No religion.

[jayleew]

Is subjective truth good enough to make something real?

I've heard things like "God is love" and "God is good" and "God is everywhere. If I choose to believe it then it is real enough to me. What I fear about religion is what the ethics and interpretation of justice contained in its beliefs may foster in people. Folks follow the scriptures with what they perceive as God or spirit. How much trust and knowledge of oneself does it take to be able to tell what is what? It takes a lot for me to trust my own senses, but I tend to give a lot of weight to the physical types because they are bound to the physical realm as is my body.

The part that troubles me is the books. The believer I was was definitely not good. I was focused on trying too hard to fulfill all the laws in the scriptures and live a holy life. It was simple: Love, but yet so hard to not have a bad attitude or get upset at something, or botch the whole thing up. It completely made me a self-absorbed person trying to do good. It was an impossible task to live up to my interpretation of the scriptures.

Everyone has their own take from scriptures on what it takes to be living according to their religion. There is some harmony between peoples' ideas from scriptures, but there is a bit of discord that is unnerving and controversial. The misunderstandings muddies the waters to a point where it is doubly hard to know the truth of any God.

So, what if there was no books and no group-think religion? Is that better or worse?

I went to church last Sunday (I'm not a believer) but I am curious about people's beliefs...call it a quest. Anyway, I appreciated the welcome of non-believers I received until the pastor spoke that I had to believe what was in the Bible. The supposedly God-inspired scriptures that is "Alive"...or able to deliver clairvoyance from via the spirit through the words. He lost me after that. I can't trust myself or anyone else's interpretation of the book without first believing in God. I seek to understand their belief and find the truth. They say to look in the scriptures, but I've been there and done that. The truth is not there outside of the book. If God exists, it must exist outside the stories and be bigger than the scriptures. More importantly, all the scriptures do is condemn me for not believing. Is it possible to believe without the scriptures? That is my quest: to find believers who believe for reasons other than religion. So far this has been a waste of time....save for the good music (minus the words). There are truly some talented musicians who are believers, not very shocking, but it is my consolation for this seemingly futile exercise of having an open mind.

 

[Balerion]

So, what if there was no books and no group-think religion? Is that better or worse?

Obviously better.

Ask yourself which philosophies are better: the concepts found in the writings of Ancient Greece, or Ancient Mesopotamia? Whose concept of justice: Plato, or Yahweh?

 

[Buddha12]

Is it possible to believe without the scriptures?

That is what they call faith.

More importantly, all the scriptures do is condemn me for not believing.

I'm not that well versed in the scriptures but I didn't know or read anything like that that you say they tell you.

Can you please show me where the scriptures actually condem others for not believing?

 

[Balerion]

That is what they call faith.

Faith is belief without evidence. The scriptures are not evidence, so believing with the scriptures is just as much faith as believing without them.

I'm not that well versed in the scriptures but I didn't know or read anything like that that you say they tell you.

Can you please show me where the scriptures actually condem others for not believing?

Really? Pick practically any chapter in the bible and read.

 

[Mazulu]

So, what if there was no books and no group-think religion? Is that better or worse?

Obviously better.

So you want to go back to a time before the printing press? Before the Gutenberg bible? Johannes Gutenberg was Christian, so the printing press was invented by Christians.

In any event, I'm not thrilled about the constant war over theology. It reminds me of the constant war between hope and cynicism. There is a lot to be cynical about. There are a lot of facts that are just bad news: mortality, war (open hostilities), human suffering. The Holy Bible (and teachings of other religions) offer hope and ease the burden of human suffering.
Science tries to ease the suffering in physical ways (modern medicine, technology). We're lucky to have both science and religion; it is unfortunate that they squabble over who can meet humanity's needs better.

 

[Balerion]

So you want to go back to a time before the printing press? Before the Gutenberg bible? Johannes Gutenberg was Christian, so the printing press was invented by Christians.

Non-sequitur. His Christianity did not in any way endow him with the ability or the motivation to invent the printing press.

In any event, I'm not thrilled about the constant war over theology. It reminds me of the constant war between hope and cynicism. There is a lot to be cynical about. There are a lot of facts that are just bad news: mortality, war (open hostilities), human suffering. The Holy Bible (and teachings of other religions) offer hope and ease the burden of human suffering.
Science tries to ease the suffering in physical ways (modern medicine, technology). We're lucky to have both science and religion; it is unfortunate that they squabble over who can meet humanity's needs better.

The great lie here is that religion is required to ease the burden of human suffering. It isn't. One can be a perfectly rational human being and still find comfort and solace. However, one cannot pray away their cancer, so there is no question as to which can meet humanity's needs better. One does and one doesn't.

