see right away a non believer LOL and if I believed that this was god it would have taken place over many millions of years it would be a what if we do this type of thing and once the creatures fail to advance past a certain point you shake the snow globe and wipe them out and start again. For all intents of purpose it would not be any different of a belief then insert any religion so why would it be wrong just because it is not the mainstream belief?
Religion Vs God
- Thread starter NMSquirrel
- Start date
see right away a non believer LOL and if I believed that this was god it would have taken place over many millions of years it would be a what if we do this type of thing and once the creatures fail to advance past a certain point you shake the snow globe and wipe them out and start again. For all intents of purpose it would not be any different of a belief then insert any religion so why would it be wrong just because it is not the mainstream belief?
I've also seen definitions of 'religion' to include "the belief in the supernatural that controls human destinies" which in essence is a beief in a god. But, I do understand what you're getting at here.
The differences are more likely along the lines of 'belief in a god that ISN'T already associated with a religion.' So, if one refers to doctrines that are already part and parcel of a known religion, they cannot make the claim that they don't already "belong to any religion to believe in god."
One would have to have their own version of a god that doesn't refer to known scriptures in order to make the claim of believing in a god but not belonging to a religion.
Why would it be any less viable then a belief that places a mystical being in the clouds over looking us all like his little children. At east the one I put forth can be explained using Science.
You cannot come up with your own God wihout hearing about it from someone else?
Surely you can have a realization of what "God" is just in your head, you do NOT need someone with a book and a multi-billion dollar internationally operating Institution behind them explaining it to you as if it's a social studies term in chapter 10, nor do you need a "religion".
In fact the religion itself is a product of the God "poofing" into someone's head, and overtime formulating a world around it.
All "things" are manifestations of man's inner conciousness. Some things overlap man as a whole, like what a "ball" may be defined as, or "sound".
Tell a blind woman that a "ball" is "round" and they will know it only as a FEELING, perhaps one associated with a cupped hand, not a spherical "looking" thing. Tell a deaf man that it is "loud" and they will know it as a vibrational FEELING in their bones not the difference between talking to yourself, and talking to your friend at a concert.
These FEELINGS are the definitions themselves. One "feels" what God is differently than another, and some may define it as the entity that gives them strength in dire cirucmstances (a death of a close friend or family member), or one who inspires them to murder despite condemning it as a socially unacceptable "thing" in any Non God-related cirumstance (Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, 9/11, Isarel & Palestine, etc...)
The notion of a God can exist without the religions themselves, without the doctrine, and the conversions, the killing and the counseling. But the religion needs that definition of a God to give itself merit and authority.
Step one: Believe there is a God/higher power/higher order/creator/... etc
Step Two: Follow a particular doctrine that defines your belief more thoroughly so as to relieve your brain's desire for tangible evidence for your chosen belief.
Step Three: Use this doctrine to define your beliefs and practices then explain them to both yourself and others where "holes" in the data come about.
Me:
I believe in a higher order of existence. One defined by nothingness, existence, and the enormousness and the comprehensibility of the universe coupled with our own being.
My Doctrine is Scientific Method and Endless Inquiry. A curiosity only appeased by a BETTER (not final) explanation for the world around me.
My doctrine does not condemn those ignorant of the current "facts" to hell and eternal suffering nor does it codemn those unwilling to accept the facts as is.
My doctrine does not praise those educated in and accepting of those "facts". It does not award those who kill, worship, convert, preach, teach, my doctrine with things as materialistic and selfish as "roads paved with Gold" "40 virgins" "eternal life without suffering, pain, etc?". ( I put a question mark there because that to me is something so incomprehensible that I wouldn't WANT it.)
My doctrine helps explain "holes" in the ideas and answer questions that I and others have thought up: Why do objects fall and not float? How does light turn into oxygen? How is the universe so "old" and so large?
And some might scoff at such questions, and miss their importance. The funny thing one can scoff at the questions that the other doctrines have the answers
to a little easier: Why does man suffer? What happens when we die? How can I avoid death itself?
Because through ones own daily observation they can be answered without the help of religious texts:
Man suffers because man feels pleasure, one cannot exist without the other. There is no basis otherwise, and there would be nothing that defines pleasure without having its opposite.
When we die we are no longer living and walking around earth as the entity we had been for all previous years. We do not eat sleep and drink. We do not have phone conversations. When we die we become, in the majority of human experiences, out of contact with other humans and our previous "pastimes".
Until we speak directly to someone who has truly died and some how came back to life, until we document their experience, their testimony, and perhaps see what happened to them, we CANNOT know the answer. (We can make up stories if we must, but this is not KNOWING the answer this is HOPING the answer, BIG difference). If we want to KNOW the answer we will have to wait and see. We surely shouldn't be so impatient and then explain it away with a book that gives us a luxurious afterlife promising to be better than the one we already experience without any proof that it is. (Warning: Please don't say anything about Jesus' death as being such, we need more than one example to "prove" it to be true)
And finally, we can only avoid death by not living....
