Religion

[Cris]

Jan,

P.S. I hope you weren’t being sarcastic when you said “Love Cris.”

It is not a word I normally use, I consider it too precious to use lightly, since I believe with over use it becomes devalued. For those times when I have truly loved and been in love the word has always seemed superfluous since the love was obvious, overwhelming, and never needed to be said. To have said it would have diminished the beauty and perfection of the experience. If it is not so obvious that it has to be said then I doubt it is true love.

I know you append it automatically to your posts but I have never known why. Even when we have been unpleasant to each other you would use it. At those times it seemed cynical and hypocritical.

When people write from behind anonymous userids such as here they will often say things that they would never say if face to face. My persona here is far harsher than I could ever be in real life, I think, and I suspect that is true of many here, believers and non-believers. We have very different perspectives but I have noticed, as I think you have that there are some points on which we appear to agree.

I offered you a subtle olive branch once before but you didn’t recognize it, and I didn’t pursue it. My signoff this time was part sarcastic and part experiment to see how you would react. Your comment here and tone indicates to me a desire to communicate with compassion rather than contention. I hope I have judged you rightly. I won’t use the word again like this since it is not appropriate from my perspective. I hope you understand.

There are few things in life where contention is as bitter as between opponents in the field of religion. I do not believe this has to be universal.

This is just the tonic man, ride on. Now I’m beginning to see you as a moderator, respect is due!!!!!!
But you’re still talking a barrel of shite!

So back to the fight then.

This was the pettiness of ancient times when many religions and gods and similar superstitions were devised.

I read and read and read Bhagavad Gita, and still cannot grasp you’re point. Maybe you can point it out for me, eh?

This isn’t quite what I had in mind but it is close –

http://hinduwebsite.com/history/secularism.htm

The burden of proof lies with the person who makes the claim. Now, from where I’m sitting, you are the one making claims, sooooooooooooo……………….
I’ll tell you what, as we both know you cannot prove or disprove either claim, let us have a proper discussion on the matter and see who can corner who. Eh? Waddyasay?

Before I created this thread I had been reading this website from the Christian Apologetics Research Ministry.

http://www.carm.org/atheism/christianmistakes.htm

And to give balance –

http://www.carm.org/atheism/atheistmistakes.htm

Claim and counter claim, and around and around we go. Truth never seems to appear any closer.

What is the difference between proving there is a god and proving there isn’t a god?

Proving that something does exist, if it exists, say a lizard sandwich with Branston pickle, should be possible to achieve.

Proving that something does not exist, and it doesn’t, say a lizard sandwich anywhere in the universe in any dimension is not currently within the capabilities of mankind.

To know that God ‘exists’ the claimant must have had some direct experience that the claim is true, providing the claimant is not delusional. The atheist will want a scientific proof; the theist will cite personal experience that is not directly measurable by science. How do we determine if theists have a case?

No one said it was easy Cris.

Agreed.

I have no expectation of a tyrannical god threatening me when I die or while I live.

Then live and let live. From what I can understand you are a bright chap, with an excellent career and (most probably) lifestyle. So why bust your gut about something you have no real interest in?

Life and death have been issues ever since man could think. Theists think they have solved the problem of death, I disagree, but theism has/is distracting real effort away from finding a real solution and that affects me directly. Hence my need to oppose theism. Apart from that I simply enjoy the fight.

the institution has no value, but the consciousness behind it is all that matters.

I find I have no problem with that. My signature for a long time said, everyone should be free to do as they wish except where such actions would interfere with the freedom of others. That others want to believe something that I think is false does not concern me unless they try to force their ideas on me and/or establish institutions that affect my freedoms. It is clearly the institutions that present the problems for me.

Spirituality is knowledge of ones self, outside of the mundane. Some of us feel there is more to us than meat, so we feel inclined to know more. Some of us are satisfied with our lot.

OK.

This is a great time to be alive, and I’m enjoying the ride, so yes, maybe I am just another passenger.

OK.

 

[Cris]

CA,

You show a politicians ability to redefine yourself on the run.

You have mistaken my tactic here then.