 

[Mazulu]

Non-sequitur. His Christianity did not in any way endow him with the ability or the motivation to invent the printing press.

Wrong! It does follow logically. How do you get the Word of God to everyone you can? You invent the printing press! Do you understand that motivation leads to innovation?

The great lie here is that religion is required to ease the burden of human suffering. It isn't. One can be a perfectly rational human being and still find comfort and solace. However, one cannot pray away their cancer, so there is no question as to which can meet humanity's needs better. One does and one doesn't.

Wrong! Yes it does ease the burden.

We're still waiting for science to cure cancer. What's taking so long? Maybe if you prayed for guidance from a Higher Power, you (the scientific community) would come up with the cure.

 

[arauca]

Non-sequitur. His Christianity did not in any way endow him with the ability or the motivation to invent the printing press.



The great lie here is that religion is required to ease the burden of human suffering. It isn't. One can be a perfectly rational human being and still find comfort and solace. However, one cannot pray away their cancer, so there is no question as to which can meet humanity's needs better. One does and one doesn't.

1 Not every body is so strong minded as you , we all have hope even you have hope .
2 curing cancer . There are people who have been cured from cancer, happen if they would tell you you would not believe. Science have a poor record in curing cancer , I have experience of my coworkers and their family. Remember there is something " mind over matter " even you can call it a placebo.
3 It is nice if humanity have an option .
4 Science is great , but it have a way to go
5 I remember from 1968 President Nixon declared war on Cancer , Well it have past 45 years and we steel don't have a good answer. I have seen books on cancer published 1936 , so you tell me what is good . Cis Platinum kills cancer but in the process kills the patient , and it is steal used in the present.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Is subjective truth good enough to make something real? ...

Nope, it's not. For something to be objectively true, reality has to agree with some notion in your mind. If it doesn't then it's simply not true no matter how subjectively true it feels. I do think that you may be approaching things incorrectly. If religion makes you feel good then simply practice it and if you like the social aspects of some religious facility (like a church) then you should attend. It should not matter if the content of the religion or religious practice is true or not.

 

[Balerion]

Wrong! It does follow logically. How do you get the Word of God to everyone you can? You invent the printing press! Do you understand that motivation leads to innovation?

Actually, it is necessity that is the mother of invention, and Mr. Gutenberg's debts necessitated his following through with the idea of movable type. And at any rate, the idea for printing the bible came many years later.

Wrong! Yes it does ease the burden.

Can you not read? I didn't say that believing in your fantasy realm doesn't ease burdens. I said that it was not required to.

We're still waiting for science to cure cancer. What's taking so long? Maybe if you prayed for guidance from a Higher Power, you (the scientific community) would come up with the cure.

Yeah, we tried that for, like, 3000 years and came up empty. Remind me, how many cancer treatments were available before the scientific revolution?

 

[Cheezle]

Wrong! It does follow logically. How do you get the Word of God to everyone you can? You invent the printing press! Do you understand that motivation leads to innovation?.

Your problem Mazulu is that you are constantly inventing "facts" in your head. In the quote above you assume that Gutenberg invented the printing press with the intention of spreading the word of God, and that his motivation was somehow inspired by God or good will toward man. We do not know what Gutenberg's motivation was. But first lets correct the first error in the quote. Gutenberg did not invent the printing press. Printing presses had existed long before he was born. What Gutenberg invented was a printing press, more specifically a movable type system. But he did not even invent the movable type system. That had existed in China for hundreds of years. It probably would have spread from China but because of the problematic nature of written Chinese, it was not that successful.

If we want an inkling of what Gutenberg's motives were in his invention, you only have to read some history. Gutenberg was a dealer in precious metals and wine. And on the side he was an inventor. His business was not always successful and he was in and out court, both being sued and suing others. For example he was sued by a woman for not keeping his promise to marry her. And several times he was sued for not paying back borrowed money. Before he invented the Gutenberg press, he entered into a scheme with some businessmen to make money off of the pilgrims that came to the city each year to view sacred relics. The relics were most definitely fake but that is another story. People were not allowed too close to the relics so Gutenberg entered into a scheme to make mirrors which they would sell to the pilgrims. The pilgrims could use the mirrors to get better views of the relics, around corners and over the heads of a crowd, and it was believed that a mirror that was used to view a relic was somehow imbued with magical properties. Anyway, the scheme failed because the pilgrimage was canceled due to plague. His debts grew.

