my problem with religion

[one_raven]

I disagree, obviously.

 

[wsionynw]

On what basis do you say that religion is man made? People also write books about the solar system and build special buildings to show displays about the solar system and have seminars about the solar system - does that mean the solar system was also created by man?

That's right, astronomy is man made, but it's based on real observations that can be reproduced by others and not just a person or persons with their own agenda. Kind of the opposite to a religion that is based on a story book.

 

[lightgigantic]

That's right, astronomy is man made, but it's based on real observations that can be reproduced by others and not just a person or persons with their own agenda. Kind of the opposite to a religion that is based on a story book.

What makes you think that the knowledge of scripture can not be reproduced - I guess the question is heading towards how do you think religion developed everywhere in the world - I mean did all cultures in all places just develop the wrong idea becasue they all made the same wrong mistake or were they duped by some ancient global propaganda program? It doesn't seem to gel with your "made up" definition of religion since you wouldn't expect a fantastic made up thing to saturate the cultures of this planet if it was just a story book idea.

 

[one_raven]

What makes you think that the knowledge of scripture can not be reproduced - I guess the question is heading towards how do you think religion developed everywhere in the world - I mean did all cultures in all places just develop the wrong idea becasue they all made the same wrong mistake or were they duped by some ancient global propaganda program? It doesn't seem to gel with your "made up" definition of religion since you wouldn't expect a fantastic made up thing to saturate the cultures of this planet if it was just a story book idea.

That makes no sense.
If it was not "man-made" every religion would be the same, would it not?

 

[charles cure]

What makes you think religion is manufactured?

the fact that it is a philosophy that was made up by humans and does not exist outside of human societies.

 

[SnakeLord]

I guess the question is heading towards how do you think religion developed everywhere in the world - I mean did all cultures in all places just develop the wrong idea becasue they all made the same wrong mistake or were they duped by some ancient global propaganda program? It doesn't seem to gel with your "made up" definition of religion since you wouldn't expect a fantastic made up thing to saturate the cultures of this planet if it was just a story book idea.

But you would. I have already explained this to you in another thread and seemingly await a response, (although I could be wrong and if so I apologise). You of course try to make it sound as if all cultures came up with the same idea/belief - which they did not. They most certainly, as a general rule, include something far more powerful than they - but this is just a way to give an answer to a question they cannot answer. In reality of course, they weren't even close to promoting the same ideas/beliefs - the religious just like to think they were.

Religion itself equals little more than community rules, and it would be undeniably naive to not see how the majority of cultures all seemed to develop them.

 

[pavlosmarcos]

Christianity? I don't know what gave you that impression

because of this

Lets assume that there is one correct god, the christian god (since this is the majority of people i will be dealing with)

They also have different brands of asprin in other countries too
Actually the analogy wouldn't suffer any if there were 9 different religions or 99999999999999 different religions - if there is enough demand for asprin there can also be equivelant numbers for different brands -
The analogy illustrates that variety is not an immediate disqualification for claiming something works,

rubbish, which is the one true aspirin, the one that heals all ills, the one that makes you live forever, the ever loving Aspirin.

Actually in religion, despite having a common ground (ie belief in god)

but the dont, need I qualify it, (http://www.godchecker.com/) or are you a complete simpleton.

there is a tendency to be seperated by a false sense of identity based on country, birth, education, skin colour etc - this discrimination is not intrinsic to religion, its just intrinsic to illusion

wrong buddhists predominantly far eastern, muslims predominantly middle eastern, xian predominantly europian

so whatever boundaries of illusion exist in religious societies can certainly also be found in atheistic societies too

atheisim is the same the world over, no belief in a god/gods, however, different countries have different gods, so the world is not uniform when it comes to religion.

Who are the "we" who want something

the general concensus here on sciforums, you can gain a good idea of exactly what is happening in the world. and how people think. we have numerous nationalities here.
nobody like the way people preach in your face. thats the we, I refer too.

if the we are people who assemble in congregations to discuss god does that mean they are brainless sheep

that is'nt the we, see above, but they are sheeple yes.

and if the we are people who assemble in congregations to discuss how god does not exist

no thats not the we either see above, I'm sure there are no such places, and I'm sure if a group of atheist got together it would'nt be to discuss whether a god exists with no evidence thats blatantly obvious.

does that make them bold thinkers of self independence

no but it does make them independant free thinkers.

anyone could just as easily contend that we are both theists as well

how so?

 

[looking_forward]

but it would be a foolish religion that says their religion is the one and only - it actually reveals that the person cannot actually appreciate the quality of religion

Ummm, i seem to remember this biblical passage written in gigantic letters on the wall of my church when i was younger
"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
That pretty much says that the only path to salvation is through worshipping Jesus. It does not say that Jesus is the better path as opposed to other religions, it says that he is the only way. It seems to me you are contradicting your own beliefs. Please correct me if I am mistaken.

 

[lightgigantic]

Ummm, i seem to remember this biblical passage written in gigantic letters on the wall of my church when i was younger
"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
That pretty much says that the only path to salvation is through worshipping Jesus. It does not say that Jesus is the better path as opposed to other religions, it says that he is the only way. It seems to me you are contradicting your own beliefs. Please correct me if I am mistaken.