...they too cannot exist as singular entities. It's a part of a 16 Billion year cycle (30,000 year for some) that should not be questioned and underestimated. Its a part of everything we know. So why try to write it off?
Sure religion is about "belief" and about "faith" I would be the FIRST to tell you that.
But the problem is when that "faith" and "belief without proof" becomes the rationale behind punishment, murdering people, and condemning them to eternal suffering...that is where religion becomes dangerous. That is where religion becomes INHUMAN (perhaps not based off major consensus and observation), that is where it becomes socially UNACCEPTABLE. That is what separates it from simply the belief in a higher power, to something far more manipulative, and far more engrossing.
I wouldn't dare deny a persons desire and right to get "married" and pay less money to the government because they have a significant other with whom they live and can start a family. I wouldn't dare drive an airplane into buildings with the intention to destory them because I believe the people in those buildings and what those buildings stand for to be corrupt. I wouldn't dare stand on a throne and say to those below, who have an opposing belief that they will be sentenced to a fiery afterlife wrought with pain and agony unless they believe mine in particular, despite the MAJOR overlap in values, and practices minus one simple one: believing in Jesus of Nazareth as the Son of God.
I wouldn't dare do these things because I don't have to!
It doesn't change my life, it doesn't make my life any less enjoyable, it doesn't make society any less livable. It doesn't make our goals as human beings any less attainable.
Sure it would be nice if EVERYONE agreed with me, but then, from whom could I learn new things, and evolve into something stronger and greater?
The problem with Religion vs God can be stated succintly thus:
Religion gives the blind people eyes but renders those with strong vision blind.
But God can be known by both without religion, just as a blind man "sees" a ball with his other senses.
Surely you can have a realization of what "God" is just in your head, you do NOT need someone with a book and a multi-billion dollar internationally operating Institution behind them explaining it to you as if it's a social studies term in chapter 10, nor do you need a "religion".
In fact the religion itself is a product of the God "poofing" into someone's head, and overtime formulating a world around it.
All "things" are manifestations of man's inner conciousness. Some things overlap man as a whole, like what a "ball" may be defined as, or "sound".
Tell a blind woman that a "ball" is "round" and they will know it only as a FEELING, perhaps one associated with a cupped hand, not a spherical "looking" thing. Tell a deaf man that it is "loud" and they will know it as a vibrational FEELING in their bones not the difference between talking to yourself, and talking to your friend at a concert.
These FEELINGS are the definitions themselves. One "feels" what God is differently than another, and some may define it as the entity that gives them strength in dire cirucmstances (a death of a close friend or family member), or one who inspires them to murder despite condemning it as a socially unacceptable "thing" in any Non God-related cirumstance (Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, 9/11, Isarel & Palestine, etc...)
The notion of a God can exist without the religions themselves, without the doctrine, and the conversions, the killing and the counseling. But the religion needs that definition of a God to give itself merit and authority.
Step one: Believe there is a God/higher power/higher order/creator/... etc
Step Two: Follow a particular doctrine that defines your belief more thoroughly so as to relieve your brain's desire for tangible evidence for your chosen belief.
Step Three: Use this doctrine to define your beliefs and practices then explain them to both yourself and others where "holes" in the data come about.
Me:
I believe in a higher order of existence. One defined by nothingness, existence, and the enormousness and the comprehensibility of the universe coupled with our own being.
My Doctrine is Scientific Method and Endless Inquiry. A curiosity only appeased by a BETTER (not final) explanation for the world around me.
My doctrine does not condemn those ignorant of the current "facts" to hell and eternal suffering nor does it codemn those unwilling to accept the facts as is.
My doctrine does not praise those educated in and accepting of those "facts". It does not award those who kill, worship, convert, preach, teach, my doctrine with things as materialistic and selfish as "roads paved with Gold" "40 virgins" "eternal life without suffering, pain, etc?". ( I put a question mark there because that to me is something so incomprehensible that I wouldn't WANT it.)
My doctrine helps explain "holes" in the ideas and answer questions that I and others have thought up: Why do objects fall and not float? How does light turn into oxygen? How is the universe so "old" and so large?
And some might scoff at such questions, and miss their importance. The funny thing one can scoff at the questions that the other doctrines have the answers
to a little easier: Why does man suffer? What happens when we die? How can I avoid death itself?
Because through ones own daily observation they can be answered without the help of religious texts:
Man suffers because man feels pleasure, one cannot exist without the other. There is no basis otherwise, and there would be nothing that defines pleasure without having its opposite.
When we die we are no longer living and walking around earth as the entity we had been for all previous years. We do not eat sleep and drink. We do not have phone conversations. When we die we become, in the majority of human experiences, out of contact with other humans and our previous "pastimes".