So you see, Gutenberg's motivation was much more likely to have been money. His scheme to sell magical mirrors to gullible pilgrims calls into question his ethics. Also Gutenberg was very secretive about his press. He didn't want anyone to know how his movable type system worked. No patent system in those days. If his motive was to spread the word of God via the printed bibles, then you would think he would have been open to and trying to spread the method far and wide.

 

[Balerion]

1 Not every body is so strong minded as you , we all have hope even you have hope .

Hope is not the same thing as religion. My point was that man does not need religion to have peace.

2 curing cancer . There are people who have been cured from cancer, happen if they would tell you you would not believe.

Is this supposed to make sense? Try again, please, and take the time to make sure it's understandable.

Science have a poor record in curing cancer , I have experience of my coworkers and their family.

It has a far better record of curing cancer than faith does.

Remember there is something " mind over matter " even you can call it a placebo.

No one ever said maintaining a positive outlook doesn't help.

3 It is nice if humanity have an option .

Humanity will always have an option. Remember, your imaginary god is far from the first to be dreamed up. Even if everyone stopped believing in Yahweh, they would invent another one to take its place.

4 Science is great , but it have a way to go

Compared to what? Faith? News flash: Science is winning.

5 I remember from 1968 President Nixon declared war on Cancer , Well it have past 45 years and we steel don't have a good answer. I have seen books on cancer published 1936 , so you tell me what is good . Cis Platinum kills cancer but in the process kills the patient , and it is steal used in the present.

Science isn't magic. You can't just snap your fingers and cure an illness.

 

[Mazulu]

Can you not read? I didn't say that believing in your fantasy realm doesn't ease burdens. I said that it was not required to.

Religion is only required to be or do whatever God, angels or (source of the inspiration) says it must do. It's all there in the teachings of whatever religion you're discussing. Do this or that. Be this or that. It's all there in the print.

 

[Balerion]

Religion is only required to be or do whatever God, angels or (source of the inspiration) says it must do. It's all there in the teachings of whatever religion you're discussing. Do this or that. Be this or that. It's all there in the print.

Okay, you're off in loonyville now. I'm saying that religion isn't required to have peace, so the argument that it's either "no hope" or "religion" is a false dichotomy.

 

[wynn]

I can't trust myself or anyone else's interpretation of the book without first believing in God.

Agreed.

From what I've heard, theists, and even some atheists, generally say that the process should proceed as follows: First one believes in God, and then one picks a religion that fits this belief.
And this seems sensible enough - except that it doesn't seem to actually work, or at least it doesn't work for everyone.


One cannot believe in God without some reference to an existing religion. Because in order to believe in God, one needs some kind of concept of "God" and those concepts are to be found primarily in existing religions. So per this reasoning, one first joins a religion, and then gets to believe in God.

One can, of course, try to concoct one's own version of "God", but unless one is already extremely sure of oneself, that isn't really a viable option. (And if one is already extremely sure of oneself, then the whole problem of believing in God and finding the right religion doesn't apply to begin with.)

 

[wynn]

Nope, it's not. For something to be objectively true, reality has to agree with some notion in your mind.

And you believe you can know what "reality" is, without having notions of "reality" in your mind?

If religion makes you feel good then simply practice it and if you like the social aspects of some religious facility (like a church) then you should attend. It should not matter if the content of the religion or religious practice is true or not.

That is a prescription for psychosis.

 

[Balerion]

Agreed.

From what I've heard, theists, and even some atheists, generally say that the process should proceed as follows: First one believes in God, and then one picks a religion that fits this belief.
And this seems sensible enough - except that it doesn't seem to actually work, or at least it doesn't work for everyone.

It certainly doesn't work that way anywhere religion is prevalent. Everyone knows what "God" is, so any conception of a higher power is likely to be derived from that, if not that exactly.

One cannot believe in God without some reference to an existing religion. Because in order to believe in God, one needs some kind of concept of "God" and those concepts are to be found primarily in existing religions. So per this reasoning, one first joins a religion, and then gets to believe in God.

Incorrect. By that logic, there must have been a real god somewhere along the way to kickstart the process. In reality, Yahweh is a sophisticated spin on superstition. That superstition can be found in our everyday lives. We have words for it like "fate" and "luck," but even without those concepts, everyone gets the feeling from time to time that there's a conspiracy afoot. Think of how many people have been accused of witchcraft or some other impossible evil, how many rituals and rites instituted, based on mere coincidence!

 

[wynn]

One cannot believe in God without some reference to an existing religion. Because in order to believe in God, one needs some kind of concept of "God" and those concepts are to be found primarily in existing religions. So per this reasoning, one first joins a religion, and then gets to believe in God.