Can you suggest a single anthropologist who argues either (a) that religion served to fend off anarchy, or (b) that anarchy was the likely alternative to the development of religion.?

What tiassa said. Thanks tiassa.

Perhaps our prehistoric ancestors were not so enlightened as you. They probably didn't brush their teeth as often either. So what?

I suggest that people the world over and for millennia have shared many similar life values, primarily compassion and cooperation. This is why we group together and why civilization has occurred. I suggest this would have occurred with or without religion.

you've offered no reason, to believe that these come close, in number or extent, to the acts of kindness, charity, and support promoted by religious communities.

I suggest we could have done more good without religion but with compassionate reason instead. It is the nature of man to do this, religion has simply been a distracting annoyance.

Demonization of religion is simply infantile.

But is it still needed?

Edit What I am really asking is whether religion was absolutely necessary for man’s social development. Was religion inevitable and if not what could have replaced it?

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

Originally posted by Cris
You have mistaken my tactic here then.

So, when you said "On balance, religion has made the world a worse place", that was just a tactic?

Originally posted by Cris
I suggest we could have done more good without religion but with compassionate reason instead. It is the nature of man to do this, religion has simply been a distracting annoyance.

And I suggest that this is vacuous sophistry noticably lacking in argumentation and substantiation. Show us the anthropology and history which supports any of this. Explain the pervasive rise of religions in spite of, and so counter to, this "compassionate reason ... nature of man".

Originally posted by Cris
What I am really asking is whether religion was absolutely necessary for man’s social development. Was religion inevitable and if not what could have replaced it?

• Note that "what [you are] really asking" is far removed from from your original assertion that "On balance, religion has made the world a worse place",. Perhaps you should start a separate thread for this separate question.
• What does it mean to ask if something which occurred in the past (repeatedly and pervasively) was inevitable?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Cris,

I know you append it automatically to your posts but I have never known why. Even when we have been unpleasant to each other you would use it. At those times it seemed cynical and hypocritical.

When I use the term “love” it has nothing to do with personal emotion, even though love is commonly used as an emotional expression. I use it in its universal context.
I remember a time while in London, there was a car accident, it had virtually wrapped itself around a lamppost. About 3 or 4 men rushed to the scene, I tagged along behind.
In the front seats were a man and woman, and in the back was a baby girl, approx. 18 months. A couple of the men managed to help the adults out of the wreck. Fortunately their injuries seemed quite minor, but as you can imagine, they were in shock. The other men opened the back door, released the toddler from her baby seat and passed her in a production line manner to the one behind, she ended up with me.
Surprisingly she was unhurt.
It was around 8.pm, coming up to Christmas, so I am sure I don’t need to tell you how cold it was, being an Englishman. Although the police had arrived on the scene, and eventually an ambulance, it wasn’t until about 11.30 that they were taken to hospital.
So, I stood with this little girl in my arms, while her parents were sat on the ground, blood streaming from her fathers head, in a state of shock, for over 3 hours in British cold. I had to keep her warm, and entertained for that time. It was then I realised what love really is all about. I felt it was my duty to be there even though none of them meant anything to me personally. I did not just feel love for the little girl, I felt love for the parents, for the strangers who rushed to the scene, for the people who were there but played no role. I just felt love.
Love
Jan Ardena.
In a hurry now Cris, will respond to the rest soon.

 

[Cris]

Jan,

OK I understand now.

 

[Cris]

CA,

So, when you said "On balance, religion has made the world a worse place", that was just a tactic?

You are hard work.

Here is the full article.

http://www.memphisflyer.com/onthefly/onthefly_new.asp?ID=2277

Trying to defend another’s viewpoint that does not quite match one’s own is difficult. My intention was to generate debate but begin from the other extreme, the strong atheist viewpoint instead of the theist fundamentalist which we have often enough. Using myself as bait seemed fair since I would expect more interaction from those who would like to see me pulled down. The drowning drool of Bridge is one example, although nothing substantial was offered.

Pleasantly and surprisingly Jan saw value here, and this extract from the article might be relevant in that context -

A man truly awake does not need religion. He doesn’t need gods. He doesn’t need miracles. He doesn’t need holy lands here below or celestial heavens up above. For him, life in this universe is itself holy, as is every patch of ground and every path he walks. Life itself is enough of a miracle. To believe in a god who made this life is to believe in a miracle even greater than this miracle. Who needs more than one unfathomable miracle? Existence is a fluke, a freak, a wonder, a dream, a bizarre uncanny thing. Our own consciousness of this existence is so incredible a phenomenon that I don’t understand why anyone feels the need to believe in anything else more “spiritual.” It’s all spiritual. It’s all true magic. Why add imagined magic to explain the magic that is right before us?

But back to your comments.

And I suggest that this is vacuous sophistry noticably lacking in argumentation and substantiation. Show us the anthropology and history which supports any of this. Explain the pervasive rise of religions in spite of, and so counter to, this "compassionate reason ... nature of man".

I’d really much prefer to hear your informed constructive opinions.

What I am really asking is whether religion was absolutely necessary for man’s social development. Was religion inevitable and if not what could have replaced it?

• Note that "what [you are] really asking" is far removed from from your original assertion that "On balance, religion has made the world a worse place",. Perhaps you should start a separate thread for this separate question.

• What does it mean to ask if something which occurred in the past (repeatedly and pervasively) was inevitable?

The thread topic is RELIGION, which covers a wide area. But my suggestions/questions seem quite relevant here.
Can you not speculate based on your own extensive knowledge and feelings for the subject.

Do I agree with the article? To some extent as I have tried to show in my responses. But whether religion has actually made the world a worse place then I am not so sure. Religion has been so invasive in human affairs throughout history that they became inseparable. There are no studies that I could find that show a ‘what if’ analysis where religion wasn’t so dominant. I suspect that for religion to have not existed we would probably have had to have different genetic composition in which case it would be questionable whether we would still be human.

Could human affairs now proceed without religion? Out of 6 billion people around 5 billion profess some belief in gods and similar. However, out of those I suspect only a few are true fundamentalists, the rest simply follow the crowd. There are signs I believe worldwide that show religions having less influence on everyday affairs, although the US might be an exception. Although the recent court cases questioning separation of religion and state issues feels as though it could go either way. It feels like we are in a transition period.

I suspect that the discovery of life elsewhere in the universe would change the minds of many against religion. Although religions I suspect will adapt as they usually do, but become less influential as they do. The development of true AI, in what looks like human level AI in 2050, should also raise serious questions about the viability of religion.

Is there a God? I don’t know; all I have seen in my searches is that the idea is no more than the result of human imagination. If he exists then I will assume he must be “just” in which case I have nothing to fear. But whether he exists or not does not affect my life, I will proceed as if he doesn’t since there is no reason to believe he does and if he doesn’t then I need to do the best I can to secure my future survival if possible.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Universal Love

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
----------
When I use the term “love” it has nothing to do with personal emotion, even though love is commonly used as an emotional expression. I use it in its universal context. It was then I realised what love really is all about. I felt it was my duty to be there even though none of them meant anything to me personally. I did not just feel love for the little girl, I felt love for the parents, for the strangers who rushed to the scene, for the people who were there but played no role. I just felt love.
----------
(Jan, what a beautiful ending to a possibly tragic story! I'm sure the abundance of "love" you had in your soul played a big part in healing this family. Futhermore, it was no "accident" that you just happened to be there at the time! The One Spirit of God in you made that happen. Your fellow human beings needed you, and possibly, you were the closest one around that could "play that role." There are truly no accidents and there is synchronicity in the universe. That's God's plan. Feeling love for your fellow man is the same as being God on Earth. That's why we are here! You are blessed!)

 

[everneo]

Re: Universal Love

Originally posted by Medicine*Woman
That's God's plan. Feeling love for your fellow man is the same as being God on Earth. That's why we are here! You are blessed!

Jesus just did and preached that. Love all.

 

[everneo]

Originally posted by Cris
Is there a God? I don’t know; all I have seen in my searches is that the idea is no more than the result of human imagination.