Until we speak directly to someone who has truly died and some how came back to life, until we document their experience, their testimony, and perhaps see what happened to them, we CANNOT know the answer. (We can make up stories if we must, but this is not KNOWING the answer this is HOPING the answer, BIG difference). If we want to KNOW the answer we will have to wait and see. We surely shouldn't be so impatient and then explain it away with a book that gives us a luxurious afterlife promising to be better than the one we already experience without any proof that it is. (Warning: Please don't say anything about Jesus' death as being such, we need more than one example to "prove" it to be true)
And finally, we can only avoid death by not living....
...they too cannot exist as singular entities. It's a part of a 16 Billion year cycle (30,000 year for some) that should not be questioned and underestimated. Its a part of everything we know. So why try to write it off?
Sure religion is about "belief" and about "faith" I would be the FIRST to tell you that.
But the problem is when that "faith" and "belief without proof" becomes the rationale behind punishment, murdering people, and condemning them to eternal suffering...that is where religion becomes dangerous. That is where religion becomes INHUMAN (perhaps not based off major consensus and observation), that is where it becomes socially UNACCEPTABLE. That is what separates it from simply the belief in a higher power, to something far more manipulative, and far more engrossing.
I wouldn't dare deny a persons desire and right to get "married" and pay less money to the government because they have a significant other with whom they live and can start a family. I wouldn't dare drive an airplane into buildings with the intention to destory them because I believe the people in those buildings and what those buildings stand for to be corrupt. I wouldn't dare stand on a throne and say to those below, who have an opposing belief that they will be sentenced to a fiery afterlife wrought with pain and agony unless they believe mine in particular, despite the MAJOR overlap in values, and practices minus one simple one: believing in Jesus of Nazareth as the Son of God.
I wouldn't dare do these things because I don't have to!
It doesn't change my life, it doesn't make my life any less enjoyable, it doesn't make society any less livable. It doesn't make our goals as human beings any less attainable.
Sure it would be nice if EVERYONE agreed with me, but then, from whom could I learn new things, and evolve into something stronger and greater?
The problem with Religion vs God can be stated succintly thus:
Religion gives the blind people eyes but renders those with strong vision blind.
But God can be known by both without religion, just as a blind man "sees" a ball with his other senses.
Last edited:
Science is about explaining the facts of reality. Observing and confirming unfailing facts.
A belief without evidence to examine isn't a viable hypothesis.
What part of what I said can not be explained by science and the belief I set before you can be examined with evidence other then the Grey creature and the Intergalactic University. But a viable Hypothesis of life on other worlds is a viable one to be sure.
Our DNA ties in nicely with every other living thing on Earth.
So if your belief is true then either:
A) the aliens seeded everything or
B) they adjusted ours to match whatever was already here.
Neither of those is provable and both are unfalsifiable.
All the explanations come down to "Yes, but that's what the aliens wanted us to think). It's not goddidit but thealiensdidit.
Hence it's unscientific.
well if you look at it that way yes how every the likely hood of aliens existing is far greater then a God.
Link or cite your science to the comments you make or should I take your word for it?
Actually laying claim to the facts about reality is the business of philosophy.
The fact that many ideas in science get overturned by science itself illustrates how they are far from unfailing .....
And furthermore, evidence that ignores the required qualification to verify it isn't a viable hypothesis.
The problem here is that the only people who confuse it are the religious. The problem they have is a very narrow set idea of god and what or who it is.
Thus, when pressed about who or what god is they go back to their texts.
If you separate out the religion from god, then who or what is god now ?
Those who like to claim no religious base for their belief tend to resort to quoting scripture etc to back up beliefs about god. So they become inseparable.
Great post chris geat post.
First you are going to define reality, please. Who is it maintaining the worlds data, the about facts of our daily existence? It isn't philosophers rather science does that job.
Scientific fact has been defined plenty of times. You define these facts science has overturned? They weren't scientifc facts I'm sure so present one.
First you define "required qualifications". Or am I getting philosophers dribble.
NMSquirrel,
Okay.
Religion cannot twist anything, anymore than science can twist.
Religion means "to bind" with God, any system that does that adheres to religion. An institute cannot be "religion", as "religion" is set. Within "religion", there are different ways to achieve its goal. These ways are set by persons who are qualified to distribute the method according to time, place, and circumstance. (Jesus being an obvious one).
What you seem to regard as religion, are institutes.
The rules, regulation, actions, and, teachings, by Jesus, is "religion".
The duty of the Christian is to follow in the footsteps (according to ability) of Jesus. Christianity is supposed to be the institute that upholds the "religion", and spread the gospel to the world (Jesus' instruction)
The only way you can serve God, is to take instruction from a person who
serves God.
