Does organized religion destroy belief in the supernatural?
- Thread starter orcot
- Start date
It is funny that religion is always trying to get more complex with certain interpretations in the comma's and wich of the 30 something evangelions can be considerd canon. It's a fact that everybody believes in some way of a other (even if it's yust the goddess that snorks besides them in bed). But the real and therefore complex religions are more of a social matter designed to propagate some political behaviour.
snake river rufus
Registered Senior Member
Yeah, thats my opinion too. Its a secret dictionary which some atheists pull up on this forum now and again, when they define communism as a religion of atheists.
In my country (U.S.) it is generally theists that clam communism is the religion of atheists. That or some strange thing called "Darwinism"
snake river rufus
Registered Senior Member
snake river rufus
Registered Senior Member
One can say that about every book in the bible (and I do). If your source is false how can the results be factual? Garbage in/ Garbage out.
Simon Anders
Valued Senior Member
Religion is the worship of an intangible entity
like
GNP
status
rationality
God
'the people'
free markets
and
so
on.
If you are willing to kill for the abstract or intangible entity there is every chance your religion will be popular.
Simon,
The god notion is based on no more than fantasy. To kill for that is simply idiotic. To kill for an economic concept where the quality of life and survival of millions of people are at stake is arguably a noble cause
No, a god does not fit in that category. All these abstract concepts have demonstrable realizations in reality. A god is not intended as an abstract notion but a real object. That is an entirely different paradigm.
The god notion is based on no more than fantasy. To kill for that is simply idiotic. To kill for an economic concept where the quality of life and survival of millions of people are at stake is arguably a noble cause
Simon Anders
Valued Senior Member
I was being critical when I referred to God as an abstract concept. I also referred to God an an intangible entity. I think many people consider the other terms in that list to be real objects. They often see them where they are not, even if one concedes they are present elsewhere - a concession I am not willing to make.
I would assume that you would think that either large state communism or neo-con economic policies are problematic in the extreme. So to me the adverb 'arguably' means very little. In both these instances you have people talking about things that 'arguably' do not exist, believe in them entirely and that neuroimaging of the brains of believers would look rather similar when talking about their pet positive entity. (neuroimaging of people praying or meditating would likely be different, but in everyday speech, often passionate if not volitile, where these intangible and 'arguably' non-existent entities are discussed, I think we would have very similar scans).
Further the worst results of these beliefs in intangible entities are often very similar.
Atheists tend to think something magical happens to the human brain when it stops using the word God. I find absolutely no evidence of this.
I could also address the issue in terms of 'faith'.
They also believe in gods and devas. There are many gods in Buddhism, they just do not believe in an absolute creator.
There are stories about such things, but it's not a requirement of Buddhism. It's not a tenet of faith. Reincarnation isn't necessarily supernatural, it's a way of looking at reality.
in what ways is a supernatural thing not a way of looking at reality?
snake river rufus
Registered Senior Member
Religion is the worship of some type of deity. not simply an entity. I won't argue your second point much except to say that the human animal kills for many reasons.
snake river rufus
Registered Senior Member
Until any supernatural thing can be proven to be true/real isn't just superstition? And how can superstition ever be a logical way of looking at reality?
Simon Anders
Valued Senior Member
That is certainly the way many people use the term - though arguable Buddhism lacks a deity. However I am saying that this definition is misleading and too restrictive.
what about Gautama? Isnt Gautama a deity? I mean, yes he preached he was like everyone else...but in religion sense, he became one.
Simon Anders
Valued Senior Member
Some people treat him like a deity in Buddhism, but others do not.
Lots? Where? Burma? China? Sri Lanka? Thailand? Probably a few atheists who think they are Buddhists more like. In Buddhism, the concept of god itself is different. But then atheists believe in their own version of god, so they consider as "not theism" anything that does not subscribe to it.
Isn't it? The only person you have to convince is yourself.