You have seen what you wanted to see and it is clear from your statements below :

But whether he exists or not does not affect my life, I will proceed as if he doesn’t since there is no reason to believe he does and if he doesn’t then I need to do the best I can to secure my future survival if possible.

btw, if you believe in evolution then the existenace of religion was part of evolution (human habits and needs) or religion is an aberration in such evolution where the natural law - survival of the fittest - was held on hold at least partially by religions. otherwise perhaps very fit humans might still be hunting now, at worst. at best, whatever technology aquired would be in the hands of ruthless, wrong - in your terms 'right' - persons. if i happen to be one of them i would be happy with my selfish ass. if i am one among the herds then i would help to create religion - to instill the fear of a higher righteous authority.

 

[Cris]

M*W,

it was no "accident" that you just happened to be there at the time! The One Spirit of God in you made that happen. Your fellow human beings needed you, and possibly, you were the closest one around that could "play that role." There are truly no accidents and there is synchronicity in the universe. That's God's plan. Feeling love for your fellow man is the same as being God on Earth. That's why we are here!

I do not wish to take anything away from Jan’s story since I feel it has beauty in its own right without any need for analysis or explanation but I think what you suggest would indeed diminish the event.

If the love we give is not our own and it is derived from a super being and we are manipulated into being in a place at a certain time and condition, then you remove the magical nature and true humanity from Jan’s story. If what you say is true then you diminish humans to being partly puppets and merely conduits for a manipulative god.

The real value I see in this story is that it was a free spirit that experienced a genuinely spontaneous and spiritual moment, and that it demonstrates the true nature of human compassion and love. If we are not capable of such things on our own then I see no hope for humanity. That a god might have inspired or encouraged such actions and we were open to such encouragement and understanding would be acceptable, but anything more and we become simply puppets.

 

[Cris]

Everneo,

Is there a God? I don’t know; all I have seen in my searches is that the idea is no more than the result of human imagination.

You have seen what you wanted to see

No not really. One can look for something for a long time without finding anything and may eventually decide that either there is nothing to find or that it isn’t worth finding, or that it doesn’t matter whether it is found or not.

Perhaps as an inexperienced teenager several decades ago I might have been deluded into seeing only what I wanted, but I have tried many things in my lifetime, failed at many and have succeeded in others, that one achieves a significant degree of awareness of what is true, what is false, what works, what doesn’t, and a realization that self-delusion is ultimately unproductive. With that comes humility and an acceptance of how things work and that to fight against such things, to worry, to be angry, are simply foolish, and are perhaps best left to the young who may eventually learn the hard way, again.

btw, if you believe in evolution then the existenace of religion was part of evolution (human habits and needs) or religion is an aberration in such evolution where the natural law - survival of the fittest - was held on hold at least partially by religions.

That religion formed part of human social evolution seems certain, but that it held evolutionary processes at bay is false. For good or bad we have evolved into a largely civilized world culture, compared to the barbarism of pre-historic times. The issue of survival is a key process of evolution. That we learnt to use our compassion and learnt to cooperate are certainly key factors to our continued and continuing survival. That religion encouraged this or whether we rationally determined this is of no matter, since the process has allowed us to evolve.

otherwise perhaps very fit humans might still be hunting now, at worst. at best, whatever technology aquired would be in the hands of ruthless, wrong - in your terms 'right' - persons. if i happen to be one of them i would be happy with my selfish ass. if i am one among the herds then i would help to create religion - to instill the fear of a higher righteous authority.

I think you miss the fundamental point that we are thinking beings and are able to reason. It is this fact that has enabled us to dominate the world. That we were able to reason that cooperation brings increased survival for each individual was and is the driving factor of our continued survival.

The invention of religion seems to have been an inevitable result of ignorance. That it forced people to group together because of a common fear may have been its real value. For the moment I cannot think of an alternative mechanism that would have done such a good job.

I don’t believe we need that fear factor anymore, at least many of us don’t.

 

[Cris]

Everneo,

Jesus just did and preached that. Love all.

Or rather, men conceived the concept, attributed it to a probably mythical figure and then deployed the idea through the most powerful tool of the time, religion.

We are now capable of independently seeing the value of the concept for ourselves without the need for the ancient original delivery system.

 

[ScrollMaker]

I hope you all die for wearing more than one fabric at a time. That alone should prove the Bible is wrong.