I'm not refering to academic education, that can be done more effectively
by academic institutions. I mean religious education, namely how to prepare
your mind and body, to bind to God.
God does teach.
He teaches religion through His agents, who always appear at a specific time, at a specific place, and because of circumstances where religion has been almost completely swamped by irreligion.
How you dress is not completely irrelevant.
How you dress can have an effect on your mind, and the minds of others.
That is not a bad thing, but it can be destracting.
jan.
Okay.
Religion cannot twist anything, anymore than science can twist.
Religion means "to bind" with God, any system that does that adheres to religion. An institute cannot be "religion", as "religion" is set. Within "religion", there are different ways to achieve its goal. These ways are set by persons who are qualified to distribute the method according to time, place, and circumstance. (Jesus being an obvious one).
What you seem to regard as religion, are institutes.
The rules, regulation, actions, and, teachings, by Jesus, is "religion".
The duty of the Christian is to follow in the footsteps (according to ability) of Jesus. Christianity is supposed to be the institute that upholds the "religion", and spread the gospel to the world (Jesus' instruction)
The only way you can serve God, is to take instruction from a person who
serves God.
I'm not refering to academic education, that can be done more effectively
by academic institutions. I mean religious education, namely how to prepare
your mind and body, to bind to God.
God does teach.
He teaches religion through His agents, who always appear at a specific time, at a specific place, and because of circumstances where religion has been almost completely swamped by irreligion.
How you dress is not completely irrelevant.
How you dress can have an effect on your mind, and the minds of others.
That is not a bad thing, but it can be destracting.
jan.
Signal,
If that is the choice, then I agree with them.
Realization does occur, but repeating what one hears from the pulpit, and/or read in book, is not "religion". Religion has to encompass ones whole being. One has to surrender to God, or His servant. All scriptures teach this.
Which is why a proper definition of "religon" must by understood.
The definition given in the OP, sounds like an analysis by atheists, who cannot, by default, by personal choice, understand religion.
jan.
If that is the choice, then I agree with them.
Realization does occur, but repeating what one hears from the pulpit, and/or read in book, is not "religion". Religion has to encompass ones whole being. One has to surrender to God, or His servant. All scriptures teach this.
Which is why a proper definition of "religon" must by understood.
The definition given in the OP, sounds like an analysis by atheists, who cannot, by default, by personal choice, understand religion.
jan.
i suppose this is dependent on whether you believe religion is driven by god or driven by man..
the term 'bind' is new to me in reference to religion..will have to give this some thought..
qualified by whom? (jesus excluded from this as i do believe he was qualified by god)
ok..i may agree with you on this one(you will have to elaborate on your idea of religion)..as i tend to associate religion with the organizations/institutes..but i am also argueing that man still corrupts it.
i would argue that first part not quite true as far as his teachings being religion,but i will hold off till i can understand your perspective of religion.
i was taught that the word christian just means to be christ like..so i can agree with your point there.
the only thing i would argue with in this statement is the 'the religion' part..i would replace that with 'God'
now this i will seriously argue with..this is not the only way..
you are stating that god cannot communicate directly to us,that he honors some sort of chain of command,IOW how is that person getting his knowledge/wisdom and why is he so special to god that god would instruct him and not me?he teaches all of us the same things...there are some religious leaders that help to make it clearer,IMO these type are also far and few between.
i am not trying to completely devalue ALL religious personages,(i have met several that i felt did listen to god) just trying to establish a sense of discernment,to not rely 100% on a mans opinion thereby negating any communication from god..
IOW if god told you to do something and man told you to do something else,who would you listen to?
maybe..
there is value in that statement..
if i am understanding this correctly..this is where i see god..i would only delete the first word religion, and change the next one to 'God'
and i think irreligion (dunno if this is a real word but it fits)
is what i am argueing against
distracting,yes..but not to a point that it creates divisions among believers..
actually that's your task since you are the one laying claims about reality and facts and what lies within and outside them.
I'm simply recommending the language required to make your statements coherent
huh?
You're not aware that the definitions that make up the "facts" of science are constantly being redefined?
Why talk of scientific facts when one can talk of scientific branches (eg biology, physics chemistry, etc)
actually its an issue of epistemology, or what one has to do in order to know something ... IOW there are very good reasons why physicists don't venture into biology, what to speak of carpentry ... unless they have a dual area of expertise (on account of their qualification).
Last edited:
If you do not find actual facts coherent, then maybe reading Machinery's Handbook can improve your view. It has long been considered the "bible" of the metalworking trades and it’s a book of facts. The Machinist bible was gathered together and preserved by and through the application of science. I would expect a deity could out do me in clarity.
Also purity of thought as a second thought.
As I have said, myself and other posters have offered the modern day scientifc definition of facts and it hasn't changed. It's going to stay the same.
You're wrong. Science isn't a branch of philosophy. Science is a gatherer of facts.
Last edited: