What will we replace religion with?

[wellwisher]

Have you ever heard the term virgin ears. This term has to do with innocents of audio perception. The virgin Mary, in this figurative sense, would have retained the innocences of her youth; unless you become as children. She would not have change in personality during her pregnancy, and after the birth, but would remain like a virgin in terms of temperament.

Say you were not aware of a certain swear word, because it was a cultural slang of a given clique. If you heard it, it would not impact you, like it is supposed to, based on the cultural conditioning of the clique. It will not change you, because it will not push the conditioned button. Your virgin ears would remain. If virgin meant temperament, Mary did not change during and after her pregnancy, due to instinctive buttons being pushed, but retained the temperament of a virgin.

This might be like a big sister, who can help raise her child, like a baby brother, but without a sense of maternal instinctive possession. The child also belonged to God and she was helping raise God's child like a good big sister. This would be love, but without the instinctive attachments that make mothers cloudy and possessive respect to her own child; baby sitting the child of God. This change would impact the child; divine instead of instinctive love, since the prestige of virgin is all in the mind.

 

[Billy T]

Have you ever heard the term virgin ears. This term has to do with innocents of audio perception. The virgin Mary, in this figurative sense, would have retained the innocences of her youth; unless you become as children. She would not have change in personality during her pregnancy, and after the birth, but would remain like a virgin in terms of temperament.

Say you were not aware of a certain swear word, because it was a cultural slang of a given clique. If you heard it, it would not impact you, like it is supposed to, based on the cultural conditioning of the clique. It will not change you, because it will not push the conditioned button. Your virgin ears would remain. If virgin meant temperament, Mary did not change during and after her pregnancy, due to instinctive buttons being pushed, but retained the temperament of a virgin.

This might be like a big sister, who can help raise her child, like a baby brother, but without a sense of maternal instinctive possession. The child also belonged to God and she was helping raise God's child like a good big sister. This would be love, but without the instinctive attachments that make mothers cloudy and possessive respect to her own child; baby sitting the child of God. This change would impact the child; divine instead of instinctive love, since the prestige of virgin is all in the mind.

I just skimed your post, with little understand of your point if there was one; but want to note, as already has been, that "virgin" is a mis-translation of the original. It should be just "young woman." Now more commond texts from the era have been found, translated. Some, when more correctly translated into English say thing like:
"The young woman (falsely translated that is "virgin") worked with her husband in their field from for sunrise to sunset, while her mother took care of her two children." Early translators of the bible falsely used "virgin" and many current organized Christian religions, stick with the inaccurate earlier translations.

It is sort of Ironic: The Catholic church is probably correct that Mary too (like Jesus) did have a birth by a "young woman" as did Mary's grandmother and her grandmother too - as far back as you want to go.

 

[Syne]

"Young woman" would be equivalent to the adjective "virginal" (having a young, pure, and innocent quality) rather than the noun "virgin". This seems to be what Wellwisher is describing as "virgin ears".

 

[Stryder]

Throwing all the "Gods" aside, Religion covers a number of ceremonies include dealing with the dead. Even if we got rid of all the religious aspects we'd still be left with Cremation, Burials etc. Which is pretty much their legacy. (In a warped way it could probably be argued that if we realised the universe was a simulation, that "death" only exists because of religion as without their ceremony and belief systems we could break those bonds and "live" a lot longer.)

 

[Cris]

wynn,

How would you define prevailed?

You reason that because of him, you left a place (ie. Sciforums) that you like. In that sense, he prevailed.

Neither prevailed in the sense of either being able to influence the argument of the other. Wasn't it Einstein who said that stupidty is repeating the same action and expecting a different result. LG would pop up in every thread with the same assertions and if I responded we would always end at the same inconclusions. I left because I am not stupid - or perhaps it became really boring and pointless.

As for enjoying the religion forum - there was a time when I was learning but after a while all the same arguments were being recycled especially when new members joined. It became - aw gee not again. Has anything changed? Doesn't look like it except that perhaps there is an even deeper entrenchment by the two sides.

Perhaps a wise approach might be to take a more moderate approach and at the same try to not to engage in sub plots that appear to be no more than a rapid exchange of never-ending barbs to see who has the cleverest comeback.

 

[Cris]

Arne Saknussemm,

You mean there is no evidence that you are willing to accept.

There is no evidence that would satisfy a scientific investigation. If there was then then we can be sure that said religion would quickly ditch their need for "faith" and say look - we have scientific proof. And despite the argument that asserts that religious faith is something magical and special, ultimately it comes down to belief without evidence, because, well, you have no choice.