To begin with i am not christian - but I do know that the original script that that verse was translated from (Hebrew???) is spoken in the present tense - In other words it reads more like "right here, right now I am the way and the truth ..." etc etc

If you examine the social climate jesus was preaching in (they weren't so cultured) it seems like a reasonable statement to me

 

[Michael]

If that is the case (All beliefs are equal - I'm ok /you're ok) then it raises severe ontological issues, namely what happens if an angry elephant has a different belief system to you

I think the assumption was so long as you do not harm other people because of your belief.

 

[leopold]

my problem with religion? several.
1. i've seen no evidence of a god
2. people do not rise from the dead
3. ghosts are spooky

 

[lightgigantic]

pavlosmarcos

If you drop the namecalling I might be inspired to respond

 

[lightgigantic]

I think the assumption was so long as you do not harm other people because of your belief.

This indicates that there is something superior (in the sense of being a central common ground that permeates all variety) than just "my belief" and "your belief" - why is it necessary to add the qualifier "Do not harm others" if ultimately its all "your belief is okay and my belief is ok"?

 

[lightgigantic]

But you would. I have already explained this to you in another thread and seemingly await a response, (although I could be wrong and if so I apologise). You of course try to make it sound as if all cultures came up with the same idea/belief - which they did not. They most certainly, as a general rule, include something far more powerful than they - but this is just a way to give an answer to a question they cannot answer. In reality of course, they weren't even close to promoting the same ideas/beliefs - the religious just like to think they were.

Religion itself equals little more than community rules, and it would be undeniably naive to not see how the majority of cultures all seemed to develop them.

-- i can't trace that response you mentioned - although I am awaiting a response in "saving theists a ton of grief" if you want to take it up there

 

[Michael]

This indicates that there is something superior (in the sense of being a central common ground that permeates all variety) than just "my belief" and "your belief" - why is it necessary to add the qualifier "Do not harm others" if ultimately its all "your belief is okay and my belief is ok"?

If you are asking me, then I would say that this "common ground" is our common genetic heritage. As humans evolved, genes that promote working together in a community had a better chance at replication.

Maybe this is reflected in some Religions?

 

[one_raven]

I would be curious to hear about that path of buddhism that doesn't acknowledge the next life - I think I vaguely remember one obscure line of buddhism that actually held that even the reality of the next life could not be confidently determined because the matreial world was just too unknowable- I mean it doesn't sound like it has a sound scriptural basis in Buddha, but anyway ....
Regarding buddhism on the whole though virtually all of them acknowledge the next life. A great majority of them also acknowledge the existence of hell too.

The Buddha never said there was or was not a soul that transcends from life to life.
In fact he refused to answer the question because it was an unnecessary question.

Thanissaro Bhikku (one of the world's foremost Budhism scholars, in my opinion) addresses this much better than I can.
Not aclnowleding the soul and acknowledging reincarnation was more of a strategy than a belief.
The Not-self Strategy

Futhermore, Buddha taught people to question everything and come to your own conclusions.
He didn't want monks to simply take everything for granted, nor would he refuse membership into the Sangha because the person either doubted, or outright disagreed with him. In fact, he treasured someone who questioned every thing.
He saw blind devotion a detriment, not a virtue.

 

[lightgigantic]

If you are asking me, then I would say that this "common ground" is our common genetic heritage. As humans evolved, genes that promote working together in a community had a better chance at replication.

Maybe this is reflected in some Religions?

Now wait up - one moment you say we exist in a world of infinte realities, and the next you suggest there is something they are relative to

I guess its not clear whether you consider all things relative or if there is an absolute element

 

[lightgigantic]

my problem with religion? several.
1. i've seen no evidence of a god
2. people do not rise from the dead
3. ghosts are spooky

You've probably never met a person who is completely satisfied just to see you eating either. Does that mean they also don't exist?

 

[lightgigantic]

The Buddha never said there was or was not a soul that transcends from life to life.

In fact he refused to answer the question because it was an unnecessary question.

Thanissaro Bhikku (one of the world's foremost Budhism scholars, in my opinion) addresses this much better than I can.
Not aclnowleding the soul and acknowledging reincarnation was more of a strategy than a belief.
The Not-self Strategy

Futhermore, Buddha taught people to question everything and come to your own conclusions.
He didn't want monks to simply take everything for granted, nor would he refuse membership into the Sangha because the person either doubted, or outright disagreed with him. In fact, he treasured someone who questioned every thing.
He saw blind devotion a detriment, not a virtue.

So what are you saying in relation to the origin of this whole buddha thread?
That there is no next life?
That there are not heavens and hells?
That any choice is as good as any other because there is no karma?

If you are you would have a hard time establishing that on the basis of Buddhas teachings.

 

[Michael]

Now wait up - one moment you say we exist in a world of infinte realities, and the next you suggest there is something they are relative to

I guess its not clear whether you consider all things relative or if there is an absolute element

Firstly, part of this conversation was me relating my experience in Japan. Those views were from someone else, as I stated.

My thoughts on the subject of “central common ground that permeates all variety” (your words) are that if there is a common ground (I’m assuming you mean “intellectual/moral/ethical”?) then it must be a product of our common genes. Every thought, emotion or feeling you have is the product of your DNA. As such, if there is a common thread in humanity called “morality: etc… then it is because we share the genes that encode for said morality (like not having incest for example).

I do not know what you mean by “Relative element” or “Absolute element”?

lightgigantic, while I don't know if it is true... I have a distinct feeling you are monotheistic - probably Xian and more than likely of the evangelical American flavour?

Michael