Incorrect. By that logic, there must have been a real god somewhere along the way to kickstart the process.

No.

An alternative viable-seeming scenario is a slow, gradual development-invention of religion over many generations, where new things are added on so slowly that barely any difference can be seen within one person's lifespan.
This way, over a long enough period, a very complex and elaborate system of beliefs and practices may develop.

It's only from the outside of the system that a religious system may seem like a monolithic entity that one has to accept or reject in an all-or-nothing, now-or-never manner.

In reality, Yahweh is a sophisticated spin on superstition.

Looks like you're just as sure of yourself as those you oppose.

 

[Balerion]

No.

An alternative viable-seeming scenario is a slow, gradual development-invention of religion over many generations, where new things are added on so slowly that barely any difference can be seen within one person's lifespan.
This way, over a long enough period, a very complex and elaborate system of beliefs and practices may develop.

Well, that could be one way how the first religions formed--though I suspect there were often very drastic and sudden changes, as well--but I don't see how this supports your claim that one cannot conceptualize a god without reference to a preexisting religion. You still have the "first mover" problem; how do those first practitioners conceptualize a god without reference to any religion?

It's only from the outside of the system that a religious system may seem like a monolithic entity that one has to accept or reject in an all-or-nothing, now-or-never manner.

Straw man. I only said that your logic necessitates an actual god at the start, not that one created religion as-is.

Looks like you're just as sure of yourself as those you oppose.

It has nothing to do with being sure of myself. I'm sure of the evidence. You can't seem to grasp the notion that truth doesn't have to have anything to do with ego or confidence. It exists independently of that.

 

[lightgigantic]

Is subjective truth good enough to make something real?

depends entirely on the nature of the individual

I've heard things like "God is love" and "God is good" and "God is everywhere. If I choose to believe it then it is real enough to me.

There is no branch of knowledge that isn't surrounded by a host of claims, some precise, some vague, some insubstantial and some outrigth false.

What I fear about religion is what the ethics and interpretation of justice contained in its beliefs may foster in people. Folks follow the scriptures with what they perceive as God or spirit. How much trust and knowledge of oneself does it take to be able to tell what is what? It takes a lot for me to trust my own senses, but I tend to give a lot of weight to the physical types because they are bound to the physical realm as is my body.

Given that the very foundation of justice (that all men are equal before the law) is a transcendental claim that has its roots in religion (at the very least, there is no scientific test that gives all an equal result ... much less the grounds for justice being applied equally) its not clear exactly what you are worried about.

If you are worried about extremist views, that is a concern that can be applied to absolutely anything that could possibly warrant a political/ideological perspective (including atheism)

The part that troubles me is the books. The believer I was was definitely not good. I was focused on trying too hard to fulfill all the laws in the scriptures and live a holy life. It was simple: Love, but yet so hard to not have a bad attitude or get upset at something, or botch the whole thing up. It completely made me a self-absorbed person trying to do good. It was an impossible task to live up to my interpretation of the scriptures.

Everyone has their own take from scriptures on what it takes to be living according to their religion. There is some harmony between peoples' ideas from scriptures, but there is a bit of discord that is unnerving and controversial. The misunderstandings muddies the waters to a point where it is doubly hard to know the truth of any God.

Its not clear what "truth of god" evaded you in the botched attempt at application

So, what if there was no books and no group-think religion? Is that better or worse?

then it would make things substantially more wild - kind of like saying what if there was no standard tests or terminology for practicing medicine.

I went to church last Sunday (I'm not a believer) but I am curious about people's beliefs...call it a quest. Anyway, I appreciated the welcome of non-believers I received until the pastor spoke that I had to believe what was in the Bible. The supposedly God-inspired scriptures that is "Alive"...or able to deliver clairvoyance from via the spirit through the words. He lost me after that. I can't trust myself or anyone else's interpretation of the book without first believing in God. I seek to understand their belief and find the truth. They say to look in the scriptures, but I've been there and done that. The truth is not there outside of the book. If God exists, it must exist outside the stories and be bigger than the scriptures. More importantly, all the scriptures do is condemn me for not believing. Is it possible to believe without the scriptures? That is my quest: to find believers who believe for reasons other than religion. So far this has been a waste of time....save for the good music (minus the words). There are truly some talented musicians who are believers, not very shocking, but it is my consolation for this seemingly futile exercise of having an open mind.

what scripture gives you is a guideline for application within a theoretical construct - IOW if you want "A" do "B, C and D". So any issue/confusion/misunderstanding or success rides on how properly the goals of spiritual life mesh with the codes of application that the applicant perceives as delivering the said result.