 

[Tiassa]

Not entirely

We are now capable of independently seeing the value of the concept for ourselves without the need for the ancient original delivery system.

Unfortunately, Cris, I must disagree to a specific degree.

Of course, that involves revisiting the old question I keep asking about why murder is wrong.

Yes, we can devise all sorts of reasons without the ancient original delivery system, but they're just as empty when you get right down to it.

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

I agree with tiassa on that.

I also think the only reason we devise reasons is because of the old delivery system. So in everyway the concept is just as empty as the superstition it evolved from.
Its not surpising we can "individually see the value" of religious morals, society was built around them, of course they fit into it.
But does this make the fake morality real? Just because it meshes well with the society it formed?
I don't think so, It doesn't give credibility to the ancient superstitious beliefs, it merely takes credibility away from society.

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

Originally posted by Cris
You are hard work.

Unfortunately true.

Now, to repeat, what does it mean to ask if something which occurred in the past (repeatedly and pervasively) was inevitable? And, while we're at it, what does it mean to suggest or assert that something which occurred in the past (repeatedly and pervasively) was not inevitable? Finally, what does any of this meandering diversion have to do with your initial claim that "On balance, religion has made the world a worse place" - a claim that you assiduously avoid substantiating?

 

[Cris]

Tiassa,

Of course, that involves revisiting the old question I keep asking about why murder is wrong.

I don’t have a problem with this, or rather I don’t understand your issue, perhaps your internal model is incorrect.

If mankind is a system of loosely connected cooperative components, then when one component ceases to conform to that requirement and becomes destructive instead then there is a fault in the system that needs to be repaired.

All that ‘love all’ means is an increased degree of the cooperative property. It isn’t essential, since compassion, or simple acknowledgement of another’s rights is adequate for the system to remain stable.

Yes, we can devise all sorts of reasons without the ancient original delivery system, but they're just as empty when you get right down to it.

Nope, I don’t understand your point. Perhaps you are expecting more than you should.

 

[Cris]

CA,

what does it mean to ask if something which occurred in the past (repeatedly and pervasively) was inevitable? And, while we're at it, what does it mean to suggest or assert that something which occurred in the past (repeatedly and pervasively) was not inevitable?

I had in mind the time before those events occurred. Is the nature of man so configured that the invention of religions and superstitions was inevitable.

From Webster: Inevitable: incapable of being avoided or evaded.

Finally, what does any of this meandering diversion have to do with your initial claim that "On balance, religion has made the world a worse place" - a claim that you assiduously avoid substantiating?

The meandering nature was the intent. The opening post merely launched the ball into play, what happens next is up to the ideas of the players. You are simply obstinate and inflexible.

Apart from the claim not being mine and hence I felt no strong incentive to answer, I did have in mind the idea that if religion was not inevitable, i.e. was avoidable, and if something better could have evolved, then the world could have been a better place.

That was one idea; the other was the one I posted to James which I will repeat.

During those times of persecution of anyone who questioned the wisdom of the Church how many potential scientists decided not to pursue their real desires because they feared the church. How many cures and how much new knowledge was lost because such research was severely repressed, stopped, never started, and brutally discouraged?

I think we can be certain that scientific discovery was prevented and that current human knowledge is significantly less because of those evil times.

So yes, on balance religion has made the world a worse place than it could have been had religion not been so oppressive. When told that a god will answer all questions then why would science ever have been supported?

Also, how many potential discoverers were distracted because they had been brainwashed into thinking that a god did it and didn’t consider the alternatives?

Do you agree that these speculations are probable? I think they would have a substantial impact, but of course I can’t prove or quantify that.

It seems likely to me that if we had not had some effective 1000 years of religious oppression of scientific research then our current technological progress and scientific knowledge might have occurred centuries ago.

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

Originally posted by Cris
Do you agree that these speculations are probable?

No, I think they are childish.

 

[Tiassa]

Cris

Nope, I don’t understand your point.

That's too bad.

Perhaps you are expecting more than you should.

That's becoming entirely too clear.

And it's easy enough to lower my expectations of people. After all, reality dictates.