relationship with people is relationship with God.

:)

[monolith94]

In what? In beliefs? In school? What's "shouldn't be"?

I'd have a hard time finding a scientist willing to tackle the birth and resurrection of Jesus from a scientific standpoint.
I'm not going to discuss the IC, but there have been cases of times when a person was thought to be dead, but the people who thought that were mistaken. I.e. being mistaken for dead. Admittedly that's not as good a story as a resurrection, but I don't think the resurrection is of literal importance anyway. The miracle isn't valuable for its physical manifestation, but rather for its symbolic importance (the idea that one's life can persist, and that death holds only temporary power).

I personally am sort of a Christian-focused pantheist, in that I believe that most mysticisms are a manifestation of that which is divine, although certainly humans fuck up about it (see: crusades, human sacrifice, etc.).

[D_Davis]

I personally am sort of a Christian-focused pantheist, in that I believe that most mysticisms are a manifestation of that which is divine, although certainly humans fuck up about it (see: crusades, human sacrifice, etc.).

This is interesting.

[transmogrifier]

I see God in people, so relationship with people is relationship with God.

:)

To me, what you're doing with this attitude is devaluing people. I always find it depressing when others need to tie us to some superpower in order to find value in us.

[D_Davis]

To me, what you're doing with this attitude is devaluing people. I always find it depressing when others need to tie us to some superpower in order to find value in us.

I really don't understand how it got this from what I wrote.

I see value in humanity.

I see God in humanity.

I cannot separate God from life.

I see the essence of God in everything.

There is no devaluation going on. I think you're extrapolating something in order to make a snarky remark about someone who believes something that you do not.

[Winston*]

I know the answer, just fyi.

[Sven]

I personally am sort of a Christian-focused pantheist, in that I believe that most mysticisms are a manifestation of that which is divine, although certainly humans fuck up about it (see: crusades, human sacrifice, etc.).

Can't those "fuck ups" actually be divine, though? Is God really as altruistic as we want to believe? Evidence overwhelmingly shows that divine prophecy goes hand in hand with unthinkable cruelty. All religions all over the world throughout time have pointed to divine influence to justify these crimes. Such a remarkable pattern indicates proof of some kind. What you're doing here is imposing your altruistic beliefs across the spectrum regardless of the tenets of the specific beliefs you are intruding upon. A Muslim martyr blowing up a bus is only "fucking up" in the eyes of someone who has a different, and by know means less valid (an idea as developed through scripture), understanding of God than he does. Personally I think that the martyr has a better idea of Islam than a twentysomething self-professed pantheist New Englander. No offense.

[Sycophant]

I see the essence of God in everything.Curiously, I once wrote something almost exactly like this on a message board about eight years ago.

[transmogrifier]

There is no devaluation going on. I think you're extrapolating something in order to make a snarky remark about someone who believes something that you do not.

Speaking of extrapolation.....

By the way, when I say something is devalued by another person's actions/opinions, it is a qualitative assessment from my point of view. For example, saying "Penelope Cruz posing nude in Playboy devalues her standing as an actress" is not the same thing as saying "Penelope Cruz doesn't value her career".

So I'm not sure where you are coming from at all with your complaint.

[Milky Joe]

D, you speak like what any true Christian should be. Jesus really meant it when he said, "the kingdom of God is within YOU." Have you read much of the Gospel of Thomas? It's the best religious text in history if you ask me. Not surprisingly it was left on the cutting room floor.

[Sven]

D, you speak like what any true Christian should be.

It is not a Christian truth to accept all world religions as true. Why don't you just say that he speaks the way a truly nice person would speak? Are you that much an authority on Christianity as to be able to say how all "true" (not "good" but "TRUE") Christians should be? You know how many factions of Christianity there are?

Sounds to me like you're a gooey New Ager too. That's fine, there's enough to spread around.

[Spinal]

I know the answer, just fyi.

Spoiler tags!

[Winston*]

Spoiler tags!
Check your pms.

Also, living your life to it's fullest and realising your true potential is truly the greatest religion of them all.

[D_Davis]

D, you speak like what any true Christian should be. Jesus really meant it when he said, "the kingdom of God is within YOU." Have you read much of the Gospel of Thomas? It's the best religious text in history if you ask me. Not surprisingly it was left on the cutting room floor.

Well, I hope I am doing alright. I just try to live my life in a way that makes the world around me a better place while remaining humble and compassionate. I believe that is righteous living.

Yes I have - and I am planning on studying it more closely in the near future. I've been purchasing some books on basic New Testament history to read as well.

[Sycophant]

Also, living your life to it's fullest and realising your true potential is truly the greatest religion of them all.

:lol:

[Milky Joe]

It is not a Christian truth to accept all world religions as true. Why don't you just say that he speaks the way a truly nice person would speak?

Well, because there should be no difference between the two. A Christian should be a truly nice person, should they not? Ideally, a Christian is someone who follows the teachings of Christ. Christ said (essentially) to love everything and everyone, regardless of any differences of opinion. Just because half of the planet follows a corrupt, hijacked, segregated version of Christianity that seeks to separate and close minds rather than open and unite them doesn't mean that someone who fancies themselves a Christian shouldn't be called such just because they happen to have a compassionate, open mind.

[Sven]

Well, because there should be no difference between the two.

Why not? Can't someone be nice and not a Christian?

[megladon8]

Why not? Can't someone be nice and not a Christian?


Yes, that's similar to what I asked a couple of pages back.

Can a person be a truly good person without conforming to any religion?

I've never killed anyone, stolen anything, done anything morally reprehensible. I'm honest and caring and compassionate, and care about my fellow man.

However, I'm not religious. Does that mean that, if there is a heaven, I'm not going there? Even though I'm a good person?

[Milky Joe]

Why not? Can't someone be nice and not a Christian?

Uh, of course they can. I don't know how you got that one couldn't out of my post, but that's not what I meant at all. In theory, if someone is a Christian they should be a "truly nice person."

I suppose though, that if someone is a "truly nice person" as in the way D has shown himself to be, then they are acting as a christian (as in, they are following Christ's example) regardless of whether they consider themselves to be one or not. but if they are actually a "truly nice person," they should have no problem with that.

[megladon8]

Were there no "truly nice people" before Christ?

I find it hard to believe that Christ was the first nice person ever to exist.

[Milky Joe]

You are making me out to be a lot more close-minded than I actually am. Did I say that Christ was the first truly nice person to exist? No, I didn't. Of course, I'm sure there were "truly nice people" before Christ. But they were still acting as Christ would have had them act had he existed in time to tell them about it. So in that sense, they were acting as Christians regardless of the fact that they didn't (couldn't) realize it/consider themselves as such at the time. Which is what I said.

[megladon8]

You are making me out to be a lot more close-minded than I actually am. Did I say that Christ was the first truly nice person to exist? No, I didn't. Of course, I'm sure there were "truly nice people" before Christ. But they were still acting as Christ would have had them act had he existed in time to tell them about it. So in that sense, they were acting as Christians regardless of the fact that they didn't (couldn't) realize it/consider themselves as such at the time. Which is what I said.


OK, but even that seems to say that Christianity is the definition of "niceness".

[Sven]

Uh, of course they can. I don't know how you got that one couldn't out of my post, but that's not what I meant at all. In theory, if someone is a Christian they should be a "truly nice person."

I suppose though, that if someone is a "truly nice person" as in the way D has shown himself to be, then they are acting as a christian (as in, they are following Christ's example) regardless of whether they consider themselves to be one or not. but if they are actually a "truly nice person," they should have no problem with that.

You just said there should be no separation. I was just illustrating that a separation necessarily exists.

You mean "All good Christians should be nice, but not all nice people need be Christians." This I understand, however, I disagree. Christianity doesn't merely entail obeying what people heard Jesus say. Christianity is a structure, it is a group, not a state of mind the way you and D put it. That's too vague and not at all defined enough the way Christians have been defining themselves for many many many years. Being a Christian involves an adherence to the tenets, or dogma, of whatever sect of Christian faith you believe in. This undoubtedly affects what people perceive as your modes of kindness, and you thereby should not be judged according to some vague ideal of "Christianity" of which the only shared belief is that Christ lived and was the son of God. Translations, theories, views, and understandings differ too wildly. ie, is it Christian to give money to a homeless man? Some say yes, some say no.