The only way out of this seeming roadblock is for the theist to assert that scientific investigation cannot be applied since the type of evidence experienced by a true believer is direct perception. The idea that the deity communicates directly to the immortal soul and the true identity of the adherent. The issue here is that we have to take the word of the claimant without any known mechanism for independent verification. The problem with that is that we have no way to distinguish the claim from the much simpler and more credible observation that the claimant is suffering from self delusion.

I cannot show that direct perception does not occur, but I have not experienced it, and since self delusion seems the most likely especially in the absence of any scientific evidence, then yes, such a claim for evidence is something I am not yet willing to accept. And I do not think you have any right to actually claim it to be evidence if you cannot show it is not self delusion, or can you?

However, if you had in mind some type of evidence claim other than direct perception, then please explain. The only type I know comes in the form that a god must exist because we cannot explain things any other way. And there are named logical fallacy definitions for all those variants.

And there is just one God, you need not belittle Him by grouping him with Zeus, Loki and Quetzalcoatl.

Without any credible evidence that such things are possible it does not seem to be relevant whether we give any particular level of respect to any specific conceptual variation, anymore than we should give more credibility to any cartoon character rather than any other. Although, Mickey Mouse might be considered an exception.

And we could discuss 'other useful human created and beneficial observations of treating others with respect, dignity, tolerance, and love'. I look forward to it, but this thread was started by an OP that merely asks what shall we replace religion with. Now he may well have meant just what you say, but the only reason any of us think that is because we understand instinctively that treating others with respect, dignity, tolerance, and love is the real business of religion. So actually I am confused. The OP seems to have set us a conundrum: How do you treat people with respect, dignity, tolerance, and love in the absence of respect, dignity, tolerance, and love?

And so back to the thread topic.

The topic assumes that religion needs to be replaced with something if it were to somehow go away. From my personal experience with religion as a youth and from what I have observed since then that people are attracted to religion for either 1 of 2 reasons or both, and a rejection of a third.

1. There is a perceived spiritual need that is satisfied by the supernatural components of the specific religion. The prayer, devotion, obedience to the rule book, ritual, conviction that there is something greater, etc.

2. The desire to create environments, earthly or heavenly, of love, tolerance, dignity, altruism, respect for neighbors, mutual help, etc.

3. This aspect is the opposing features to type 2 - the evil, the murderer, the rapist, and those who give no regard for tolerance, respect, etc.

Type 1 alone creates the religious extremists that can be dangerous. The biblical literalists, or those that cherry pick specific scriptures that suit them and used to demonize others. These types can also be isolationists who simply want that deep personal relationship with their god and nothing else.

Type 2 encompasses all the human activities that have helped civilizations to organize, cooperate with each and grow with mutual respect for common goals. Many of these endeavors are integrated in the various scriptures. These practical outcomes are what most people can connect with and when things go well they feel content to attribute success to their religions, and the religions are hence further propagated.

Type 3 - The recognition that many people are just bad and perhaps evil, helps to unite those who want to oppose such people and their activities.

I suspect there will always be those of type 1 who will never be able to accept that we are here alone and that what we have is all there is. Even if we were to show that the soul does not exist they would still need to seek something superior. So I am sure religion in some form will continue to exist for the foreseeable future.

For those of type 2 there is some confusion since they want to stay grouped with their like minded adherents and want to exclude the type 3s. The misconception is that if religion was to go away then they would not be able to separate themselves from the type 3s. They also tend to see that types 3s are all non-believers and that strengthens their desire to stay as a religion.

The transition, if it occurs, will require the recognition from those in the type 2 group that there are a large number of non-believers who share the same type 2 attributes and needs, but simply without the supernatural element. Both the believer group and the non-believer group want and need to exclude the type 3s.

As science and technology continue their exponential paths to ever more understanding and discovery of the universe and humans I suspect the illusions of the supernatural will become less and less believable. Science will continue to shatter them as it has been doing for thousands of years. This simply means that the type 2 non-believers will continue to grow as current statistics on religious beliefs around the world has been showing for some time.

The extremists in type 1 will always find a way to exist in some form of religion and I suspect the bad side of human nature will also prevail as type 3s. The effective end to religion will be when everyone who simply favors love, respect, tolerance, etc, as the primary goals of human life learn to combine and that the concept of belief and nonbelief will cease to have any significant degree of relevance or meaning.

Some posters above have argued that atheists and cavemen and maybe even atheistic caveman had a handle on civility and fair play, and giving their neighbor the cloak off their back and walking that extra mile, but no, I'm sure that much of such thinking originated with a bearded revolutionary Jewish fellow, and his name was not Karl Marx.

It seems fair to accept that we likely would not have succeeded as well as we have over this past 2 million years without significant mutual respect and cooperation for common goals. The Jesus mythology though is not unique and borrowed heavily from earlier and older civilizations. But its duration for these past 2,000 years is less than 0.1% of human existence. We survived quite well without Christianity for 99.9% of our existence and will certainly to continue quite nicely without it.

 

[Syne]

(In a warped way it could probably be argued that if we realised the universe was a simulation, that "death" only exists because of religion as without their ceremony and belief systems we could break those bonds and "live" a lot longer.)

I thought that is what many religions already do. The material world is thought to be transient (illusory or simulation), with bodily death simply an event in a continuing "life".

 

[spidergoat]

If we thought we were living in a simulation, perhaps it would then become imperative to spread that belief as far as possible in order to convince the simulators that the game is up, and to return us to reality. We might even kill all those who didn't believe this, so that a majority of people who remained were believers and take us past the 50% threshold to break the spell.

 

[Syne]

If we thought we were living in a simulation, perhaps it would then become imperative to spread that belief as far as possible in order to convince the simulators that the game is up, and to return us to reality. We might even kill all those who didn't believe this, so that a majority of people who remained were believers and take us past the 50% threshold to break the spell.

That seems to assume there would be simulators who would be swayed by our beliefs. Pretty big assumption for widespread killing, IMO.

And yes, I see the obvious religious parallel, and I do not condone it either.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Why is your birth of Krishna more correct then what is presented on the pdf ?

Because the one on the pdf is either totally made up, or written to decieve. It is probably written for the mainstream audience, those who do not make any real enquiry, believing what they read in modern/alternative publications, or what they watch on the telly.
Krishna's appearance and disappearance on this planet is solidly documented in Indian history, and my ''birth'' of Krishna is the correct one, while Acharya S's is incorrect.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

But there is still a similarity here with the Bible.

Then please cite them so we can see if Acharya S is correct, otherwise it will be just taken for granted that these birth and appearence accounts are arbitarily copied from culture to culture, era to era, in the way that river is accepting.

There is, to my knowledge, no similarity with the appearence of Krishna and the birth of Jesus.
With regard to astrology, and devout religionists who are able to predict when auspicious appearences and births take place is nothing new or exclusive regarding divine personalities. Krishna was not born like an ordinary child, he appeared as a baby, complete with his divine garbs and paraphenalia. So how could Acharya S get it so wrong, and still be taken seriously?
Also, what value does her other analasys have?

The Western translations of the "Virgin Mary" possibly should have meant "young woman Mary" or some such.
But the original translators for some reason misunderstood the term used.
And so the word "virgin" has stuck even if it possibly wasn't the original meaning.

If you want to go down that road you will find that there are lots of mistranslations of the original hebrew text. Although the original language has changed over time, there are still words which are the same but have been translated to mean something obviously inconsistent with the context. I think this is a convenient oversight.
One example is the word ''tree'', it has more than one meaning (family tree, or a living tree). The term ''nachash'' is simply regarded as ''serpent'', or talking snake. It is known in the west as such (preferably talking snake by those who wish to ridicule).

Nachash

With such poor preference of meanings, how is it possible to really try and understand what is being said?


jan.

 

[spidergoat]

That seems to assume there would be simulators who would be swayed by our beliefs. Pretty big assumption for widespread killing, IMO.

And yes, I see the obvious religious parallel, and I do not condone it either.

This was a fictional religion in an Ian M Banks novel.

 

[Hapsburg]

Religion, as it were, is a reflexive part of humanity. It is in our nature to see patterns and make new ones, to perform rituals and reinforce them ideologically, to create ideologies and reinforce them ritually, and to create structures that bind a community together. This is what religion is. Regardless of if theism falls by the wayside--which I doubt very much will happen--religion will not be replaced. It's not something that can be.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

And there is just one God, you need not belittle Him by grouping him with Zeus, Loki and Quetzalcoatl.

The Hindus agree with you: There is only one god. But that god is so huge in so many ways, that it's impossible to contemplate him/her in a single persona, image, name, etc. They tell us that Vishnu, Rama, Ganesh and all the rest, as well as Yahweh, Allah, Zeus, Loki, Quetzalcoatl, Jah and all the rest, are just various ways of looking at her/him. They even mean this literally, since they happily create many different images of him/her that highlight a particular aspect of her/him.

It's a "Trinity" kind of thing for them. If you can refer to your deity as either God or Jesus or the Holy Ghost, why can't they have a couple of dozen names for him/her?

As for "belittling," I'd have to say that it is you who are doing the belittling. Why is your name for the one god any more exalted than the other people's names for her/him? They at least give him/her a real name. You just use a generic noun that can mean any deity in any religion on Earth (and presumably off Earth, once we get there). Your only attempt at respect is to spell the word with a capital letter when it refers to Judeo-Christian tradition. And even that doesn't work in German, a language in which all nouns, including Gott, are capitalized! It also doesn't work in languages whose writing systems don't have upper- and lower-case letters, such as Chinese, Hebrew, Korean, Cherokee, Arabic, and many of the languages of India.

If I were you, I'd quietly drop the little fuss about "belittling," and instead start looking for a more honorific name for my own god.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Fraggle Rocker,

Discrimination is not always bigotry.

No but that one was.

There are very good reasons to be wary of religionists.

As there are of millitant atheists.
I can't think of any scenario where millitant atheism is anything but nasty.

And I've explained several times that communism is an offshoot of Christianity, so we can't blame the millions of deaths in the so-called "Cold War" on abstract politics.

I'm aware of your explanation but you would explain it away like that. Wouldn't you?

The idea of equality, and sharing wealth may well have been something akin to religious scripture, where it would have been put into practice, and still is. It is a good system providing there is a common goal other than material wealth. That's about as far as religion takes communism.
What Marx did was based on atheism/evolution. He regarded religion as an opiate for the masses, and set about getting rid of it.
So all that heinous shits that went on, in that short space of time, was born of atheist mindset hellbent (pun not intended) on ridding the world of the essential thing that put humans on a higher platform than the other animals, religion.

Which mindset is it that sees humans as just another animal, nothing more?
Which mindset is it that wants rid of religion?
Your mindset. That's who.

It's interesting how you're prepared to use the minutest of connections to bring (what you think is) religion into this psychopathic behaviour. Jim Jones was an atheist who fooled simple people into believing that he was a believer in God. Obviously he wasn't, and those poor people found out the hard way. My point is that people who act like that, are not believers in God (by default), but believe in their own (rise to) power, or are used by such people. It is so obvious, it isn't funny anymore.

jan.

 

[spidergoat]

You're wrong about Leninism, it wasn't even Marxism, and Marxism wasn't atheism. Notice that Putin is just only not quite as much of as much of a thug. Must be a Russian thing, not an atheist thing.

 

[(Q)]

What Marx did was based on atheism/evolution. He regarded religion as an opiate for the masses, and set about getting rid of it.
So all that heinous shits that went on, in that short space of time, was born of atheist mindset hellbent (pun not intended) on ridding the world of the essential thing that put humans on a higher platform than the other animals, religion.

Is that supposed to be a joke? Do you think we're idiots? Do you actually know anything about Marxist philosophy and what it is really based?

Making shit up as you go along is just so yesterday, Jan.

 

[Balerion]

As there are of millitant atheists.
I can't think of any scenario where millitant atheism is anything but nasty.

Now you're just throwing stones. Do you have a point, or is this just another example of you lacking the maturity to respond with anything but hostility to a perceived slight?

I'm aware of your explanation but you would explain it away like that. Wouldn't you?

So you dismiss his explanation because it comes from him? How intellectually rigorous of you.

The idea of equality, and sharing wealth may well have been something akin to religious scripture, where it would have been put into practice, and still is. It is a good system providing there is a common goal other than material wealth. That's about as far as religion takes communism.

I don't recall either concept being prevalent in religious doctrines. Care to offer a citation?

What Marx did was based on atheism/evolution. He regarded religion as an opiate for the masses, and set about getting rid of it.
So all that heinous shits that went on, in that short space of time, was born of atheist mindset hellbent (pun not intended) on ridding the world of the essential thing that put humans on a higher platform than the other animals, religion.

Here we have another example of you attempting to build an argument wholly from a buzzphrase you've heard. You haven't read about, or have any knowledge of, Marxism beyond that quote. In fact, I'm certain you've never seen that quote in its full context, based on your non-squitur that follows.

Which mindset is it that sees humans as just another animal, nothing more?

Certainly not atheism. I can't think of one influential atheist in recent history who considered humanity to be "just another animal, and nothing more." Obviously, there is the scientific fact that we are of the earth and related very closely to the lifeforms with which we share this sphere, but acknowledging our nature does not define us as beasts. In fact, it tends to monotheistic religion that debases and devalues humanity, accusing them, as Hitchens put it, of being born sick and commanded to be well.

Which mindset is it that wants rid of religion?