[Milky Joe]

OK, but even that seems to say that Christianity is the definition of "niceness".

True 'niceness' has many names, many definitions.


Christianity doesn't merely entail obeying what people heard Jesus say. Christianity is a structure, it is a group, not a state of mind the way you and D put it.

The structured christianity of which you speak is the corrupted, hijacked, segregated version of which I spoke. You're right, it has little to nothing to do with Christ's teachings. I wouldn't mind seeing it done away with entirely.

If Jesus was the Son of God, then so am I.

[Sven]

The structured christianity of which you speak is the corrupted, hijacked, segregated version of which I spoke. You're right, it has little to nothing to do with Christ's teachings. I wouldn't mind seeing it done away with entirely.

If Jesus was the Son of God, then so am I.

Precisely. Which is why I think it's awful presumptuous to say that anybody or is a "good Christian". It's too much of a proper noun. Plus, it's like... did Jesus really only say good, kind things? I'm sure he got pretty self-righteous.

[Milky Joe]

I'm sure he got pretty self-righteous.

Yeah, I'd say calling himself the son of God was pretty damned self-righteous. David Icke said the same thing, and like Jesus, it was taken way out of context. Thankfully we don't crucify people anymore.

[D_Davis]

You just said there should be no separation. I was just illustrating that a separation necessarily exists.

You mean "All good Christians should be nice, but not all nice people need be Christians." This I understand, however, I disagree. Christianity doesn't merely entail obeying what people heard Jesus say. Christianity is a structure, it is a group, not a state of mind the way you and D put it. That's too vague and not at all defined enough the way Christians have been defining themselves for many many many years. Being a Christian involves an adherence to the tenets, or dogma, of whatever sect of Christian faith you believe in. This undoubtedly affects what people perceive as your modes of kindness, and you thereby should not be judged according to some vague ideal of "Christianity" of which the only shared belief is that Christ lived and was the son of God. Translations, theories, views, and understandings differ too wildly. ie, is it Christian to give money to a homeless man? Some say yes, some say no.

You seem to put religion in a very small box, and because of this I could see how it would not appeal to you. I think, to you, religion stifles, it shackles because you see it in such a limited capacity. You seem to define it only by the most rigorous of fundamental definitions. I used to keep religion in a little box, only defined by the dogma I was taught. However, since discovering my own path, and, what I think to be a more true spirituality, I have started to see religion as a way to elevate one's self - it has now burst free of the box I used to confine it to and it has opened itself up to reveal a world that is far more encompassing and open. It is now a total philosophy, an ideology, and a path that has led to great freedom and peace.

I think it is possible to be "Christian" without being a part of a strictly structured group. While many Christians have things in common, we are not some group of robots who are similar in every way. I would say that we are as different from one another as any other group of people or friends who might hang out. Look at match cut - we all like movies - this is kind of a common subject that has drawn us together, but we are all very different and many of us like different movies.


And here is the thing with Jesus. He can't be "just a nice guy, or cool dude." He claimed to be the son of God. Either he was, or he was a maniacal lunatic. I believe he was the manifestation of God on Earth. If I just thought he was a nice dude then I would be following the philosophy of crazy man who lied and deceived.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Either he was, or he was a maniacal lunatic.

Or his words were misconstrued and exaggerated.

[Spinal]

Or his words were misconstrued and exaggerated.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Aren't we taking the word of people who were writing several years after the fact? Even with modern technology, today's news organizations often can't get stories right that happened yesterday. I have a hard time accepting the accounts of Jesus that survive as reliable historical records. The idea that a mythology was created based around the teaching of a gifted philospher/moralist seems much more likely to me.

[Milky Joe]

And here is the thing with Jesus. He can't be "just a nice guy, or cool dude." He claimed to be the son of God. Either he was, or he was a maniacal lunatic. I believe he was the manifestation of God on Earth. If I just thought he was a nice dude then I would be following the philosophy of crazy man who lied and deceived.

But as you said, you see God in everything. So wouldn't that make you and I just as much manifestations of God on Earth as Jesus was (or claimed to be)?