There are many atheists who would like to see religion go away, and those who believe it is destined to do precisely that, but atheism does not require the dissolution of religion. Again, the removal of competing ideas seems to be a specialty of religion. How many wars have been fought over which deity should be worshiped? How many people have been killed, abused, or oppressed in the name of religion? I don't know how you could, with a straight face, accuse atheism--which isn't even an institution--of desiring these things, when it's your mindset that actually makes them happen.

IJim Jones was an atheist who fooled simple people into believing that he was a believer in God.

???

That's going to need some explanation.

Obviously he wasn't, and those poor people found out the hard way. My point is that people who act like that, are not believers in God (by default), but believe in their own (rise to) power, or are used by such people. It is so obvious, it isn't funny anymore.

jan.

That's called the No True Scotsman fallacy. You've used it before, to poor results. I don't know why you insist on repeating the same mistakes.

 

[Grumpy]

Jan Ardena

What Marx did was based on atheism/evolution. He regarded religion as an opiate for the masses, and set about getting rid of it.
So all that heinous shits that went on, in that short space of time, was born of atheist mindset hellbent (pun not intended) on ridding the world of the essential thing that put humans on a higher platform than the other animals, religion.

There is so much idiocy in those two sentences one hardly knows where to start.

Marx was a Catholic, not an Atheist(as an aside, Hitler was also a life-long Catholic). Stalin's oppression of religion was sparked by their refusal to bow down to his rule, not by inherent atheism in the Socialist philosophy. He just extended the pogroms of the Jewish to the Orthodox church in a power struggle.

The "opiate" Marx was talking of is the mindless and thoughtless faith in what religious AUTHORITIES(and their machinations and power plays)say and their manipulation of the masses(with the mass's "doped up" blind obedience to those corrupt authorities).Like the Religious Right in this country teaches hatred in the name of Jesus. He was not talking about faith in god. It was about power, not belief.

"From each according to ability, to each according to need." is a paraphrase of what Jesus actually said and taught. We are our brother's(and sister's)keeper, it is our responsibility to care for them and their needs. Socialism is the philosophy of Jesus applied by a government by consent of the governed, Communism is that philosophy imposed by government(for the government's interest), often in opposition to the governed. Capitalism is the freedom to earn your own money, Fascism is the right to earn money, by controlling the "means of production" and the government, of the very few oligarchs(cleptocrats?). Everyone else become slaves, low-wage slaves, prisoner slaves, worker-drone slaves or just plain slaves. America today is rapidly approaching Fascist conditions, the Koch brothers and their ilk are your new masters(or soon will be if you don't wake up).

Grumpy

 

[Jan Ardena]

Jan Ardena



There is so much idiocy in those two sentences one hardly knows where to start.

Marx was a Catholic, not an Atheist(as an aside, Hitler was also a life-long Catholic). Stalin's oppression of religion was sparked by their refusal to bow down to his rule, not by inherent atheism in the Socialist philosophy. He just extended the pogroms of the Jewish to the Orthodox church in a power struggle.

The "opiate" Marx was talking of is the mindless and thoughtless faith in what religious AUTHORITIES(and their machinations and power plays)say and their manipulation of the masses(with the mass's "doped up" blind obedience to those corrupt authorities).Like the Religious Right in this country teaches hatred in the name of Jesus. He was not talking about faith in god. It was about power, not belief.

"From each according to ability, to each according to need." is a paraphrase of what Jesus actually said and taught. We are our brother's(and sister's)keeper, it is our responsibility to care for them and their needs. Socialism is the philosophy of Jesus applied by a government by consent of the governed, Communism is that philosophy imposed by government(for the government's interest), often in opposition to the governed. Capitalism is the freedom to earn your own money, Fascism is the right to earn money, by controlling the "means of production" and the government, of the very few oligarchs(cleptocrats?). Everyone else become slaves, low-wage slaves, prisoner slaves, worker-drone slaves or just plain slaves. America today is rapidly approaching Fascist conditions, the Koch brothers and their ilk are your new masters(or soon will be if you don't wake up).

Grumpy

I don't mind admitting my quote was very basic, but I wouldn't go as far as to say it was idiotic. :bugeye:

Now I'm not sure why you think somebody being labelled a Christian/Catholic MUST believe in God. Plus, I'm not sure why you think Karl Marx wasn't an atheist. Maybe you can clarify that.

If he really was a follower of Jesus Christ, why would he say ''Religion functions as a controlling device of the bourgeoisie. Religion promises the masses a happier existence after death, in the next life, thereby allowing them a better life than their earthy one."?

jan.